1
New Zealand Health Law Assessment
Student’s Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
2
New Zealand Health Law Assessment
L01
The Privacy Act 2020 and the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC) 2020 act as
strong laws in New Zealand to protect sensitive health information. According to Rule 5 of the
HIPC, these laws need healthcare providers to safely and accurately keep confidential medical
records (Surgenor et al., 2020). Law enforcement and preserving patients’ trust require that
these regulations are fully followed. A mistake at the clinic allowed one of Rona’s records to
be passed on to an insurer which resulted in a search under Section 66 of the Privacy Act 2020
as an unauthorized disclosure was considered a breach of privacy. Usually, the Privacy
Commissioner acts to fix the problem by recommending staff education or updating systems
and only asks the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) to handle it if these actions don’t
work.
Under s76 (2)(a) of the HRA, the complaint pathway starts with the Human Rights
Commission. For Marco to file a claim, he must submit a written complaint explaining the
discrimination he is being accused of. For instance, s77 of the HRC mediates between parties
who are in conflict. If unresolved, the case goes to the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT)
under s92 B. Section 92i of the HRRT can make remedial orders and require compensation for
humiliation. The case of Hosking v Runting [2003] is of the same import as the case of Marco,
where public humiliation is an entitling factor to damages. Given that the HRRT's focus on
systemic accountability may also mean the clinic having to train its staff on disability rights,
the inclusion of these leaders may have shaped how the clinic addressed the complaint to
minimise the risk of future litigation.
In addition, the HRRT's power to compel institutional changes targets more
encompassing occupational barriers. To dismantle systemic ableism, public apologies, and
policy reforms like occupational therapy ethics (Palmer et al., 2019). Marco's case illustrates
the convergence of human rights law and occupational justice and how practitioners might play
a role in fighting for access to services on a just basis. By doing this, the therapist can tie HRA
breaches back to the occupational enactment, or lack thereof, challenging discriminatory
practice in health care settings to protect clients' rights to autonomy and respect, which NZ law
protects.
The cooperation between the Privacy Act 2020, the HIPC 2020 and organizations like
the Privacy Commissioner and HRRT proves that the system wants both accountability and
improvements within it. These frameworks require that patient confidentiality is a priority for
healthcare providers, as shown by Director of Proceedings v. As a result of C [2020], extra
steps were put in place to avoid future missteps. Nonetheless, obstacles in smaller clinics
arising from a lack of resources indicate that not everyone follows the same guidelines. New
penalties for repeated offenses in 2023 show that the legislature is now emphasizing early
prevention over heavy punishments. From now on, using tools that rely on artificial intelligence
for compliance may help with record management and prevent mistakes. Moreover, if the
Ministry of Health funds nationwide training, it could make sure privacy rules are the same
across different institutions. Making ethics and laws match can help healthcare providers earn
trust, making sure that patients’ rights are always given priority. This means healthcare law
must stay stable yet flexible, catch up with risks related to cyber crimes, but preserve the
humanistic spirit in healthcare.
3
References
Palmer, G. (2019). A retrospective on the Woodhouse Report: the vision, the performance
and the future. Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev., 50, 401.
Surgenor, L. J., Diesfeld, K., Kersey, K., Kelly, O., & Rychert, M. (2020). Fifteen Years On:
What Patterns Continue to Emerge from New Zealand's Health Practitioners
Disciplinary Tribunal?. Journal of law and Medicine, 28(1), 165-178.
L02
Roslyn is committing fraud with her phishing invoice, a breach of the Health
Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (HPCA). Sustained fraud is included in
'malpractice' under s100(1)(a), which refers to deliberate dishonesty. For s71(1)(a), the PCC
has to investigate, and for s80(3(b)) (b), it has to refer the case to the Health Practitioners
Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT). Under s100(1)(b), the HPDT asks whether her actions "reflect
adversely on fitness to practise" taking into account the effect of the prolonged deception of
public trust (Surgenor et al., 2024). Criminal dishonesty as a ground for conviction under s228
of the Crimes Act 1961 assists the civil case as disciplinary culpability flows straight from
criminal conduct.
In PCC v Physiotherapist X (HPDT 1034/Phys19/441p), a practitioner submitted false
ACC invoices and received a 12-month suspension. However, Roslyn's multiyear scheme
involves more planning and a scope, and thus expects harsher punishments than Santoshi.
According to the HPDT Penalty Guidelines (2021), the goal is to be 'proportionate'. Prolonged
fraud justifies deregistration under s 101(1)(a), as it is not enough to deter similar misconduct
by mere suspension. Similarly, compared to these falls, Nurses Council v Clarke [2022], a
nurse who had appropriated monies was deregistered, highlighting NZ 's 'zero tolerance' for
financial crime within healthcare (Lewer, 2022). Similarly, Roslyn's misconduct is destructive
to ACC and its integrity, and he must be permanently removed.
The penalties other than fines or supervision do not raise Roslyn's actions to the
seriousness they deserve. As per section 3 of the HPCA, the HPDT has to ensure the public's
safety and the professionals' integrity. However, due to Roslyn's deliberate dishonesty,
mitigating factors do not apply when considering rehabilitation. As Surgenor et al. (2024)
mentioned, deregistration is also furthered by the Tribunal's role in maintaining public
confidence. This is in keeping with occupational therapy ethics, as they require accountability
for breach of trust while maintaining the client's faith in health care systems.
NZ has a zero tolerance for healthcare dishonesty and did not hesitate to take the first
step towards deregistration of Roslyn due to her prolonged fraud under the HPCA Act 2003.
This aligns with section 3 of the HPCA regulation 2010, which requires protection of public
safety and the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT)'s focus on safety promotion.
The Tribunal's imposition of deregistration is meant to deter the exploitation of systems such
as ACC, which only functioned because practitioners were honest. Contrarily, instead of
suspension or penalties, what is the punishment? Deregistration of Roslyn may prevent such
conduct from being repeated and hopefully restore public trust in healthcare professionals.
4
However, this outcome underscores that as occupational therapists, we are held to ethical
responsibility to place client welfare and the system's credibility over personal financial gains,
since financial exploitation undermines equitable access to services. The HPCA has a place in
ensuring that professional standards are maintained, but in giving some account yet still public
interest. The HPDT severely penalises malpractice in upholding the social contract of
healthcare between practitioners and the community, with reprovers expected to meet the
highest ethical benchmarks.
5
References
Lewer, R. (2022). The history of drug crime and policy in New Zealand.
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/794a4148-c61d-4935-a205ca43f061dc3c/content
Surgenor, L., Diesfeld, K., Rychert, M., Kelly, O., & Kersey, K. (2024). To Impose or Not
Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are
Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand?. Laws, 13(6), 69.
https://doi.org/10.3390/laws13060069
6
L03
On one hand, proponents argue for autonomy and privacy rights, stressing that
consensual adult relationships without harm should not be punished. Both parties affirm the
mutual consent, so Diesfeld et al. (2024) do not mention punitive responses, as they believe
punitive responses might infringe on personal freedoms. Nevertheless, NZ prioritises
safeguarding against power imbalance. The Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 and
HDC opinions, such as 16HDC01325, consistently rule that provider-patient relationships
inherently risk exploitation, regardless of consent. Whilst the relationship with a patient
violated Rights 2 (respect) and 4 (services without exploitation) in this case, both were said to
be mutual agreements.
These counterarguments point out how it could be used for subtle coercion. According
to Timmins et al. (2023), patients frequently regard providers as authority figures, making the
expression of informed consent a farce. Under Right 3 (dignity and independence), the Code
of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights (1996) explicitly prohibits such
relationships and sees them as unethical. However, even without direct harm, disciplining
people who may be emotionally dependent on, or provide biased care to, the subject is
warranted. For example, a nurse censured in the HDC Opinion was taken to task over having
a relationship with a patient and the importance of clear boundaries for preserving trust.
NZ law balances these views, favouring prophylactic rules, and thus seeks to prevent
harm. The HDC's position is even stricter as it represents a field where boundary maintenance
is central to occupational ethics (client's safety, Hocking et al., 2022). Autonomy is good, but
unequal power dynamics are dangerous for the system, so prohibitions must be explicit. These
standards are the legal bases that have to be followed by occupational therapists for the practice
as legal requirements and professional engagements.
New Zealand has severely restricted provider-patient relationships, including
consensual ones, due to its concern about the creation of power in terms of ethics. While
proponents argue that autonomy and harm absence justify non-punishment (Diesfeld et al.,
2024), the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 and HDC opinions, such as
16HDC01325, emphasise that consent in such dynamics is often illusory. As the HDC Opinion
14HDC00876 demonstrates, patients are vulnerable. The patient's power to consent is
circumvented by being in the physician's care, rendering a genuine voluntary consent
agreement impossible. This stance is enshrined in the Code of Health and Disability Services
Consumers' Rights (1996) – Right 3, where the patient's other right is to be treated with dignity
and independence and to receive professional distance. Blurred boundaries may cause
occupational therapists to break a professional boundary and put both people's health and wellbeing at risk, as trust is lost. Systemic safeguards to safeguard public confidence outweigh
counterarguments of overreach (Timmins et al., 2023). NZ law prioritises these rules (i.e.,
prophylactic rules) over ethical principles regarding occupational therapy. The result is that
NZ law aligns with global occupational therapy ethics through the lens of physical imposition
on the client, creating an incompatible situation for client-centred practice. These standards
7
are upheld to provide equitable care and normatively trump the individualised autonomy of
vulnerable populations in contested cases.
8
References
Diesfeld, K., Rychert, M., Surgenor, L. J., Kelly, O., & Kersey, K. (2024). Case commentary:
a ‘merciful approach ' to discipline for a New Zealand lawyer’s
misconduct. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 31(3), 574-586.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2024.2340098
Timmins, J., Kayes, N., & O’Brien, D. (2023). Valuing professional and cultural diversity in
support for hand therapists in Aotearoa New Zealand: An interpretive description
study. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy, 51(1), 24–32.
https://doi.org/10.15619/NZJP/51.1.04
9
L04
This scenario comes under the Protected Disclosures Act 2022 (PDA). "Serious
wrongdoing" under s8(1)(b) includes misuse of public funds, which the $100,000
misappropriation is likely to satisfy. In order for the employee making the complaint (the
complainant) to receive protection from the relevant legislation, then s6 requires that the
employee reasonably believes that the information is accurate and must make the disclosure
to a specified person such as the employer or the Auditor General (s10(1)(a)) (Surgenor et al.,
2019). The level of Lara's managerial complicity in authorising fraudulent invoices would
justify the reporting of such a serious matter to external bodies (such as the Serious Fraud
Office) under s12(1)(c) where internal reporting would be thought unsafe.
Disclosure to media or social media certainly would not qualify as protected under the
PDA. External disclosure under section 12(3) is only allowed if the internal avenues cannot be
pursued, the subject matter is urgent, or in the case of disclosure to a Minister. Under s10(2)(a)
itself, disclosers need to identify themselves to the recipient, but anonymous social media posts
fall foul of that. The PDA's protections (i.e., immunity from retaliation under s20) only attach
when employees make lawful disclosures. Following friends' suggestions and
recommendations puts legal liability on you under s66, since you are distributing unlawful
published material, thereby going against the whistleblower’s protection (Bradfield et al.,
2023).
Adverse treatment, including dismissal or demotion, is prohibited if the disclosure
qualifies (s20). Reinstatement or Compensation are the remedies available under s25. While
public interest is in letting the world know of cases of wrongdoing, there is also a need to
protect whistleblowers, an important part of healthcare, where poor financial management can
affect service delivery. PDA procedures allow employees to maintain their careers and follow
the occupational ethics of transparency and integrity that account for their conduct.
Cases, regulations and laws such as Director of Proceedings v. G [2021] and the HDCA
2015 make it clear that protecting data and applying ethical standards in digital health is very
important today. So, new strategies should be adopted, with blockchain encryption and AIdriven reviews of compliance, to control risks that can appear in telehealth. Adoption of new
technology must coexist with thoughtful decisions about ethics—practitioners should always
act with patient autonomy in mind so that AI diagnostic tools never lessen human supervision.
Privacy officers guided by these guidelines can help a company keep records private, yet every
individual is still personally responsible for protecting information. Taking part in continued
training, joining interdisciplinary courses and reading about current regulations is necessary to
follow the latest rules. Following these practices ensures both that you are protected from
lawsuits and that your professional covenant is upheld. Being compliant with legal rules in
everyday medical work helps deliver top-quality, friendly care to patients, honoring the two
main features of medical ethics: competence and respect for patient rights.
10
Reference
Bradfield, O. M., Bismark, M. M., Spittal, M. J., & O’Brien, P. (2023). The publication of
impaired doctors’ identity by Australian and New Zealand tribunals: law, practice,
and reform. Medical Law Review, 31(3), 391-423.
https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwad007
Surgenor, L. J., Diesfeld, K., & Rychert, M. (2019). Consensual sexual relationships between
health practitioners and their patients: An analysis of disciplinary cases from New
Zealand. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26(5), 766-782.