Scott Lynda: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8168] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Part 8 makes amendments to the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. That Act was brought in by the National Government and has been an extremely successful Act of Parliament. The Health and Disability Commissioner has been extremely effective and I congratulate him on the leadership he has given. 
Major changes were made to this part during the select committee process and because we managed to deliver the one-stop shop that Helen Cull QC talked about we will support this part as it really will continue to improve things. Helen Cull QC produced a report in response to the Parry inquiry. It decided that there was no concerted approach to complaints mechanisms with up to 14 agencies separately investigating the same adverse medical event. Can members imagine what it is like to be a doctor or patient in the front line? It is absolutely mind-boggling. People have no idea about the time it will take the complications it will cause and the difficulty for patients and their families. They have said that unless one is very articulate and competent one does not manage to find one’s way through the system. So the report recommended a one-stop shop. Under this bill pre and post-1994 complaints will go to the Health and Disability Commissioner. Not many complaints are pre-1994 but there are still some. 
A lot of the complaints heard in the Parry inquiry were about how patients were treated by what were called complaints assessment committees which were set up pre-1996. We also heard from a Mr Wilson who talked about how the Accident Compensation Corporation had found medical error but the complaints assessment committee had thrown out the case. It was extremely confusing for people when one organisation or agency found significant error and then the disciplinary tribunal found no error. That sort of confusion in people’s minds has been very difficult. 
But if all complaints are to go through to the Health and Disability Commissioner then obviously that agency will need more resourcing. In secret we heard evidence about what it was like for a person to have somebody become fixated on him or her and make malicious complaint after malicious complaint. Every complaint that had gone through the process was shown to have no grounds but every single one had to be investigated. The Health and Disability Commissioner needs to have the ability to deal with malicious complaints. The commissioner also needs time lines to speed up the process. Time and time again we heard how long it takes to get through that process how long it takes for a complaint to be heard and for there to be a resolution. That is something we have hoped to improve. 
I have an amendment to Part 8 which I hope members will consider. The amendment takes out the Human Rights Review Tribunal. If the director of proceedings determines that there is no case to go forward then there should not be the double jeopardy of someone being able to go to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. I have an amendment to remove that clause which I hope will be supported tonight. 
 With the quality assurance programmes I talked about before and the complaints assessment procedures that have improved markedly at our hospitals around the country one hopes that a majority of complaints can now be sorted out at the coalface and these days I think that often happens. When people make a complaint they want firstly acknowledgement of what they have suffered and secondly they want to make sure that it does not happen to anybody else. That can often be sorted out at the coalface of our hospitals if complaints are taken seriously if the families and persons concerned are worked through the issues and if people simply say “sorry” when there are mistakes and problems and then move on to ensure that systems change.