Turner Judy: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Turner Judy: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8063] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 It is important to look at the context of this legislation because it goes back further than people think. In 1999 the Hon Nick Smith along with 828 other people petitioned the Government for an inquiry into the decision by the Medical Council of New Zealand in relation to its consideration of one Dr Hornbeck’s approach for medical registration in New Zealand. They believed that the process of registration in New Zealand was an example of how the Medical Council is denying New Zealanders access to specialist medical services through incompetence or anti-competitive practices. The Health Committee recommended that the Government develop a mechanism and the recommended term for that mechanism was “a scope of practice”. That was to define what a practitioner can or cannot do and under what circumstances so that overseas doctors could be used effectively for the benefit of the New Zealand public under prescribed terms. 
I now come forward a year or so to 2001 and to a member’s bill in the name of the Hon Ken Shirley called the Medical Practitioners (Foreign Qualified Medical Practitioners) Amendment Bill. That bill was considered by the Health Committee and again part of the committee’s report was the inclusion of the notion that if we determined what a doctor can and cannot do then we could make provision for professionals to work in a limited capacity. Again the term “scope of practice” was bandied around. There were some genuine concerns about the inconsistent ways in which colleges were interpreting the Medical Practitioners Act. Certainly the Health Committee’s report in 2001 was clear that the proposed Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill would develop the ideas of scopes of practice and that there would be no fear regarding that because as the report stated it was not as we understand it to be prescriptive about the registration of practices. 
We are now more than halfway through 2003 and the concerns raised by some of the other parties have had their day. This legislation puts in place strategies to more than meet their concerns. For instance the Hon. Dr Smith’s inquiry recommended scopes of practice as did Mr Shirley’s bill and they are both included in this legislation. The inquiry asked for transparent registration processes as did the recommendation from Mr Shirley’s member’s bill and those are included in the bill. The inquiry asked for an independent appeals body as did the report on Mr Shirley’s bill and again that has been delivered in this legislation. We need to look at what is proposed. It does need to be kept broad because it is determined to include whatever practices impose some risk to the health of New Zealanders. 
 Some people are concerned that maybe acupuncturists at some time will be included in this bill. For Pete’s sake! Acupuncturists put needles into people. I imagine that those who submit themselves to the process of acupuncture would like to know that eventually these people because of the practice and the risk involved will be included under this legislation. 
The legislation is open-ended. If a group wants to come in and it meets the requirements set down by the Minister of Health and by this legislation it will be welcomed. There is a review clause in the legislation. Some of the groups were concerned that there would be delays after the passing of this legislation. They felt that in 3 to 5 years’ time they might find themselves still not included. The fact there is a review clause means that in the worst-case scenario those groups will have the chance to be included as they so wish within 3 years’ time. I expect it to be sooner than that. I look forward to the rest of the Committee stage and I will leave some of my comments until the appropriate time.