Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20276] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I thank the Chair for the opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) which is a major part. I hope the Chair will allow plenty of time for this part to be adequately discussed in the Committee stage because undoubtedly it is the major part of this very important bill and the changes are important. 
Firstly I would like to focus on the amendment of my excellent colleague Pansy Wong. I appreciate the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson commenting on her amendment but I really think that the Minister’s explanation was insufficient. After all the definition that has been arrived at in this bill is extraordinarily arbitrary in many respects. The definition in clause 3(1) states: “acupuncturist means—(a) a member of the New Zealand Register of Acupuncturists Incorporated; or (b) a member of the New Zealand Acupuncture Standards Authority Incorporated who—(i) is a qualified health professional …”. 
Clearly the practice of acupuncture in New Zealand has evolved over several decades and that definition excludes a significant number of people who have carried out acupuncture in good faith over time. I agree entirely that a definition or requirement of an acupuncturist in New Zealand must mean that the approval puts quality of provision foremost and that the group’s ability to carry out quality-assurance exercises peer review and continuous quality improvement is all-important. 
It seems curious that after 5 years of a Labour Government the Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson has been unable to facilitate the various acupuncture groups in New Zealand to get their act together and agree on those fundamental principles. I acknowledge that at the Health Committee there was almost an expectation that the committee could do it. But this is a Government that said it would hold itself accountable and here it is clear that it has failed miserably once again. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That was never in the manifesto. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Now she is denying it! Well that is a revelation. That is the Minister who in the 1990s went shrilly around with her colleagues Annette King and Helen Clark saying that they would deliver they would be transparent and they would be accountable yet they have failed in every single one of those promises. When the going gets tough they say: “Whoops no no!”. We have had a revelation from the Minister for ACC Ruth Dyson that the Government—it has admitted it—will no longer be held accountable. I think the people of New Zealand should be aware of that crystal-clear admission from the Minister for ACC that this Government will no longer be held accountable for what it does. That is a huge worry. 
As I was saying Pansy Wong’s excellent amendment states that thirdly a very important group of acupuncturists in New Zealand should be given the opportunity to be defined as an acupuncturist under the bill. All she is asking is that the following provision be added after clause 3(1)(b): “(c) a member of any other entity that ACC or a duly delegated authority approves after due process subject to the Minister’s final approval.” Well maybe the Minister is once again saying that the Minister cannot be accountable for it. She cannot trust her own judgment. I can understand that particularly after this latest revelation. 
But the vital thing about acupuncturists and their definition in the law is that they can demonstrate that what they are doing consistently treats patients effectively and has a scientific base behind it. I would like the Minister to take a call and assure the House and acupuncturists in New Zealand that she will be moving towards those standards.