Scott Lynda: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8059] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The title of this bill should definitely be changed. For a start the term “Health Practitioners” covers a wide number of groups—chiropractors dentists dietitians medical auxiliaries medical practitioners nurses occupational therapists optometrists and dispensing opticians pharmacists physiotherapists and psychologists. The bill tries to encompass far too much. It tries to be all things to all people. The National Party will be voting against it because it has some significant problems in it. 
For a start this title should be the “Health Practitioners Incompetence in Development Bill” because not enough work was done for such a comprehensive and expansive piece of legislation. This bill is 272 pages long—a massive piece of legislation. The bill’s concept is good—what it tries to do—but it fails in its delivery. The concept was to take very successful legislation the 1995 Medical Practitioners Act and to make legislation for all those other health practitioners that incorporated the best of that Act. But the doctors do not want a bar of this bill. They have good legislation now modern legislation which they have got to grips with using. That 1995 legislation took about 3 years to really be implemented but once it started working it did solve many of the issues that had faced the medical profession over the previous 30 years. So “Health Practitioners But Not Doctors Assurance Bill” would be one title for the bill. The doctors do not want to be part of it and I support them in that. 
Some of the other groups that are coming under this bill have very outdated legislation. The Physiotherapy Act dates from 1949 the Occupational Therapy Act dates from 1949 and the Dietitians Act dates from 1950. That legislation did need to come up to speed to be modern but the legislation we have before us which tries to incorporate all these groups certainly fails to be modern legislation because these groups are different and have different needs and different wants. Nurses and doctors for example have different Acts of Parliament that they have been working under. The Nurses Act dates from 1977 and nurses certainly want more modern legislation but the doctors do not. They want to continue to work under the 1995 Medical Practitioners Act and I certainly will be supporting them in that. 
The bill contains the brand new concept of scopes of practice but there is nothing in the title to suggest that something very new and different is being developed here. Many people do not have a firm view of what the term “scope of practice” means. It is a new concept. No intellectual work about what scopes of practice would mean was put down on paper so that it could be reviewed. How this concept will work has been a major issue of concern. When there are conflicts between scopes of practice how will they be sorted out? Only in the future will we know how this bill is going to work in practice. It is going to have a 3-year review and I am extremely pleased about that because I do believe that there will be major hiccups with the implementation of the bill. That is why National will not be supporting it; we think it should have had more work because it is such a comprehensive piece of legislation. 
Other problems with the bill which have been of major concern to people have been issues around the quality assurance activities.