Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Med22/547P
Practitioner: Dr Poanere Tapukura Rairi
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Assessment - inadequate/inappropriate

Drugs/medication - inappropriate administration

Records - inadequate/inappropriate

Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Interim order for suppression of the name of the practitioner (Dr I) and any identifying details.

Application from the practitioner for permanent name suppression - dismissed


Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client

Interim order for suppression of the name of the medical practtioner the subject of the charge.

Permanent order for suppression of the name of the medical practitioner the subject of the charge.


Appeal Order:


Full Decision 1319Med22547P.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:

A panel of the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) convened on 17 and 18 April 2023 to hear a charge laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) appointed by the Medical Council of New Zealand against Dr Poanere Tapukura Rairi medical practitioner of Auckland (the Doctor).


In summary, the charge alleged that the Doctor:

  1. Prescribed [Dr A] with whom he had a close working relationship, 61 prescription items, some of which were Class C controlled drugs, and all of which have a risk of addiction and misuse.  The Doctor did not complete an adequate assessment of Dr A’s medical history or keep sufficient clinical notes.
  2.  Ignored advice from another doctor about Dr A’s substance use disorder.

The Doctor admitted the charge and accepted the conduct amounted to professional misconduct and warranted disciplinary sanction.

A full copy of the charge is found in the Appendix to the full decision.


The Doctor was born in the Cook Islands.  In 1993 he moved to Fiji to study. He graduated in 2003 with a Bachelor in Medicine and Surgery (MBBS) from the University of the South Pacific.  In 2004 he moved to Auckland. In December 2012 he registered with the Medical Council of New Zealand as a medical practitioner in the general scope of practice.  In April 2016 he opened the MaxCare Medical Centre (the Medical Centre) in Otahuhu and he has been working there as a non-vocational registered GP and Medical Director ever since. 

From 8 June 2018, [Dr A] worked part-time as a GP for the Medical Centre as an independent contractor. From 27 August 2018 [Dr A] was enrolled at the Medical Practice as a casual patient.

In a decision dated 30 October 2019, the Tribunal found [Dr A] to be in breach of her ethical obligations and accepted standards of practice in relation to extensive prescribing of prescription medicines and controlled drugs for her own use. On 21 November 2019 the Doctor received an email letter from the Health Case Manager of the Medical Council’s Health Committee regarding an order imposing conditions upon [Dr A’s] scope of practice, which included supervision by a vocationally registered general practitioner. On 25 November 2019 the Doctor terminated [Dr A’s] employment at the Medical Centre as the practice did not have a vocationally registered GP who could supervise her. 

On 2 March 2020 the Medical Council received notification that the Doctor had been prescribing Tramadol to [Dr A]. On 13 May 2020 the Medical Council notified the Doctor that information received from the Health Committee as well as [Dr A] and the Doctor’s prescribing data from when they worked together raised concerns about the Doctor’s prescribing practices. On 27 October 2021 the PCC brought a disciplinary charge against the Doctor.


Medical professionals must take due care and observe Medical Council guidelines when prescribing to patients, especially in cases where there is knowledge of specific risk.

The Tribunal found that the charge of professional misconduct was established. The Tribunal found that this conduct has also brought and is likely to bring discredit to the medical profession and warrants disciplinary sanction for the purpose of protecting the public and maintaining professional standards.  


The Tribunal ordered:

  1. Censure
  2. Conditions applied to the Doctor’s practice:
  3. Costs of $26,000 amounting to 30% of the costs of and incidental to the hearing.


The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.