Hutchison Paul: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8163] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 In many respects Part 7 of this bill could be labelled the funereal or wake part of the bill because it deals with miscellaneous provisions consequential amendments and repeals and repeals and transitional provisions. It is a tragedy that the medical professions are not supporting this bill. As Heather Roy pointed out this was described as ambitious legislation from the beginning and there was goodwill at the beginning. There was a tremendous effort to make sure that there was a multiparty buy-in to this bill because it was so important but because of the absolute inability of the Labour Minister of Health to listen to the professions—and this is clearly made out in the submissions—the chief executive officer of the association of full-time medical specialists has unfortunately referred to this bill as a dog’s breakfast. I understand that my colleagues had to fight very hard to have clause 166A “Review of Operation of Act” put in. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did National vote for it? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: As I say there are so many things that my colleagues Dr Lynda Scott and Judith Collins have had to work hard to get into this bill because a review of the operation of the Act is very important. It may be that in 3 years’ time or before the Minister will finally come round to realising that professional self-regulation as the basis of health practice in New Zealand is extremely important. Hopefully by then she may have sorted out scopes of practice. I would love her to take a call to tell us what her views are on nurse-anaesthetist practitioners. Unfortunately she was not able to take in the facts when general practitioner – anaesthetists stopped practising several years ago. They had medical degrees and diplomas in anaesthetics and the view was that in order to raise standards for the public of New Zealand they would have to be phased out. I want to know what this Minister of Health’s plans are in terms of the nurse-anaesthetist practitioners. Will she be prepared to come clean? 
My colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu spoke about clause 214 “Vacancies may be filled by the Minister” and I ask whether that is an ingenious piece of ministerial mischief. Is that one of those clauses my colleague Dr Lynda Scott was talking about by which the Minister may go berserk on “friends of the Prime Minister”? It says here that vacancies may be filled by the Minister and she has the opportunity there to go quite wild. It will be a great opportunity for the Labour Party hacks and hangers-on. 
Of course once again it is a considerable concern that ministerial powers have become excessive. It is the absolutely Pavlovian-dog reflex of this Labour Government to control and not to have the process that has caused the major medical professions to lose confidence in this Minister of Health. 
I will briefly comment on clause 154 “Application of Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997”. There has been some concern that some Australian registration authorities are not accepting New Zealand practitioners’ registrations and I understand that the bill does address that problem.