Woodhouse Michael; Williams PotoNEWBORN ENROLMENT WITH GENERAL PRACTICE BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 27 June.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm delighted to take a call on the second reading of the Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill.It appears that two patterns are emerging out of this Government in its approach to legislation. One is an aversion to targets albeit this aversion is somewhat equivocal. We've had examples of where there has been dispensing with targets—Hon Kris Faafoi: I know where there's one target—the chair to your right.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well that may be true but the radar is well off Mr Faafoi I think—well off. We've had Better Public Services targets where the previous Government had worked really hard to set an ambitious target for what it saw were really really important measures of improving the lot of New Zealanders. Of course we've had the national health targets which were introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2007 and which have somehow been swept under the carpet for the foreseeable future. But it is equivocal and I mention that in the context of child poverty reduction because whereas health targets were not necessary or appropriate in the mind of Dr Clark apparently according to the Prime Minister a child poverty reduction target is absolutely vital to the point where the Government is introducing legislation to give effect to that.Now this bill is in itself a target. The target is to have 100 percent—all—of our newborn babies enrolled with general practice after their birth and I think that's a really really important target particularly when we've heard as a select committee that up to a third of our newborn babies are not being enrolled in general practice. That's important because the Health Committee heard from a number of submitters on this not the least of which was the Auckland Regional Public Health Service and Dr Felicity Goodyear-Smith was quoted in research that she did when she talked about a study that found that non-enrolment of infants at birth with a general practice is a significant factor in delayed or missed immunisations—notably infants with no nominated general practice significantly reduced the overall coverage rate for the region making"—interestingly—"the general practices look as though they were performing less well than they were."Indeed the report from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service went on to talk about not only supporting this bill and its goal of ensuring that 100 percent of our newborns are enrolled with general practice; they went on to recommend that the scope of the bill be widened to include provisions requiring the lead maternity carer to notify the nominated general practice that a woman has booked with them to receive pregnancy care—that's not presently a requirement; it's certainly best practice—and they went on to say why that was important.Now the Ministry of Health gave us data on the number of newborns that were enrolled which surprised me I have to say in how low they were. Then they also explained why this could be difficult for general practice. One of the reasons was a lack of familiarity with the family—which is quite right—but surely it is a reason to require this not to not require it because if one enrols the newborn by connection other siblings and the newborn's parents are almost certainly going to be enrolled as well. When we think about the sorts of preventable illnesses that occur when families are not connected with family practices that strikes me as an extremely important and necessary step.The ministry also told us that this bill in their view—and this was kind of parroting the Labour position—was not necessary because they were going to set targets for district health boards (DHBs) to achieve themselves only the targets that they mentioned were incredibly flaccid. As I said we're already at somewhere in the region of 67 or 68 percent—not nearly good enough. They wanted to set a target for DHBs of 55 percent for this year.Dan Bidois: That's too low.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's far too low—so a six-week target that's fully 12 percent less than what we're doing without setting targets. Well that hardly strikes me as something that would be aspirational and it leaves nearly half of newborns not in the target for enrolment.So this was a good idea. It needn't have cost much. The sanctions for non-compliance were reasonably light but it set a really clear expectation that this Parliament supported and wanted to lift the health of our youngest—our arguably most vulnerable—at a time when they needed the care of family practices the most. It's really disappointing that after supporting it at first reading when they had the chance in Government to continue to collaborate with the Opposition and with Dr Parmjeet Parmar who came up with a really good idea the Government has in its infinite wisdom decided that this is not important to them. It is not a priority that our newest New Zealanders—our youngest; those needing healthcare the most with immunisations and health checks in their early weeks of life—would not be supported by setting a clear expectation that their enrolment with general practice was necessary and appropriate. It is indeed extremely disappointing.We have a few speeches to go. I hope the Government parties can find it in their hearts to support a sensible bill that will improve the health of these babies and I hope we can still do that.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Just before I call the member I just apologise that the time clocks have gone out in the Chamber but you can rest assured that I will let you know when your time is getting close."