Wong Pansy: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8088] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 Mr Chairman welcome to the Chair. The Committee is honoured and privileged to have such a fair and objective Chair. 
I raise a very serious issue about the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and I think the Minister in the chair Annette King should take a call on it. Clause 19(2) states: “If the scope of practice that an authority proposes to authorise for an applicant differs from that indicated by the applicant under section 16(2)(b)(i) … the authority must inform the applicant”. The public would be very very concerned to learn that although a health professional has armed himself or herself with the information and the qualification to be registered under clause 16 under a certain scope of practice we are now told that the authority can actually decide that that applicant might have to be admitted under a different scope of practice. 
I hope the Minister will take a call and answer that because I get very worried. First of all we do not know what the details of the scope of practice are and I have a horrible feeling that as an ordinary layperson if I turn up to see a heart specialist I would have to ask that specialist whether he or she had been ordered to practise as a heart specialist by the authority or whether he or she had originally applied under a different scope of practice. I thought a scope of practice was quite specific to that particular skill. A person applies to be registered and admitted under that scope of practice and the factor that should be taken into consideration is competence. If a heart surgeon applies under a scope of practice to practise as a heart surgeon the authority should only be able to decide whether that person is qualified or not qualified. 
I would be horrified if the public thought that the authority could say that it did not believe that that practitioner should register under the scope of practice of heart surgery but it would recommend or authorise that practitioner to register under the scope of practice of another specialty. To me it is incredible to think that the health and safety of the public is the foundation of this legislation yet this particular clause provides as I read it that when a health professional knowing his or her own competence goes to register under a specific scope of practice he or she can be ordered by the authority to register under another scope of practice. What Mickey Mouse legislation this is! I thought that this was serious business concerning people’s health. I would hate to think that if I turned up to see a heart specialist the specialist would tell me: “My dear patient I was originally wanting to be an ear and nose specialist but I was ordered by the authority to register under a different scope of practice.” It is absurd but that is exactly what clause 19(2) provides for as I read it. 
The Minister should take a call and explain to us why that clause stating that the authority can authorise that an applicant who applies for a certain scope of practice could be registered under another scope of practice is included. We really want to know the answer. I am getting very anxious. If I turn up to see a specific health professional I will not be confident that registering under that scope of practice was that specialist’s original intention. The Minister should stand up and tell us why the scopes of practice have so much flexibility as to allow the authority to make those judgments.