Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak to this bill which has made its way through the Health Committee and was thoroughly investigated in the select committee. Fundamentally this bill I think is sort of adding protections to the four key actors across the system. If we identify those actors we have patients we have providers we have responsible authorities and then just to the side if you like we have the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. I think the protections to all of those actors are quite significant in this bill and I'd like to just talk to some of them. Some of them have come post - select committee and been raised—maybe even some in the second reading. Certainly if we look at some of the benefits to patients previously the only people who could refer to the responsible authorities were health practitioners employers or the Health and Disability Commissioner. One of the clauses in this bill says that a range of sources needn't be that narrow and that general members of the public can refer people to the responsible authority. This is a good thing and I think as we look back across the submissions from the select committee most people were saying that this is a good thing that several agencies—several people or entities if you like—should be able to refer to that very important committee. So there are protections there for patients. If we look around at protections for providers as well there are benefits in this bill for them because otherwise the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act could just be a down on providers and that's not the case. There are protections and benefits to them too. Now previously it used to be that if you were appearing before a tribunal the tribunal would need to meet and then decide to prohibit publication of name pending a hearing and indeed we were made aware that in some instances those providers had been named before the hearing had even appeared. What this this bill does is it allows the chairperson of the tribunal to actually make that decision to prohibit the publication of a name if it's in the interests of the tribunal. That's a reassurance and a protection for providers so that they should be pleased with that. This is not just a down-on-providers sort of bill. I think that responsible authorities benefit here too as you heard my colleague just say. They're reviewed every five years. I think this is a good thing. The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) also has some benefits here although mostly administrative and a lot of discussions arose from this particularly around the funding of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. The discussions that were had were around whether it should be on a pro rata basis. Everyone agreed with that—that the more people in the profession the more risk; therefore the greater contribution you should pay to the HPDT. However there are a number of substantive professions like the nursing profession for example who said That's unfair. We're low risk and the biggest profession and we're going to overly contribute." I think there is some argument there but I think their better argument was that "We've got thousands of people who are registered with us but not practising and they're unlikely if ever to come before the tribunal." I think this is a very valid case and the committee did as did officials and the departmental report reflected that inasmuch as how the HPDT team will now be funded will still be on a pro rata basis but it will be by members who are practising at the end of the financial year not just registered. This is a big benefit to the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and other large organisations that actually those who are more at risk and more likely to appear in front of the tribunal will be those who will be contributing. I think what was also interesting—just to close off that segment if you like—was that the cost to all practitioners of funding the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal is $1 per year. So when you average that out it's actually not significant. I'd also just like to comment on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 190. We'll be supporting this. It has two main actions and it's very clear on the order sheet here that both of these we agree with and so we'll be supporting it. We'll be supporting this bill and this SOP further. Thank you."