te Heuheu Georgina: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8143] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 Part 5 sets up an appeals process and like my colleague Judith Collins I think it is probably appropriate in this context particularly when in a sense we are embarking on quite a new area of policy. We would not want to see the process becoming overused because then that would indicate a failure in the policy. We are dealing with people’s rights to register and practise as health practitioners in a field where everyone is a professional and if for some reason somebody is declined from registering with an authority then it is only proper that we should have an appeals process. 
We have rights of appeal to the District Court in relation to decisions on the directions of any of the authorities that come into play under this new legislation. We also have an appeal process to the High Court against the whole or any part of findings or orders made by the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. Under clause 109 there is also provision for an appeal on questions of law. If the appeal is from the District Court then the question of law must be referred to the High Court and if the appeal is from the High Court then it must be referred to the Court of Appeal. The tiered structure of the various courts is there and I hope that the process will not become a field of activism for lawyers because nobody wins other than the lawyers quite a lot of the time—and I am happy to say that even though law is my background. What we want is legislation that is working well to protect the health and safety of the public. If we are to have people constantly appealing or questioning decisions made by an authority or the tribunal then this House will not have reason to be proud of itself when this bill goes through. 
I will pick up the issue of scopes of practice. I was thankful that the Minister stood up at the beginning and gave some reassurance that scopes of practice have been worked out by each of the sectors in this area because under clause 101 there is a provision for appeal where an authority declines to authorise a change to the existing scope of practice of a health practitioner. I have been trying to work out what sort of situation that might apply to; I do not think the Minister covered that in her opening remarks and that causes some worry for me because if scopes of practice were a notion that could be clearly worked out and understood then why would there be a situation in which practitioners would be seeking to change an existing scope of practice? 
Hon Annette King 
: They might be too old to continue in that scope of practice. They might decide they can’t do it any more. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: OK. There we go: it is very important that that provision is here. It is to ensure ongoing competence. [ 
Interruption 
] Whatever—whether it is age or anything else. I wonder whether it might have applied to Dr Bottrill. In any event although I am supportive of this part of the bill and of the appeals process I do have a minor worry in that I do not want it to become a plucking-field for the legal profession. It is proper that the appeals process is included in the bill. I support it.