Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you sir for the opportunity to speak on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill speaking particularly on the changes that have been made as reported back to this House. I join with colleagues it seems from across the House in agreeing that the bill is a very worthwhile endeavour and I'd like to focus in particular on the aspects that have been suggested for change as they relate to making a system more responsive more effective and more efficient for the people of New Zealand.My litmus test in examining these various proposed changes is whether they would improve the lives and the health outcomes of the patients within the system but of course in a way that is not unfair to practitioners when it comes to disciplinary proceedings and the like. I think it's interesting that the name of the Act that's being amended includes the word assurance". So we're not just ensuring that the system is a good one but also assuring the public that it is good and that they can have confidence in the competence accordingly.For the first of those changes I look to the amendments proposed by the Health Committee regarding the ability for concerns about a practitioner to be brought by any person essentially—so not only health practitioners employers and the Health and Disability Commissioner as is already the case but also patients and members of the public—recognising that the system does belong to us all and so it is appropriate that anyone with a genuine concern should be able to raise that in good faith and have that processed in a way that takes that concern seriously.So too we think about the effect on the public of having a system that encourages collaboration and cooperation in the delivery of the health services. It probably goes without saying that if we have a system that's efficient in terms of its design and structure then the benefits will flow not only to those who are involved in operating the system and delivering the services but to those who receive the services as well. So that also meets that standard it seems to me of improving outcomes for those who are most affected by the system.I'll just take a step back and consider the regulatory impact statement which was put together in recognition of the fact initially of a couple of different reviews flowing through obviously to this piece of legislation and pick out a couple of areas in particular where it was recommended that the bill could be enhanced. One was to provide an assurance to the public and the Crown that the responsible authorities are carrying out their functions as intended and also to improve transparency about disciplinary proceedings. So again those are really consistent with the interest that I have in considering the way that the ordinary public will be affected.I'll take a moment if I may as a footnote to reference that great resource on Westminster democracy namely Yes Minister and the particular episode that featured a hospital that had no patients. It was to the delight of the bureaucracy of course and the horror of the Minister which the news that there were no patients in this hospital was received. Of course that rather dystopian satirical warning I think is obviously an extreme example of how we should not view our Government services in this country. In the case of our health system considering the way that it will deliver the services to the people of New Zealand it is of course the patients whom we must always bear in mind.That said it is also worth considering in my remaining time the fact that the practitioners themselves very much have an interest and a stake in the way that the system operates. I'll just pick out by way of example the procedure for considering a complaint against a practitioner whereby it's been investigated that he or she might have engaged in certain conduct that's potentially posing a risk of serious harm. Well there's an opportunity for suspension without prior notice. So that would be an immediate action to protect patients and would-be patients of that person but at the same time to then allow the practitioner himself or herself to make submissions and to give their side of the story presumably without prejudice—or rather the original suspension would not be a matter of record if that person were found not to have engaged in the harm. So that seems to me a balance that's being struck as I started my remarks by acknowledging the interest of the people of New Zealand to have a system that is responsive and has competent professionals within it but at the same time not unduly disadvantaging those who operate the system and deliver the services.So with that I join colleagues on both sides of the House it seems in commending and wishing well the continued passage of this legislation through the House."