Stewart Barbara: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8082] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am pleased to speak to Part 2 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. No doubt this very important debate will affect health practitioners in the medical profession and the public for the next 15 to 20 years. In particular I want to focus on clause 15 “Fitness for registration”. This clause is a lawyer’s dream! New Zealand First will not be supporting it. 
All members of the House would agree that our health professionals have to be of the highest calibre. We want New Zealanders to have the best possible health treatment available. However clause 15 will present some large challenges for the employing authorities of the many people who are covered by this legislation. New Zealand First believes that further definitive work is required on that clause. It makes really broad sweeping statements that will be difficult to implement and define and therefore difficult to enforce. 
Clause 15(a) states that applicants for registration must be able to “communicate effectively for the purposes of practising”. But nowhere in this hefty document are there guidelines as to what “communicate effectively” means. That term is really subjective and everyone can interpret it differently. Those guidelines are totally lacking from this document. I realise that members opposite will have a totally different idea about communicating effectively. It will be quite different from the view of people on this side of the Chamber. 
Clause 15(a) will also require a really big decision to be made by the responsible employing authority and of course by the doctor nurse or other health practitioners in different areas. The big challenge will arise when an applicant disagrees with a ruling. How can that person appeal a ruling? Where are the definitions in this bill? They are totally lacking. 
Clause 15(b) states that prior to registration the applicant must satisfy the employing authority of his or her ability to communicate and to comprehend English. What does that tell us? We know that at present some of our health professionals do not meet that standard at all. That is something we hear quite constantly from the public of New Zealand. They just want to take their children to medical centres to get them well or to get well themselves. Does that clause tell us that New Zealanders can expect to see a whole heap more health professionals for whom English is a second language? We do not object to that if those people are competent because we do want our health care. But we must ask what has happened to our New Zealand doctors for whom English is a first language. They must still be going overseas. 
Clause 15(e) is also fraught with big challenges. We can really admire the sentiment behind the phrases used in that clause as there is no doubt that the health and safety of New Zealanders are being looked after. I do not think that anyone coming to this country would tell any employing authority that he or she is the subject of disciplinary hearings or proceedings. Nobody who is desperate for a job ever tells an employer of any shortcomings. 
Judith Collins 
: Mr Zaoui would. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: I doubt it. He did not say anything. We know where he is. We also know that a fair share of New Zealanders have left our shores and are practising overseas—after a disciplinary proceeding. It has often taken a long long time before some of them have been caught. In a recent case a doctor went from New Zealand to Australia to practise plastic surgery because he was not allowed to practise in New Zealand. No doubt there are health professionals practising in New Zealand who should not be practising. 
We all know that references can be easily fudged. How on earth will the authorities check up on some of those references? If one writes one’s own reference of course it will be glowing. So the various authorities will really have to check out that aspect thoroughly. How will they monitor the provisions of clause 15? In theory it all sounds really good but in reality the lack of clarity and definition will be the total downfall of that clause. I know that Mr Benson-Pope will find that difficult to believe.