Roy Heather: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8170] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to lend the support of ACT New Zealand to Dr Lynda Scott’s amendment to this bill. There is the fear that this bill will add multiple jeopardy and I believe that is a very realistic fear. The legislation may well open the door to wider involvement of the Human Rights Review Tribunal in medical affairs. Successful complainants to the Health and Disability Commissioner will be able to bring proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal where the commissioner does not refer the case to the Director of Proceedings. 
At present it is possible to do this only if the director declines or fails to take proceedings and that right remains. Some quite prominent lawyers have warned that some lawyers are likely however to test the limits of the Human Rights Review Tribunal—as is often the case when these bodies alter—and there may be an initial flurry of cases to test the potential of this jurisdiction. In fact many people are predicting that that is exactly what will happen. David Collins QC identified this as a potentially fruitful area of growth which could provide meaningful compensation to those whose rights had been breached. The Human Rights Review Tribunal could also award damages of up to $20000 which is quite a lot of money. 
Pre-tribunal hearing settlements have been made for compensatory damages for a range of cases. One such case was a baby born at Hutt Hospital who suffered severe brain damage. That can occur as many people and health professionals in the Chamber will know for a range of reasons. This baby later died at home and in 2001 the tribunal awarded $20000 for compensatory damages and this decision was upheld in the High Court. So that is just a glimpse of what we might be letting ourselves in for if this clause is not removed from the bill. 
The New Zealand Medical Association has also been quite vocal in that respect. The association said it believes that this complicates the process and adds a new unnecessary avenue for complainants to exercise their rights. Complainants who appeal directly to the Human Rights Review Tribunal are likely to benefit from at least some successful damages awards and their appeals may lead to simple apologies being ascribed a monetary value which was not previously the case and certainly is not something we want to encourage in this country. 
The New Zealand Medical Association has had discussions with the Ministry of Health about that matter and the association has asked for this provision to be removed. Certainly ACT supports the association in that and we support Dr Lynda Scott’s amendment to this bill in that regard. 
In speaking more generally about part 8 I think that there are many clauses in this part that we are very pleased with as some previous speakers have said. At the Health Committee we had long discussions about this part as we had with all other parts. The new provisions for the complaints process certainly as I have spoken of before are something that I think everybody on the committee felt was a step in the right direction. Having a one-stop shop where all complaints go directly to the Health and Disability Commissioner to be vetted and then either dismissed because they are not appropriate or are vexatious or referred on to the new procedures committees certainly is a step in the right direction we believe. It should see complaints processed in a much shorter time which is an advantage for everybody—including for the complainant who will have his or her complaint thrown out because it is not appropriate or dealt with in a speedy manner. 
 Also for the health practitioner of course it is very taxing and very stressful to have a complaint laid against one particularly if that complaint is not warranted. There are doctors whom I know reasonably well who have had complaints laid against them and years later they still have not been processed or dealt with. It is very difficult for the health practitioners to continue practising to a good standard when that is the case. They worry a lot about the proceedings that are before them but no time frame is given. So time frames were mentioned and it is important that cases are met with expediency.