Ana Apatu.
So many people are frustrated with current health and safety regulations. Having a background in health I totally understand and support the theory "prevention is better than cure". I also understand the need to have regulations which minimise injury and maximise wellbeing.
My initial career as a registered nurse later sparked a passion to study population health or public health. Population health or wellness programmes support wellbeing and health. Smokefree during pregnancy, eating well, breastfeeding, warm dry healthy homes, good attachment with baby are all important factors for long-term health and reduction of chronic disease.
Working at the clinical interface with people who are unwell can frankly be very disheartening. Caring for people with chronic disease such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, can be overwhelming. Typically there is no quick fix and premature mortality is usually one's prognosis. There is also the burden of cost of health care as taxpayers.
My experience in Porirua as Primary Care Manager for Ora Toa, the health arm of Ngati Toa, was challenging. Ninety per cent of our 10,000 enrolled patient population were Maori, Pacific and low income. Our patient population was littered with chronic diseases - often starting early in life with our children with respiratory conditions and eczema.
I therefore question why it is our health and safety is regulated against injury to the point where many businesses find these regulations crippling to deal with, but on the other hand we seem to be reluctant to regulate against public health measures such as school food programmes, fast-food industries, introduction of fat taxes, and reluctance to remove GST from fruit and vegetables.
How can Coca Cola be cheaper than milk? Why are we not funding Tai Chi classes for our elderly when we know Tai Chi promotes greater balance and prevents falls. Only recently have we seen houses needing to be insulated by the year 2017.
Tradesmen friends and contacts are groaning under the bureaucracy and paperwork they have to complete on a daily business in order to comply. I overhear builders discussing the need to erect scaffolding when in the past ladders would have been used. I visit Camp David and listen to Paul Fong describe how their flying fox now has to have a harness that has to be worn when "flying". And how much their group has had to spend to bring the camp and its outdoor pursuit area up to a standard to comply with current standards.
I listen to a frustrated electrician in his late 50s complain about the paperwork - for every job a hazard identification form has to be filled out. This cost is then passed onto the client. He feels that his apprenticeship and regular attendance at safety workshops, provides him with the knowledge of identifying hazards and ensuring safety. I would suggest that personal safety as an electrician is paramount and is part of his everyday routine work operations. Form filling would not necessarily guarantee fewer accidents.
He bitterly tells me he is pleased he is not too far off retirement age because he finds the paperwork required for every job over the top and unnecessary.
Tradesmen friends who in the past had their own business now prefer to be employed by a large company and work for wages due to the stress of having to comply with regulations.
Is it bureaucracy gone mad? Is it a conspiracy that only the large companies will survive and our smaller companies no longer exist? Do our new regulations actually safeguard us from accidents, or are we focusing too much on the small details and waive the "'too hard" stuff such as our mining and forestry industry?
For such a small country we need to maintain a balance of what regulations we introduce and enforce. The term Nanny State suggests we should not introduce too many rules and regulations.
It's an interesting term. My perception of "Nanny" implies being cared for. I think we have got it all wrong.
- Ana Apatu is chief executive of the U-Turn Trust, based at Te Aranga Marae in Flaxmere.