Roy Heather: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Roy Heather: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8095] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 In speaking to this part I would like to talk mainly about the quality assurance activities and to carry on from where the previous speaker left off. 
Phil Heatley 
: Phil Heatley MP. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I thank Mr Heatley MP. Many of the submitters spoke to the Health Committee of their concerns about clauses 51 through to 60. It is always interesting when we hear the same concerns expressed from different groups over and over again. That sends a very strong message. It certainly did to the members on the Opposition side of the table at the select committee although it seems that perhaps the Government members did not listen quite as carefully as they could have listened because the issues have not been addressed. 
I would like to lend ACT New Zealand’s support to Dr Lynda Scott’s proposed amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 103 to delete clauses 52A 53 54 and 54A. The provision to disallow protection of an activity if a major inquiry is under way is unnecessary and many of the health practitioners’ bodies have backed that up. That provision may actually reduce safety. It is unnecessary because an inquiry or an investigation into an event or issue will not be hindered by protected quality assurance activities involving the same event or issue as the facts surrounding the event or issue are not protected. It may reduce safety because the initiation or continuation of a quality assurance activity may be essential to prevent a recurrence of the original event or issue. If that are not allowed to happen certainly in a free and frank way then nobody will learn anything from it. 
Phil Heatley talked about the differences between the quality assurance provisions in the Medical Practitioners Act and in this bill and it is worth emphasising those again. The Minister said she had just picked up the provisions regarding medical practitioners and put them slap bang into this bill but in fact that is not the case at all. We should take some time to look at the differences between the two pieces of legislation. The Medical Practitioners Act allows the Minister of Health to declare an activity to be a protected quality assurance activity and that protects any person who is participating in the activity from civil liability. That is in sections 67 and 68 of the Medical Practitioners Act. The Minister must be satisfied that the activity is carried out in the public interest. Information that becomes known solely as a result of a declared quality assurance activity cannot be used in any judicial proceeding—that is in section 70—except where the Minister is satisfied that the information relates to conduct that does or may constitute a serious offence. So the provisions are there for the Minister to do something in that case. She can then authorise disclosure for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting the offence. The exception to that is where the disclosure is not of fact but of an expression of opinion unless the information consists only of matter contained in a report prepared by a person who is engaged in the declared quality assurance activities. That is the current situation. 
If we look at this bill we see that it proposes a different definition of quality assurance activities. It focuses more on the competence of the individual practitioner and less on the evaluation and the assessment of the health services provided by that practitioner. Mr Heatley pointed that out but it certainly is worth repeating it again because it is a very important point. Clause 51 of the bill states: “quality assurance activity—(a) means an activity that is undertaken to improve the practices or competence of 1 or more health practitioners …”. That may be compared with the Medical Practitioners Act where the definition of a quality assurance activity is “an activity that consists of or includes or results in an assessment or evaluation of any health services provided by a medical practitioner”. In this bill the quality assurance activity loses protection by virtue of clause 52A as soon as any acts of omission become the subject— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: That’s why we want it out. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right—of an inquiry or investigation by a commission of inquiry by an inquiry board or by the Director-General of Health. 
In order for those things to happen in the right way it is very important that those clauses are omitted. For that reason ACT New Zealand will support Dr Lynda Scott’s Supplementary Order Paper.