Introduction

• 500 words per Learning Outcome (LO), + or – 10%
• Do not include an introduction or conclusion.
• Use only the headings LO1, LO2, LO3 and LO4.
• Do not include the case studies or instructions.
• LO5 relates to the academic standard and applies across your full assessment.
• Use in-text citations appropriately across all LOs.
• Provide a reference list of verifiable sources at the end of each learning outcome.
• See the Assignment page on Canvas for further instructions, including the limitations on generative AI use.

LO1: 500 words Case study:

Arlo, a counsellor in private practice, worked out of an office in his home. During a party at his home, some of his guests wandered into his office and browsed the client files on his desk. One of the files was about Rhonda. Rhonda was contacted the next week by one of the guests who had read in her client file that she was unwell. Rhonda was horrified, as she had not told anyone about her illness.

Instructions:

Explain how the Health Information Privacy Code (HIPC) applies to Arlo.

Identify the legal grounds for any privacy complaint, including the relevant subrule from the HIPC. Link the grounds to the facts in the case study.

Explain the complaint pathway under the Privacy Act 2020, identifying the institutions involved in the process, and any appropriate final remedies at the relevant tribunal. Identify relevant sections from the legislation to support your answer.

Do not discuss the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (CHDSCR) of the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC).

LO2: 500 words

Case study

John, an oral health therapist, was convicted of assault under the Crimes Act 1961. He had attended a party, drank too much alcohol, and punched another man during an argument about the Warriors rugby league team.

John also had a conviction for criminal trespass from 4 years before. This conviction resulted from John repeatedly trespassing on his neighbour’s property after an argument about a shared fence.

As a result of the assault conviction, John is charged under s100(1)(c) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (HPCAA) at the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT).

Instructions

Identify two HPDT cases charged on the same ground under the HPCAA, with contrasting penalties. Explain why John’s penalties should be in line with one of the cases you have chosen, in contrast with the other.

Ensure you provide references for the HPDT cases.

LO3: 500 words  

Using NZ scholarly research published after 2021, identify and discuss two criticisms of the End of Life Choice Act 2019 (not the Bill), citing relevant sections.  Consider how the law could be changed to address these issues.   

LO4: 500 words

Consider the case https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/542148/family–wrongly–advised–criteria–forassisted–dying–would–not–be–met

1. In single sentences, identify your future profession and state whether it is registered or unregistered.
2. Identify an example in your future profession where your ignorance of the law could have a negative impact on the consumer you provide services to.
3. Identify the possible legal consequences for you, including those imposed at the relevant tribunal(s). Do not discuss employment law consequences.

LO5: Present work at the appropriate academic standard

(applies across assessment).