te Heuheu Georgina: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8069] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise and take a call on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. I want to comment in the main on clause 3 “Purpose of Act” which sets out the principle purpose as “to protect the health and safety of members of the public by providing for mechanisms to ensure that health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their professions.” There is nothing wrong with the intention which is why National supported this bill going to the Health Committee but there is everything wrong with this bill because due to the way this bill is organised and structured it does nothing of the sort. Although it is a significant piece of legislation it deals with the health and safety of the public. No less than that is at stake. 
I flag the concern that there seems to be a little bit of a proclivity on the part of the Chair to ring the bell maybe with the intention of taking early closure calls and I suggest that that is arrogance on the part of the Government which does not recognise the significance of this legislation. Members should not forget— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The bell is on a timer. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Does somebody want to take a point of order? Members should not forget part of the background to this bill which was the dreadful experience that many New Zealanders went through in this country as a result of practitioners like Dr Bottrill Dr Graham Parry Dr Morgan Fahey—[ 
Interruption 
] The lady member on the other side of the Chamber can shout all she likes but members should not forget that New Zealand women have been at the receiving end of incompetence in that sector and that is why we supported this bill going to the select committee. We want to see legislation that ensures the safety of the public of New Zealand and particularly of New Zealand women because it seems to me that they have been at the receiving end of incompetence in the past. This bill does not do it and that is a great shame. 
Clause 3 the purpose clause states: “This Act seeks to attain its principal purpose by providing … (a) for a consistent accountability regime for all health professions;”. It does not do that. Instead for that we can read a highly regulated mechanism with no transparency or proper scrutiny. That does not ensure the safety of the New Zealand public. Clause 3(2)(b) states: “the determination for each health practitioner of the scope of practice”. My colleagues and other members in the Chamber have talked about that. It is a scandal that there appears to be no expansive written documentation that shows that the Government did any real work on the concept of scopes of practice. 
I am looking forward to the Minister in the chair Annette King rising to her feet and expanding on that concept. Scopes of practice is an untried and untested concept and while it is a great thing for New Zealand to be leaders in the world we would only want to be a leader if we had done the homework and the hard yards and it does not appear that that has been done in terms of the notion “scopes of practice”. So the clause fails on its second leg as well. 
Clause 3(2)(c) refers to the fact that no health practitioner can practise outside his or her scope of practice. If we do not know what that means how are the health practitioners to know? How are they to know whether they are practising within it or whether they are practising outside it? What safety is that for anybody? 
Clause 3(2)(d) provides for the “power to restrict specified activities to particular classes of health practitioner to protect members of the public from the risk of serious or permanent harm;”. The same comment can be made in relation to that. If the preceding criteria for achievement of the purpose are not satisfied that one certainly will not be either.