te Heuheu Georgina: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8091] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with competence fitness to practise and quality assurance and in a way it highlights exactly the kinds of issues that the Opposition has raised earlier. We all know that however much the Minister may want to reassure us and through us the public that this bill will indeed ensure the safety of the public Part 3 deals with instances when maybe safety has not been maintained. If we look at clause 33(1) we see that it states: “If a health practitioner (health practitioner A) has reason to believe that another health practitioner (health practitioner B) may pose a risk of harm to the public by practising below the required standard of competence health practitioner A may give the Registrar of the authority … written notice …” about that. 
The point I want to make here comes back to the point I was making earlier about the definition of competence. I ask whether that will be defined differently by each of the authorities. I would really like the Minister to enlighten me on it because that issue of competence goes to the heart of public health and safety. If early in the debate on this legislation we are already making provision for situations when competence falls below the required standard then to me that does not augur too well. So as I say I look forward to the Minister taking a call on that issue. 
I want to turn to clauses 39 and 40. Clause 39 deals with competence programmes and clause 40 deals with recertification programmes. Of course my colleague Dr Lynda Scott tells me that the certification process is part of what has always gone on anyway but this legislation is now ensuring that certification— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: It was National. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Of course National brought that in. I had forgotten. But it goes to the heart still of this issue of competence. The thing that worries me in clause 39(1) and the subsequent subclauses is that there is nothing mandatory in the legislation. Now there may be a good reason for that. Clause 39(1) states that the authority “may”—“may from time to time set or recognise competence programmes in respect of health practitioners who hold or apply for practising certificates.” Clause 40(1) states “… each authority may from time to time set or recognise recertification programmes for practitioners who are registered with the authority.” I ask given the sad history of things that have gone before in the health sector with practitioners like Bottrill and co. whether this provision is sufficient. Is it sufficient that the authorities only “may” do that particularly when we are making provision at the beginning of Part 3 for certain requirements when one practitioner suspects that another has fallen below the line in terms of competence? 
Again I did not have the pleasure or privilege of sitting on the Health Committee and perhaps these points were covered but I do think that they may present a bit of a flaw. What confidence do we have if competence and recertification programmes are a matter of discretion for the authorities? I think that that issue must be addressed or at least answered. All the way through Part 3 again the responsibilities are discretionary only and I ask the Minister whether that is sufficient.