te Heuheu Georgina: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8087] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 In the earlier debates on the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Opposition members certainly showed that they knew exactly what this legislation is about: public safety. It was neither necessary nor appropriate for the Minister to give us a tirade on what the bill is all about. We are acutely conscious of what it is about and that is why we express the concerns we do. As far as I am concerned I have tried to express concerns that have been given both to the select committee and to me as a member of Parliament. They are not concerns I have made up out of my own head although as a woman I am certainly worried about any potential for incompetence on the part of health practitioners given the history behind this bill. We are acutely aware that this bill is about public safety. We are also very aware that public safety cannot be assured without the assurance of competence of health professionals. 
Although Part 2 sets out the responsibilities of each authority to carry out the registration of professionals the issue of practising certificates and so on in my view the part does not contain anything to assure the public that henceforth all those who practise in the health sector can be deemed to be competent. I say that because there is no definition of competence. Perhaps there is a very good reason for that. Is it that competence will be different across each of the scopes of practice? Or is it that people within the profession have an idea of what competence is anyway? I would like the Minister in the chair Annette King to talk to that issue. She was good enough to answer my issues from previous speeches. Maybe she will give some reassurance on the matter. In the end regardless of whether we in this Chamber are confident about this legislation it is the public that needs to feel confident that its health and safety is assured by what we do in this Chamber. 
It is easy enough for the Minister to stand up and quote the Medical Council of New Zealand but we on this side of the Chamber can do the same. When I read in a briefing note of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists last week that the issue of scopes of practice remains unresolved and that it particularly has a concern that the intention for broad scopes of practice is watered down by other wording implying narrower personal scopes I want an explanation from the Minister as to what she thinks of the association’s response. Is it right or wrong? Only she knows because this is her bill and she is promoting it as the right thing to do. Therefore we look to her for an answer. The issue of what characterises competence and what it is made up of remains unresolved. The issue of scopes of practice is clearly still a significant unresolved issue. 
My honourable colleague Dr Paul Hutchison referred to the Medical Council making comments about the fact that no work has been done on either the potential or the outcomes of scopes of practice. That is appalling and the issues we raised and the points we made in the debates on the title and Part 1 remain appropriate and legitimate. The issue of scopes of practice notwithstanding the Minister’s rhetoric still remains unresolved untried and untested. The public seems to be the guinea pig here. I do not know how that reconciles with us trying to reassure the public of its safety but an explanation from one of the bodies concerned is not sufficient.