Simpson Scott: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSimpson Scott: Health (Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:4081. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the second reading of the Health (Protection) Amendment Bill. Just following from the last speaker Louisa Wall I think that for many on the Health Committee the biggest education was actually not about the terms ionising and non-ionising; it was actually to separate them from iodising. At one stage we had someone who was convinced that the word was “iodised” as in salt and of course it is a completely different thing.I would like to join with other speakers tonight in congratulating the work of the total committee actually. When we see a select committee working at its collegial best to ensure good outcomes for legislation I think that that is when we see Parliament working at its best. I am delighted to report to the House that under the chairmanship of my colleague Simon O’Connor the committee is functioning very well very collegially and we are getting good results. I think members will have seen something of the tone of the committee reflected in the speeches that we have heard tonight and I am sure that will continue to be the case as this debate continues.Notwithstanding the minority report of the Labour Party New Zealand First and the Green Party I am very pleased to learn that I think all those parties are going to support the progress of this bill through the House. The point of difference between Government members and Opposition members around the committee stems as Louisa Wall has said from the extension or the potential extension of the commercial UV tanning clinics and as the committee chair Simon O’Connor made clear during his contribution—and the Minister—that is at this stage a step too far. I am personally quite relaxed about that at this stage but I would like to reserve my personal view on how that might unfold over the years to come. I think that in many of these matters relating to health science and education we find that it is a learning process. Technology and information change and we find ourselves in a position to be flexible and nimble of foot in terms of the legislative response.This bill seeks to amend the Health Act of 1956 and the fact that we are amending that Act gives some context to the change that has occurred in both medical science and in human knowledge over the period of time since the principal Act was passed by this House. So it is very appropriate given the changes in both medicine and also in society that we update legislation to accommodate changed circumstances.Back in 1956 I doubt that there could have conceivably been a situation like one that may exist today where people for reasons that were probably almost criminally motivated would use the fact that they had some kind of communicable disease some kind of infectious disease to actually wreak harm upon other human beings. I think that would be something that the legislators back in 1956 would have found difficult to comprehend.Regrettably we have had cases in our recent history where for instance—and this is very rare I know but it is important that as a legislature we accommodate the rare situations—people infected with AIDS or HIV have gone about actually infecting others in a way that is as I say criminally negligent and culpable if not anything to do with medical responsibility.So we need to update our legislation to ensure that as a society we have an opportunity to protect the greater good of the wider community from what are essentially rogue individuals. This amendment bill essentially does that. It creates a progressive stage of restrictions management if you like—controls might be another word we might like to use—in terms of managing people who have a defined range of infectious diseases. Some of those diseases are quite damaging and they are highly infectious and I think we have an obligation an absolute obligation as legislators to put the protection of the wider community first.There are times when we have to think about the potential impact on the rights of individuals versus the rights of the greater wider community. This bill I think seeks to achieve that through a number of means. One of the I guess constitutional issues that those who are interested in matters relating to civil rights and personal human rights might have been concerned about—and it was raised in the select committee—was the question of how far these additional management provisions would go in terms of inhibiting the rights of individuals who may be infected with a particular disease.So the framework that the committee and this legislation seek to adopt uses a principle of risk management and proportionality based on the risk associated with the individual versus the risk to the wider community. I think the bill places as few restrictions as are possible while at the same time maintaining that greater good concept and principle that is important to protecting the wider public health objectives of the original statute and of course this amending piece of legislation.The measures provide actually better tools for public health staff to deal with people who for one reason or another do not voluntarily seek treatment or do not voluntarily modify their behaviour once they have been diagnosed with a communicable and notifiable disease. So that behaviour I think is one that we need to be able to balance carefully against the individual’s rights.So where consent is not given—and I stress that this is a very small minority of potential cases—the current legislation simply does not allow for an appropriate response. For instance the current legislation does not allow for the detention of an infected person. The provisions in the bill cover the rights duties offences and penalties and a range of restrictive powers and procedures for directions and court orders and it also creates a regime for urgent orders for people whose consistent and persistent behaviour may place others at risk. I think that is an appropriate moderate response given the state of society and science today.Powers at the lesser end of that regime—for example the power to give directions—are able to be exercised by a medical officer of health and I think that again provides an appropriate response to the lesser communicable and infectious diseases. Directions are the community-level measures and they may include for instance directing people to seek testing or treatment or counselling or they may involve the direction of people not to attend public places for a specified period of time. There would be some who would argue that the restriction on the movement of an individual may be a step too far. I am not one of those people. I think that this is a balance that is about right. If people choose not to take their responsibilities to their wider community seriously then I think we as a society have an obligation to enforce those responsibilities for them.The lack of such intermediate powers has been identified as a weakness in the 1956 legislation so this amending bill we are considering here tonight provides a more restrictive power—for example detention in some cases. But that can be exercised only following a public health order made by a District Court. The select committee considered appeals and the process all around that sort of thing and I think we have landed in a pretty good spot.I have addressed most of my comments this evening in the second reading to matters relating to civil rights and the ability of the State and us as a legislature to enforce powers on individuals in cases when that is required and I think balanced and necessary. This is I think a very good piece of legislation. It updates some now quite old legislation that was well intentioned in 1956 but that is in serious need of an update. This bill does that and I thoroughly commend it to the House. Once again I thank the select committee for the collegial and congenial way it has conducted its affairs. Thank you.