Goodhew Jo: Public Health Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Public Health Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13846] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Public Health Bill 2007 along with my colleagues. We will be supporting this bill going to the select committee but as has been outlined by the Hon Tony Ryall it is with some misgivings. We have considered this bill and have looked into the bill and have many many questions. The first of those questions must be why this bill is being considered under urgency. What exactly after 50 years requires it to be considered this year rather than next February? However putting that aside we will be supporting the bill as it passes as we expect it will. 
This bill will head in two directions in particular. The first direction is reviewing the current legislation—the public health legislation—and we know that it is woefully outdated. The second direction is looking at the promotion of public health and that is where we get into shall we call it uncharted territory. That latter direction gives me and my colleagues some cause for concern. It is a little bit like the question how long is a piece of string? We are very unclear in reading this bill and in looking at it just exactly what some of the provisions will encompass and what they will mean in the long run. I think that my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall hit the nail on the head when he said that when we take codes and with the stroke of the Minister’s pen put them into legislation then we are providing a very powerful powerful thing for the Minister to do. When we are talking about non-communicable diseases then I can tell members that we have some cause for concern. 
The purpose is all-encompassing and there is no doubt that when it comes to some aspects of that woeful and now inadequate 1956 Health Act there needs to be an all-encompassing update of the legislation. But there are examples of the sorts of things that one would expect in a public health bill such as the declaration of a health emergency the assessment of the risks to public health and the appointments of health protection officers or the medical officer of health that one might expect would be in the bill. Health information is one aspect that is covered in the newer parts of the bill. The access that health professionals will have to information is I think very topical right now and it will be very interesting to get a very good picture within the select committee of how New Zealanders see that part of the bill working. 
Of concern to us are the non-communicable disease provisions within the bill which relate to diseases such as cancer cardiovascular disease and diabetes. There are some very broad and woolly statements in the bill. I will just explain to members what I mean by that and give the examples of these quite broad and woolly statements. The Director-General of Health in exercising his or her functions must take into account the importance of improving and enhancing the health of communities by addressing broad determinants of health including risks factors. That is a very wide set of considerations. He or she must manage or eliminate risk factors by involving communities sectors and Government agencies. That is all of us. He or she must consider the well-being and mutual interdependence of families and their communities including whanau hapu and iwi promoting maintaining and enhancing the health status of the general population and communities. That is a pretty broad statement again. Lastly he or she must also implement public health objectives through coordinated action. There is not much that cannot be covered by this bill in other words. 
It is here that we come to the codes of practice and guidelines and as has been outlined by the Hon Tony Ryall the bill authorises the Director-General to issue those codes of practice or guidelines to a sector on a particular activity. That is all about as has been outlined by the Hon Steve Chadwick an all-risks approach. We have already seen an all-risks approach in the Health Committee quite recently. It was in relation to drinking water. 
The last thing I will outline in my discussion on this bill tonight is in relation to the territorial local authorities and their particular responsibilities under this bill because I have some concerns. The bill sets out the general powers and duties of territorial local authorities in respect of public health and they already have some responsibilities in this area. It talks about the necessity for them to control nuisances. I was quite perplexed by the word “nuisance” and I wondered what this meant. Clause 166(2) states: “A nuisance may without limitation arise from or be constituted by any 1 or more of the following:”—and I was not concerned about these—“(a) buildings or structures: (b) land air water or land covered by water: (c) animals insects or birds: (d) refuse or accumulations of material: (e) noise or vibrations: (f) emissions or discharge.” But then it got a bit trickier. Clause 166(3) states: “In particular a nuisance may arise from or be constituted by any 1 or more of the following:” Now there are paragraphs (a) through to (f) here but I will not take the time over them all. I just want to tell members that amongst them are “(d) dirt or odour: (e) animal carcasses: (f) composting.”—they constitute nuisances. Under this bill a territorial local authority is required to regularly patrol or go looking for those particular nuisances. I just wonder whether they will be coming past my section looking to see whether I am doing any composting or whether there is any dirt or odour. I wonder whether they will notice as I did that there is a dead hedgehog down the back of my section that smells somewhat at the moment. 
It may seem like I am being overly light about this particular bill but I am saying that the select committee members will need to be very careful when we examine the bill when we call for submissions and when we hear those submissions that we hear whether this bill goes too far. I believe there is a possibility that it will be too encompassing—that it will give too many powers to the Director-General and by the stroke of a pen to the Minister. Therefore the National members of the select committee will be very diligently listening to the people of New Zealand as they submit on this particular bill.