Veterinarians Bill

I move, That the Veterinarians Bill be now read a second time. This bill was tabled in the House in December 2004. It had its first reading on 17 February 2005, after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The committee received and considered 10 written submissions on the bill.

The bill replaces and improves upon the 1994 Veterinarians Act. The bill provides a more modern and flexible regulatory framework for veterinary practice in New Zealand, which makes the regulation of the veterinary profession comparable with that of other regulated professions, such as the medical profession. The bill takes account of the recent developments in veterinary training throughout the world, and enables a larger pool of overseas-trained veterinarians to seek registration in New Zealand, thereby easing the workload and stress levels faced by New Zealand veterinarians. The provisions in the bill confer powers on the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to provide the council with a much wider range of options to manage and deal with disciplinary and competency matters.

The key issues raised in the submissions seem to relate to five measures: firstly, to clarify the definition of the term “veterinarian”; secondly, to broaden the coverage of the limited registration provision; thirdly, the independence of the complaints and disciplinary processes; fourthly, the right of appeal by veterinarians and by complainants; and, fifthly, the provisions relating to interim suspension of veterinarians.

The term “veterinarian” was defined in the bill as a person who meets the criteria for registration and is registered under the Act. Some submitters suggested that the definition should be amended so that people are entitled to call themselves a veterinarian only if they are registered and also hold a practising certificate. I support the committee’s recommendation to amend that definition so that it refers to a person who is registered and has a current practising certificate. This amendment would assist the council in protecting the reputation of the veterinary brand, and it would also ensure that only those persons who have current skills and knowledge, and who are subject to the council’s control, can use the term “veterinarian”.

The bill provided that persons who have suitable tertiary qualifications but do not meet the full registration requirements can be registered under the limited registration category for 12 months, plus one extension for a further 12 months. This provision was initially designed to provide stronger incentives to attract and retain overseas veterinary specialists in New Zealand, while still providing for sufficient incentives for such persons to seek full registration. It was intended to be used only in exceptional and unusual circumstances. A number of submitters suggested that the time limits on limited registration should be removed, thereby giving the council greater flexibility to determine an adequate time frame for issuing limited registration. They also considered that the time limit would be a disincentive to overseas veterinarians who specialise in particular fields to seek employment in New Zealand. Some stakeholders are strongly opposed to the proposal to remove the time limits. They consider that removing them could potentially create a new, permanent subcategory of veterinarians with limited registration, which could potentially compromise animal welfare standards, the integrity of our meat export certification systems, and our international reputation for producing safe food.

I support the committee’s recommendation to remove the statutory time limits on the length of time a person may hold a limited registration, with some added safeguards. The first safeguard is a requirement for the Veterinary Council to develop scopes of practice for limited registration in consultation with relevant statutory agencies and key stakeholders. The second safeguard is the requirement for the Veterinary Council to take account of the effect of any proposed scopes of practice on New Zealand’s economic interests, and to ensure that the proposed scopes are consistent with New Zealand’s food, safety, biosecurity, and animal welfare regimes.

The complaints and disciplinary processes form a significant part of the bill. The bill sets out a robust investigative and disciplinary process. It provides the Veterinary Council with greater means of ensuring veterinarians practise to the highest possible standards. Examples of this include the ability of the council to set minimum standards of practice, and to impose conditions on a veterinarian’s practising certificate. Some submitters considered that the existing complaints and disciplinary processes are weighted in favour of veterinarians, and suggested establishing an independent disciplinary complaints tribunal. I support the committee’s recommendation not to make any substantive changes to the disciplinary process specified in the bill. The Primary Production Committee considered the complaints procedures very thoroughly, and I endorse its decisions. I agree with the committee’s view that the structures and processes proposed in the bill for complaints investigation provide the council with an efficient mechanism to ensure that adequate standards are maintained. The council has a strong interest in ensuring high standards of veterinary practice and maintaining credibility for the veterinary profession.

The bill provides a veterinarian with the right to appeal to a District Court against any council disciplinary action relating to that veterinarian. Some submitters considered that the bill should provide the same rights to complainants. I support the committee’s recommendation not to change the appeal rights provision in the bill. Disciplinary decisions made by the complaints assessment committee can affect a veterinarian’s professional livelihood and reputation. Therefore, it is prudent to include in the bill a safeguard to ensure that the veterinarian has a relatively inexpensive means of appealing disciplinary decisions. The decisions of the complaints assessment committee do not have the same ramifications for complainants as they do for veterinarians themselves. Complainants have other avenues for redress, for example. They can challenge the complaints assessment committee process by judicial review in the High Court, or pursue the veterinarian concerned by judicial process, based on the law of contract. Complainants are in the same situation as persons who are unhappy with the work of a tradesman or with the work performed by persons in other professions.

The bill provides for the council to impose interim suspension on a veterinarian’s ability to practise. This can be done on the recommendation of the complaints assessment committee after an investigation. The council may suspend the veterinarian until a hearing is completed or until the veterinarian has undergone a medical or competency assessment. Some submitters considered that in some circumstances it may be necessary to impose interim suspension before an investigation, in order to protect the public or the veterinarian from harm. I support, however, the committee’s recommendation that interim suspension provisions for medical matters, matters of competence, and disciplinary matters be more clearly separated. I consider that it is inappropriate to impose interim suspension on a veterinarian prior to an investigation on disciplinary matters. A suspension is a serious action and can have a significant impact on the veterinarian’s reputation and livelihood. However, in the case of medical-related matters, immediate action may sometimes be necessary in order to protect the welfare of the public and the veterinarian himself or herself.

The bill provides the veterinary profession with a more modern and flexible regulatory framework. The bill also contains provisions that will help to increase the confidence that our livestock-based industries, our export markets, the many thousands of owners of companion animals and pets, and the New Zealand public have in the veterinarians practising in New Zealand. I thank the members and the chairman of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill and for their report, which was tabled on 14 June 2005. I commend the bill to the House.

I will start by thanking the new Minister of Agriculture and the Leader of the House for finally allowing this legislation to be progressed. I know from briefing papers he received following the election, and from papers I received, that it has been of huge concern to the Veterinary Association and to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand that the work has now be completed by the select committee for exactly 6 months. It is interesting that on 14 June 2005 we reported this legislation back to the House. I know that representations were made to the Government by numerous people within this vital profession that the matter be progressed before the election. The Government saw fit to leave it on the Order Paper, but I do genuinely say thanks to them for finally bringing it to the House today so that we can pass it through all its stages.

This legislation is important. It affects a vital career in this country, and if it had been held over any longer, it would have meant that the registration processes that are vitally changed by this legislation would not have been able to be used by the profession until the registration year 2006-07. The work had been done by the select committee—I will comment in detail on that shortly—and there seemed to be no good reason why the matter should not have been progressed with more urgency by the Government.

As the Minister has outlined, there are three major reasons for this legislation. There was a need for the qualifications of vets to be recognised when they qualified overseas. We needed to have a registration process that was modern and gave people travelling through New Zealand the ability to accept limited registration. We put a lot of effort into the third purpose of this legislation, which deals with the disciplinary powers and process of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

The Primary Production Committee did a lot of work on this legislation, and as is typical of that committee, it was done without rancour and division as we worked through issues—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Wonderful chairperson!

I could not possibly comment on that but I can certainly say that as a group of parliamentarians we worked through the issues as diligently as we could, and I feel confident that the legislation as presented back to the House now is substantially improved, and, again, I want to comment on that.

If anybody looks at this legislation, they will see that there have been a large number of changes. We did not receive many submissions, as the Minister noted—in fact only 10, and we heard only eight of those—and the interesting thing about half of those submissions is that they were given to the select committee by people who tended to be distraught and distressed about the treatment their beloved animal had received from a particular vet. These people were still disputing the competence of the vet who had attended their animal. I know that Doug Woolerton certainly wants to talk about Bianca the parrot shortly, and I will leave him to do that. Their submissions, to be truthful, were largely irrelevant to the bill, in that it was not our job to relitigate processes that had been undertaken by the Veterinary Council.

A matter on which those submitters did have every right to appear before the select committee—and I assure those people that we diligently considered their particular submissions—was whether we were setting up satisfactory processes, whereby the competency of the veterinary profession and of any particular vet was adequately checked and cross-checked. Numerous people within the select committee process made the comment to us that the process seemed to be one that was significantly about judging the competency of fellow vets. That, frankly, is inevitable. On the complaints assessment committee we have two vets and one layperson. The role of that committee is to hear the initial application of complaint and decide whether the matter warrants further investigation. If it does require further investigation, then the complaints assessment committee sends it to a judicial committee, which again is made up of one member of the Veterinary Council—a vet appointed with a particular expertise and experience with regard to the complaint that is being made by the complainant—one layperson, and a solicitor of not less than 7 years’ experience in law, which is a change we made through the select committee process.

So I acknowledge that, without doubt, the process is dominated by the veterinary profession but I say to those people that there is no other way it can be done. One cannot have a process by which the complaint is judged by people who do not have the professional expertise to consider the legitimacy of the complaint.

Finally, with regard to this matter I see no reason at all why the veterinarians involved in this particular judgment process would in any way make a judgment that lowered the standards of the veterinary profession throughout New Zealand. It simply would not be in their interests to do so.

There is little doubt that the original Act of 1994, which is not so very old when we think about it, did need to be modernised. I think that one of the reasons is that we significantly recognise the shortage of vets in this country. For example, we received a submission from Massey University, and the committee recognised, without doubt, that the qualification delivered from Massey University for veterinarians is internationally regarded. It is therefore not surprising that our graduates are then able to take that qualification, go overseas, and earn substantially more than they are able to earn if they remain in New Zealand. I speak from experience, because I have a niece who qualified through Massey University. She has spent most of her time, since qualifying, working out of Melbourne in Australia, where she is able to earn substantially more money than she can in New Zealand. That means that we have a looming shortage of veterinarians in New Zealand, and no more so than in rural New Zealand. That is something that should alarm every member of this House, because we are a country totally dependent on the value of agriculture.

The Labour Government may finally wake up to the fact that agriculture is the backbone of the economy and that because we are so dependent on primary production, it is essential to have a process whereby we encourage vets to stay in New Zealand. If that is not sufficient to supply the numbers we need, then we must have a process by which we can utilise young vets who have qualified overseas and who have come to New Zealand, perhaps on work experience, and use them for 2 years; or perhaps a process whereby people with an overseas qualification of the right standard is recognised and allow those people to enter the profession in New Zealand.

In my closing time, I want to comment on the fact that anybody studying this legislation will note that there has been significant change via the select committee process. The question therefore needs to be asked about what consultation occurred out of the lead Minister—who at that stage was the Hon Jim Sutton—with the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association. Sadly, we were told that not enough consultation took place. Consequently, we had to take a step that was unusual in the New Zealand select committee process, but one that has been used very, very successfully in the Primary Production Committee, whereby the committee got the officials, the Veterinary Council, and the Veterinary Association to work closely with it through the deliberation process. I want to extend my thanks to Julie Haggie, chief executive officer of the Veterinary Council, to Ron Gibson, its chairperson, and to Murray Gibb, chief executive officer of the New Zealand Veterinary Association for the input and assistance they gave to the select committee so that we were able to deliver legislation that will now work. It seems to me absolutely pointless for a Government to be so disconnected from this profession that it advances legislation that straight away the industry is at loggerheads with. So I take the opportunity of thanking the members of my select committee. It is rather sad to look at the list of people who worked through it and to see that people like Janet Mackey, my then deputy chair, is no longer a member of Parliament. But she is a person to whom I pay tribute. She did an immense amount of work on that particular select committee. We have re-formed it with a new membership, and I can assure the House that we greatly miss the contribution of Doug Woolerton. It has almost become a serious select committee, but I am working on that and we will have some humour introduced to it over time, I can assure members. The National Party certainly supports the second reading of this legislation.

This bill is a responsible Government bill. Although the Opposition would have us believe that this Government has no interest in the primary production sector, here we have a very, very responsible bill. It is a modern bill that provides for a very important profession in our country. Can I say that I know a little bit about vets. Members may not believe this, but in my many, varied careers in the past I once worked as a vet nurse.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: That explains everything!

Yes, I was looking after cats, I say to the member. It might explain how I deal with him. I appreciate the member’s thanks for the Government bringing this bill to the House to go through all its stages.

💬 Hon David Carter: You took your time.

The member should be grateful that we are doing it under urgency. I think it is wonderful. The vets out there will be very happy that it will be passed by Christmas.

This bill modernises legislation that was first enacted in 1994. It includes the qualification requirements for vets to be recognised overseas, it updates the registration processes and categories, and it deals with disciplinary powers. I congratulate members, both past and present, of the Primary Production Committee. I look forward to hearing from Mr Woolerton about the parrot, and I commend this bill to the House to go through all its stages.

It is good to see that senior members still get the call in the House, and I thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I, too, would like to reflect on the concerns that the Veterinary Association and the Veterinary Council had—concerns that they certainly expressed to members of the Primary Production Committee during its proceedings, and post-proceedings, during the election campaign—that this bill pass through the House before Christmas. They saw a degree of urgency in the need to embark on new registration criteria in the new year rather than let them lapse for 18 months or 2 years after all the work that has been done.

We are cutting it very fine, but people within the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association will be celebrating the passing of this legislation this evening. They want to use the registration changes it contains in the new year rather than waiting another 18 months or 2 years, because they see the changes and the conclusion of this bill as very satisfactory indeed. They had a large amount of input, and we thank the people who came before the select committee to contribute.

The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee at the beginning of this year. The period for making submissions was just over a month. There were not too many submissions, but they were substantial. We heard eight out of 10 in person, and, as the Hon David Carter indicated to the House, we worked quite hard with both the council and the association during deliberations to make sure we got it right. We received advice from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and we thank the ministry for that. I also acknowledge other members in the House who worked on this bill.

In terms of the substance of the legislation, it generally achieves three major things. First of all, the qualification requirements for veterinarians are put down clearly for all to see. The registration processes and categories for veterinarians are also stipulated in the legislation, and the disciplinary powers of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand are also outlined. There is much more clarity on the way through those registration, qualification, and disciplinary proceedings, and what has to take place.

One of the big issues that we had to work on quite hard was actually the definition of what a veterinarian was. We had to recommend that the definition of “veterinarian” in clause 4 be amended to make sure that a veterinarian is, in fact, a registered person who holds a practising certificate. Why that is so important is that we need to protect the brand. The Hon David Carter already outlined the amount of respect that New Zealand - trained veterinarians have throughout the world. We also need to make sure that practising New Zealand veterinarians are respected throughout the world. The reason for this is no more than the needs of overseas countries when, often, they call on New Zealand expertise. We saw evidence of that in Britain last year when the foot-and-mouth scare hit. The British were burning stock, investigating stock, and isolating stock, and they called on New Zealand veterinarians to consult with and work with their staff. We need to protect the brand. There is no doubt now, under this legislation, that a veterinarian is a registered person who holds a current practising certificate, and that protects our good veterinarians in this country and abroad.

In stating that, I have to point out that we had to recommend an amendment. I refer members to clause 30AA, “Interpretation”, which makes it clear that when there are complaints or disciplinary hearings the Veterinary Council can haul before it veterinarians who did not hold a current practising certificate. In other words, the fact that one’s practising certificate had lapsed does not mean that a veterinarian cannot be held accountable for poor practice on the day when he or she was carrying the practising certificate and was registered.

So if members turn to clause 30AA they will see that it states: “In this Part, specified person—(a) means a veterinarian or a person who was a veterinarian at the time of the relevant conduct; and (b) unless the context otherwise requires, includes—(i) a registered person: (ii) a registered person whose registration is suspended: (iii) a person who was registered at the time of the relevant conduct.” That means that no veterinarians who find themselves the subject of an investigation in relation to poor conduct or poor practice can say that they are not accountable to the disciplinary procedures because they are no longer registered, or were not registered at the time, or do not currently hold a practising certificate. So we have tidied up that loophole in the definitions. I am pleased that that will actually give the council the ability to take disciplinary action against a person if he or she continues to practise after their practising certificate has lapsed. They should not be doing that, and they will be held accountable.

We also had to deal with a second major issue, and that was to do with the limited registration criteria. We wanted to remove the time limits in relation to how long a person may hold limited registration. Currently, temporary registration is able to be gained for 3 months, and it can be extended to 6 months—that is under the 1994 Act. The Minister wanted to change that so that limited registration may be applied for for 12 months with an extension of a further 12 months. The reason we are now removing the time constraints—we would prefer, obviously to have temporary registration, and then vets coming under the full registration fairly quickly—is that we need to provide incentives to attract and retain overseas veterinary specialists in New Zealand. Just like every other professional area in this country, we are seeing young New Zealanders train and then going overseas.

The New Zealand taxpayer is paying for the training of architects, engineers, veterinarians, as we see here, doctors, nurses, and professional engineers, such as myself—I stay only to serve this country. All of them are trained in this country, and they are being driven overseas by high taxes, high compliance costs, and the degree of political correctness that hounds them daily in their professional lives—all those sorts of things. They are being driven overseas by all the taxes, costs, and political correctness, and it is no different for veterinarians. We had to change this clause and allow for limited registration in order to provide the incentive for overseas-trained veterinarians to come to New Zealand and stay and replace the fleeing hordes of young 20 to 25-year-old New Zealanders who are running over to Australia and the UK to set up a better life, and we are planning for 2008 when they will return to New Zealand to go to the ticker-tape parade in Queen Street to welcome a National-led Government. So that is what they are doing. They are overseas and they will be there for 3 years saving some money for that ticker-tape parade.

So we have open-ended the limited registration period instead of restricting it for 12 months to attract and retain these overseas veterinary specialists. There were some problems. We had concerns from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, which saw this as possibly creating incentives for people to reduce costs by employing veterinarians with limited registration, and we acknowledge that. But what can we do? What can we do if young New Zealanders are being driven overseas by high taxes and political correctness and are being hounded by compliance costs every day in their professional lives? There is nothing else we can do. We are subject to that phenomenon—we have seen for the last 6 years—and all we can do is extend the limited registration provisions, and we have done so.

We also looked at the rights of appeal of vets and complainants. My colleagues will expand on that particular issue, and I know that members are looking forward to hearing something of a dissertation on that.

Needless to say, New Zealand First will support this legislation. I want to commend the chairman of the Primary Production Committee, who did a great job. I am sorry that I am no longer on that select committee; my leader saw fit to put me on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I am sure it was not for punishment reasons—I could not imagine why he would want to punish me—but for any sins he may have seen me commit he has put me on that committee, and one does the best one can.

As Mr Heatley was talking about, I think it is absolutely sensible that this bill tops up the number of vets, and that we make up for the loss of those going overseas by bringing people in. Their degrees may be different but this bill allows them to have a year to align themselves with our degree, and we think that that is absolutely sensible.

I do not know whether people realise in what a high status vets are held in rural areas and the farming world; they are looked on much as the family doctor, in a way. Having been a farmer, I understand that. Farmers are often accused of being heartless—I have never seen myself that way, to be honest—but I have always looked on vets as the ones who will save a couple of thousand bucks by fixing up a cow, or whatever. They have a great status, and their expertise and education is respected in the community.

A lot of people do not understand that often veterinarians, particularly those on the edges of a rural and an urban community, in fact operate two practices. One is a large animal practice, and one is a small animal practice: urban dogs, cats, and that sort of thing. Needless to say, farmers being what they are, the large animal practice is the one that creates the most work, and certainly creates the most sweat, but it is the small animal practice that is the most profitable yet creates the most stress.

That was amply demonstrated in the submission process when we heard a submission regarding one Bianca Parker-Green. I would hate people to get the wrong idea, that I do not read my select committee papers diligently, word for word—I would have to write a letter to the chairman and admit to that—but on this occasion I have to say that I did not. When two ladies came in and described the treatment that Bianca Parker-Green had been subjected to by veterinarians, I must say that I was alarmed and concerned. That was because I thought they were talking about a family member—which indeed they were, because to those two ladies Bianca Parker-Green was a family member. In fact, as I later found out, Bianca Parker-Green was a pet cockatoo. It was a revelation to me—on coming from a rural environment—that those people were so concerned. If the two ladies in question are listening, I do not want them to be offended in any way. I do not want them to think that we were taking matters lightly, because we were not. But it really was a revelation to me, because they were talking about their cockatoo in the way that many of us would talk about a family member—because to them she was.

I did not realise that fully until our own dearly beloved Labrador had to be put down by the vet who used to treat the animals on our farm. I rang him and said: “Murray, our dog has reached the end of its days. I am not going to bring this dog to you, because I am a tender little soul and I just cannot do that.” I could not take the dog for its last trip in the car, so Murray came to our house, gave the dog a lethal injection, and that was that.

It was not until that point that I realised what the situation was with Bianca, and that we in the select committee saw another side of the veterinary profession. We had to go through that submission with the two ladies concerned in a very, very careful manner, because they were very concerned that the Veterinary Council and what was the disciplinary tribunal had not done their job properly, and we were also concerned. The fact that I had not fully read every word in my papers, and the fact that I thought the cockatoo was a human family member, somewhat confused the situation. Indeed, I wondered what part of New Zealand they were coming from, in getting a vet to attend to a female family member. But when I found out it was a cockatoo, it all fell into place. I must say that the chairman handled the job with decorum and taste, and with the dignity required of him. He kept us all in order and on line. But I want to thank those two ladies who came to the select committee with their problem and with their story of Bianca. In fact, they changed my view of veterinary practice from one with a degree of heartlessness—my being a dairy farmer—and instilled in me a much higher level of empathy. For that, I am eternally grateful.

What a pleasure it is to take a call in the second reading of the Veterinarians Bill. Can I say that the contribution from the member who just resumed his seat was most enlightening. I also thank the Primary Production Committee for the work it did. Obviously, the committee members got right into the bill. They came out with plastic gloves, put them on, and probed deeply into the matters to do with veterinarians bills—treated the bill like a cow, really.

It is always timely to remind people of the key points of this bill. The bill repeals and replaces the Veterinarians Act 1994. The aim is to provide the veterinary profession with a more modern and flexible governance structure, comparable to other professions, such as the medical profession. The key changes from the Veterinarians Act are around qualification requirements and greater Veterinary Council powers when dealing with disciplinary and competency matters.

The Veterinary Council and the New Zealand Veterinary Association, which is the professional body that represents all veterinarians, support the bill’s objectives, as it will assist the Veterinary Council in discharging its statutory obligations. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Firstly, I want to commend the Primary Production Committee for this legislation.

I have been subjected to members of the Māori Party opining the fact that one of them has had a cow of a day, and another has had a dog of a day. [Interruption] That was yesterday. They complained of being drenched with rain, herded through airports, drafted into queues, and shorn of any dignity as they were barked at while being herded into the waiting lines. All this was a result of inclement weather and a fogbound Wellington Airport. One of these members also claimed that as his plane descended into the Palmerston North Airport he thought for a moment that it would land either on the International Rugby Academy or on the veterinary school at Massey University.

As a former dairy farmer, I do have some hands-on knowledge and experience with the veterinary profession. I remember a time when I was quite intimately involved in the art of artificial insemination of a dairy herd and treating cows with mastitis or bloat. I may be described as a bit of a lay vet—although I may have appeared to be confident, I was always apprehensive that my knowledge, which was gained through practical experience, might not necessarily be sufficient to ensure safe practice. I was therefore always appreciative of the skill and expertise of our local vet. He had a practical, common-sense manner, and he was determined from the outset that nothing but his best was good enough. It is a type of attitude that comes from the love of a job, the love of animals, and the love of the land.

The Māori Party recognises the need for a competent, professional veterinary workforce to service the needs of rural New Zealand and the livestock industry. We are acutely aware that rural New Zealand has the biggest shortage of vets, and we are aware as to what this will mean in terms of the protection and quality of stock. This is significant, as vets play a very important risk management role, which is vital for the agricultural and farming sector. A competent workforce is absolutely necessary in order to reduce the increased risk of disease outbreaks, including serious diseases like foot-and-mouth and TB in rural areas where vets are thinly spread. This is essential for the ongoing development of our primary industries. We also know that the shortage of qualified vets has posed a real problem for the agricultural sector, with its heavy reliance on animal health and welfare, and the bill helps to solve those acute shortages.

The Māori Party is supportive of the changes proposed to regulate practising veterinarians to improve the registration process and categories in order to attract and retain veterinary surgeons. We also know that initiatives taken in the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill, which was discussed earlier today, will contribute to retaining our specialist students onshore. When vet students complete their studies, the accumulated debt for each student is about $50,000, and that debt has been a major driver for many of them to move offshore. That has contributed to the current extreme shortage of rural vets in New Zealand. We are also supportive of the move to replace the 5-year vet science degree with a 4-year course. This is a significant move that will help to solve the acute shortages within the sector without impacting negatively on vets’ professionalism and skills.

We are supportive of the moves to reform the regulation of the profession of veterinarians. We are pleased with the changes that have come through the Primary Production Committee, and we commend the work that has been done to offer limited and provisional registration, and also to seek professional standards and monitor performance.

During the process of considering the bill, a number of anecdotes were passed on from experts in the field—the literal field as well as the professional field. The bill sets in place certain academic and English language requirements in order for people to be registered by the council as a veterinarian. I did not realise until that moment that the only language animals understand is English. Given the requirement in the bill, I can only assume that English is the language of the animal world. A registered person who holds a current practising certificate will have received quite specific competency testing in areas such as communications skills. We have heard horror stories of how some farmers have gone to vets asking for their animal to be fixed—meaning to have their general health improved, their illness treated, or their wound healed—and I ask members to imagine their horror when they realise that the professional has interpreted “fixed” as meaning that the animal should be castrated or put down. It is a bit late, then, to ask to see the registration papers of the offending vet. That is obviously an area where the disciplinary powers of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand will come into their own.

We are aware that, currently, the situation in heartland New Zealand is less than positive for situations of abuse or neglect in respect of animal welfare. We are aware that even when cases of unprofessional conduct or severe neglect have been taken to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, it has not had the teeth to take effective action against recalcitrant vets. The vet practices that we have spoken with told us about clients that have come from other vet practices that are dodgy, that have overcharged the clients, and whose practices have been inferior. In extreme cases, severe negligence with regard to animals, careless practices, or inappropriate use of drugs should have resulted in criminal prosecutions, but the lack of ability of the council to enforce the law has resulted in both frustration amongst the profession and the concern that the profession is being brought into disrepute.

Our informants welcome the bill, particularly the aspect that relates to the increased powers of the council to discipline appropriately. The bill makes it quite clear that the council’s primary function is to regulate practising veterinarians, to deal extensively with discipline and competency issues, to be able to suspend and withdraw practising certificates, and to impose conditions on practising certificates.

One of the issues that our informants also raised, however, is the composition of the council itself. The bill continues the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, which was established under the 1994 Act, with broadly the same powers and membership. The membership consists of three vets who are selected by veterinarians, two lay persons and one veterinarian who are appointed by the Minister, and the person who is responsible for the veterinary science academic programme at Massey University. It was felt that because of the size of the vet community, a quasi-judicial appointment would have given greater balance, thus freeing the council from accusations of subjective decision-making. It was also suggested that lay persons should possess significant interest in, or understanding or experience of, a primary sector, and that the vets appointed should have a standing and reputation within the veterinary profession. The Māori Party is pleased to support a bill that will put in place moves to ensure that the veterinarian practice continues to demonstrate high standards. Ultimately, this will be in the interests of the animals of our country, and will ensure that the public can have confidence in the profession.

The Veterinarians Bill is very important legislation, and it ties in with other professions that we looked at in the last Parliament, such as architects and engineers. The bill safeguards the public through a way of registration, which we believe is important. The bill repeals the Veterinarians Act 1994, and, as I have mentioned, the key provisions in the commentary relate to qualification requirements. It is always good to set a benchmark so whoever is dealing with a profession knows specifically what the qualification, background, and experience is of someone who holds that qualification, and that he or she is registered.

So that is the safeguard that the public would expect of somebody in the veterinarian profession. It also gives disciplinary powers to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, so there has to be a body that will oversee how its members should behave. We also see that the definition of veterinarian has been amended so that a veterinarian must be a registered person who holds a current practising certificate. That applies to a number of professions. In my earlier days I was a registered valuer, and I required a registered valuing certificate that would be renewed annually. Otherwise, I was not able to call myself a registered valuer; I could call myself a valuer, but I could not call myself a registered valuer.

So that is the safeguard that is important for members of a society as a whole who want to deal with the profession, and who want to know that whomever they deal with meets certain minimum and mandatory qualifications and experience requirements. The same would apply to a chartered accountant, as opposed to an accountant. So we have chartered accountants. We also see that in areas where there has been some concern, like in the motor vehicle industry. It is so easy to deal with a motor vehicle dealer, and to be able to buy a vehicle, but there are no safeguards. There are no safeguards when one buys a vehicle, but dealing with a licensed motor vehicle dealer gives the protection that one would expect. This Veterinarians Bill refers to qualification requirements, and brings into place an annual registration format so that those who deal with vets are protected.

There is also an amendment regarding the purpose of complaints, disciplinary hearings, and medical and competence assessments. The committee recommended that “a specified person includes both a veterinarian as defined in clause 4, and any person whose conduct has led to a complaint for an event when the person was registered …”. So the council has the ability to take disciplinary action against a person if his or her practising certificate has lapsed but the person continues to practice. Once again, I come back to that very important point about giving protection and meeting those minimum standards that are so crucial to give credence to the industry.

In the area that I represent, Piako, vets are a very important part of our community. This profession is having great difficulty in attracting the number of vets required. We have a number of farmers in the House. Eric Roy, David Bennett, and David Carter, who are in the Chamber at the moment, are farmers in their own right who understand the importance of having access to a veterinarian. The profession is having trouble attracting veterinarians. There was a big recruitment drive in the Matamata area, where I live, and we now have a number of vets from overseas, especially South Africa. We also have a vet from the United States.

The equine industry is another very important area where the demand for specialist vets has become very, very important. As I said in the first reading debate back in February this year, in Matamata a hospital has been established specifically for horses. There is a demand for specialised services that those engaged in the equine industry are able to use in their profession in order to add value to the racing industry, in particular. So practising vets who are out in the regions—in rural and heartland New Zealand—are very important.

I also identify the issue of inspections and freezing works. It is veterinarians who sign off on carcasses that are ready for export. Without having those qualified people to meet those very high standards and protect the very important export earnings that we get from the rural sector, we would be missing out. The Hon David Carter mentioned in his address just a moment ago the importance of the primary industry in New Zealand, and how it is still New Zealand’s No. 1 export earner. If we look at vets in that light, we see how important they are to our food processing industries. This bill maintains and protects an asset, and will make sure that our reputation in the marketplace will not be disadvantaged because we do not have specialist vets.

We also see a huge demand now for those in small-animal practice. I was with some people at the weekend whose daughter is off to Massey, specifically to study veterinary science. It is a very, very difficult course to get into. However, she is committed. I asked her what area of practice she would be interested in moving into, once she graduates. The response did not surprise me, when I thought it through at the end of the day. She is particularly interested in dealing with small animals such as cats and dogs. There is a huge and growing demand for those vets, but people who specialise in those areas are not necessarily coming back to rural areas, because there is such a demand for them in urban areas. We see then that the profession has been under pressure to attract and hold vets and to meet the standards that are so important to very important industries. It is a very, very important profession. Those in the veterinary field have told me on numerous occasions how difficult it is.

Our graduates who come out of the vet school have a proud reputation. Members may recall that many years ago we did not have a vet school; if one wanted to be a vet, one had to go over to Werribee, just outside Melbourne, to study. Our proud reputation is well recognised around the world, and vets can attract very good positions wherever they go.

National is supporting this legislation. We did so in the first reading and at the select committee, and do so now. Other issues have come up. My colleague Phil Heatley articulated very well some of the major issues that came out of the Primary Production Committee, but I will just highlight, in my last remaining minutes, an area that he did not mention, the rights of appeal. There was a suggestion by submitters that there should be a change to clause 56, “Right of appeal”. The select committee decided that that was not necessary, because veterinarians have that right anyway. They can appeal to a District Court. That is the safeguard to ensure that veterinarians have a relatively inexpensive means of appealing a council’s decision. That is fair; that is about equity; that is about one’s day in court. Vets actually have that protection, and the select committee was happy to support that without having to change the bill.

Another issue relates to complainants being able to challenge the complaints assessment committee process by judicial review in the High Court or to pursue the veterinarian concerned using the law of contract or tort. Those are the protections.

National is very happy to support this legislation. It is important for New Zealand, as an exporting country, and for those of us who represent rural constituencies that the veterinary practice is held in very high esteem. Veterinarians are a credit; they make a huge contribution, and we want to give them all the support we can.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions