Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14565] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak on the third reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. It is somewhat disturbing to see the shroud-waving of the previous speaker Ruth Dyson and to hear the misinformation about the extraordinary advances in productivity efficiency and efficacy in this health service. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Name one. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I will. There have been 18000 more elective surgery cases per year—18000 more per year. 
But I will just for a moment agree on one thing which was that during the submissions to the Health Committee the committee did collaborate very well and indeed collaboration in the New Zealand health services is something that we as the National Government want to promote. It was something very lacking under the previous Labour Government. I too want to thank the officials for their very helpful assistance. 
In the true spirit of the efficiency and effectiveness that this legislation wishes to promote in the New Zealand health services the parliamentary Committee stage of this bill went through in absolutely record time. In fact it was a historical record that certainly in my time I have never witnessed. During that time Kevin Hague of the Greens managed to pass an amendment—relating to the funding of the Health Quality and Safety Commission—that even he was surprised went through. I say: “Good on you Kevin!”. 
This bill is indeed about ensuring that the New Zealand public health service becomes efficient and effective and that every health dollar is spent well because that certainly did not happen during the 9 years of the Labour Government. Treasury showed extremely clearly that under Labour the level of productivity in the health sector was abysmal but this bill is one of the instruments that will certainly effect change. 
This bill is about improving coordination at the local regional and national level. Again that is something that has just not been there during the last 9 years under Labour. So busy was Labour with its massive restructuring and with its massive building up of a bureaucracy that it forgot about the aim of the original health and disability Act to ensure good coordination. This National Government is doing something about that. 
The bill is also about making the best of procurement opportunities and technology arrangements. It is about ensuring that back-office procedures are streamlined and that resources are used for front-line services. Again that has been badly needed for many years. 
This bill is about ensuring that health services are led by clinicians and that clinical networks are again led by clinicians so that we have a patient-centred health service that is largely driven by our very important nurses doctors and technicians etc. who work so ably throughout our health service. It is about ensuring the very highest quality in our health services and about continuously seeking to improve quality; it is tremendous that we have someone like Professor Alan Merry leading the independent Health Quality and Safety Commission. 
But it is profoundly important that this bill was supported by all 13 submitters and indeed by all the parties in this Parliament. One would not have thought that though when one heard the speech from Ruth Dyson. It is profoundly important because we have seen tremendous turbulence in the health service over the last 30 years due to successive Governments causing restructuring. So it is time—and timely—that some legislation is agreed upon across the board that will allow sustainability within our health service. 
It is extremely relevant that this time the National Government has brought in legislation that has been very carefully considered and that has been very carefully crafted and that true to our word the legislation is evolutionary rather than the massive restructuring we have seen in the past. The genesis of this bill of course goes back firstly to the 2008 election manifesto that National brought out  
Better Sooner More Convenient 
 followed by the ministerial review committee so ably led by Murray Horn. 
Perhaps one of the only controversies during the Committee stage was the issue of consultation with regard to strategic planning but it is somewhat ironic that the Hon Ruth Dyson forgot to bring in any amendments regarding that during the Committee stage. She was either clearly in agreement with the Government or just too lazy to bring in changes. That is similar to the record that we have seen of the Labour Government during its previous 9 years in Government. I know that even the Greens were expecting Labour to bring in an amendment with regard to consultation. As it happens the changes regarding consultation are very much fit for purpose. The previous rules were very prescriptive and not efficient or appropriate for changes significant to particular groups. In contrast the bill allows regulations to impose requirements for consultation on plans that will reflect the complexity and materiality of the changes. That is absolutely relevant and appropriate. 
After 30 years of turbulence in the health sector and after 9 years of fragmentation poor productivity and poor value for money I cannot overstate how important it is that this health legislation is supported by all parties and all submitters. This means that the Government can concentrate on improving the efficiency and productivity of the New Zealand health sector well into the future.