Veterinarians Bill

I move, That the Veterinarians Bill be now read a third time. This bill was tabled in the House in December 2004. It had its first reading on 17 February 2005 and was referred to the Primary Production Committee on that day, with the instruction that the committee present its final report before 14 June 2005. The select committee reported the bill back to the House on 14 June 2005. The bill has now had its second reading and has passed through the Committee stage.

The veterinary profession makes a significant contribution to the New Zealand economy and society. In the livestock-based industries veterinarians are involved both on and off the farm. Veterinarians play a vital role in providing assurance to domestic and international consumers that our livestock-based food products are safe to consume. Many are also involved in biosecurity risk management. Urban veterinarians provide an important service, of course, to the owners of the many thousands of companion animals and pets in New Zealand society. Many people living in towns and cities know their veterinarian as well as, if not better than, their family doctor.

The veterinarian profession, through the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, initially sought this bill. The profession wanted a more modern and flexible legislative framework, both to reflect the changing nature of the profession and to enable more overseas trained veterinarians to practise in New Zealand while still maintaining the high standard of practice as required under the current legislation, the Veterinarians Act 1994. The bill provides for that. I might say, as an aside, that it was clear to parliamentary counsel when they came to writing the bill itself that the former Act, the 1994 Act, was in fact outmoded and needed to be modernised, and that is why so much change was made in the drafting process. I think that has served the veterinarians and the bill itself—and the clarity of it—well.

The bill provides the council with a greater amount of flexibility in carrying out the purpose of the bill—that is, to protect the public interest by aiming to ensure that veterinarians are competent to practise. The bill also provides for a greater degree of flexibility for the council in determining which veterinary training institutions and qualifications it will recognise for full registration. Those persons who do not hold a qualification recognised by the council but who have obtained a qualification of at least 4 years’ duration can seek registration after passing or completing a council-prescribed examination or an approved postgraduate training programme. Apart from that added flexibility, however, this will also encourage more overseas-trained veterinarians to seek registration in New Zealand, which will, hopefully, ease the current shortage of veterinarians in rural practice.

Another significant change in this legislative framework is the limited registration provision. This provision enables veterinarians who are highly trained in one area but who do not have an all-round veterinary science training to work in New Zealand in their area of expertise. This would help some New Zealand employers who are looking for a particular type of veterinary expertise to find suitable employees more readily. Some overseas veterinary schools are now already offering specialisation in certain areas of practice before a student completes the full veterinary degree. The new limited registration provision would enable such graduates to seek registration in New Zealand, whereas, under the old legislative regime they could not have done so.

This bill is designed, as far as is possible, to be future-proof in terms of the changes in veterinary training that are expected in coming years, some of which are already taking place. The bill also allows the council the flexibility to set its own fees, enabling it more effectively to match its financial resources with its fluctuating needs. I could not understand, I must say, some of the discussion that took place during the Committee stage, when National Party members criticised the Veterinary Council for charging fees to manage its own affairs.

While the bill introduces more flexibility for the council, it also ensures that a number of key safeguards for veterinarians and consumers are in place. The requirement to consult affected parties is one such safeguard. For instance, when deciding whether to issue limited registration the council would have to develop scopes of practice for which limited registration would be permitted. Such scopes of practice are to be developed in consultation with relevant statutory agencies, such as the New Zealand Food Safety Authority.

To maintain confidence in our veterinary service the council needs powers to ensure that veterinarians maintain their high standard of competence. The bill enables the council to prescribe and implement minimum standards for continued registration. The bill also introduces a range of options for the council to use when dealing with competency and disciplinary matters—for example, the council’s ability to impose conditions of practice on a veterinarian’s registration and/or practising certificate. I consider that this bill strikes an effective balance between giving more powers and flexibility to the Veterinary Council and including the necessary safeguards to protect the public and the national interest.

I wish the Veterinary Council of New Zealand well in implementing its new legislative framework. I expect it will serve New Zealand’s veterinary professionals and their clients well, both now and in the future. I believe they will all benefit from this bill, and I commend its passage to the House.

As we draw the debate on the Veterinarians Bill to a close, National will, of course, support this legislation. I have to say that after the contribution both through the select committee process and during the superb debate we have had over the last hour or two in the Committee of the whole House, this legislation will be far better for the interest that has been taken in it by National members of Parliament.

At the outset I want to correct the Minister, Jim Anderton, who claimed that there was criticism of the Veterinary Council from this side of the House, because that is absolutely incorrect. In fact I say at the outset that because of the huge input, both from the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association, I am confident we are passing legislation that will stand the industry in very good stead.

It is worth noting that this legislation left the House in a mess after its first reading. As the Hon Jim Anderton said, that was indeed 17 February 2005. We were given a report-back date of 14 June, and the Primary Production Committee met diligently with assistance from the Veterinary Council and the association, to make sure we reported it back by 14 June. It is not the National Opposition’s fault that it has subsequently sat on the Order Paper for a full 6 months before finally, after much begging and gnashing of teeth, the Government has seen fit to pass the legislation almost at the latest possible date for it to be of any use to the profession.

I commented that the legislation left the House in a mess, and there is no doubt about that. Anybody pursuing the bill will see that the legislation was dramatically changed during the select committee process. Why that was necessary is that the previous Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Jim Sutton, who was responsible for drafting this legislation in the first instance, absolutely failed to consult with the profession of the vets. That is just an arrogant and stupid thing for that Minister to have done. The Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association, on many occasions, wanted to be involved with the original drafting of the legislation, but because the previous Minister, the Hon Jim Sutton, was so out of touch with his portfolio area—

💬 Christopher Finlayson: And his seat.

Well, he is certainly out of touch with his seat. Look what happened there. I say that it was a failing on the part of the Minister that he was not prepared to listen to sensible contributions. Consequently when the bill came before the select committee, one of the things the committee agreed to do, with all parties on the committee being responsible for this decision—but it is a technique that the Primary Production Committee has now used on a couple of occasions—was that we actually got the various bodies, in this case the Veterinary Association and the Veterinary Council, to come in and work through with us and the officials. It was a lot of hard work by the select committee, but during that process we have now been able to present back legislation that I think is vastly improved.

I want to pay tribute to all members of that select committee. Of course, we had Janet Mackey as the deputy chair, a member who has now retired from this House, but a member who worked diligently. She was the Labour Party deputy chair of that select committee. She worked diligently with us to try to improve the legislation. Earlier we had a debate about which Labour Party lackey might have been a suitable lay appointment on the Veterinary Council, and her name was missed. So I want to take the opportunity of suggesting that there is a person who has actually been through the select committee process with this legislation. I think she would be a very good appointment. I realise that she is not in favour with the sisterhood at the moment, so therefore she may not be considered by level nine of the Beehive.

I pay tribute to the work of Clayton Cosgrove. He did not interfere with the select committee process much. He came along, had not studied his papers—although that was typical of the way Clayton Cosgrove worked. He brought along his mail, his correspondence, and his local Christchurch Press, so he did not interfere with the process, and that made it a lot easier.

I saw Harry Duynhoven earlier in the House today. He came over to me and said he wished he could take a call in the debate, but he had been instructed not to. So I tell Harry Duynhoven that he made a valuable contribution.

I move now to two further members who are no longer part of this new Parliament, Gerry Eckhoff from the Otago area, a former ACT member, and Ian Ewen-Street, a very valuable member of the Green Party on that select committee—in fact the only valuable member of the Green Party I have ever managed to meet. Of course, Phil Heatley gave us assistance, and he has been a tremendous help in the debate tonight. The Hon Dover Samuels was available to take calls in the House earlier in the evening but has not been allowed to make a contribution. Tariana Turia made a valuable contribution when she was there, and finally Doug Woolerton. He was the one who delicately broached the subject tonight of Bianca, the cockatoo—

💬 Katherine Rich: Sulphur-crested!

A sulphur-crested cockatoo—I do not know my birds as well as I perhaps should. But I thank Doug Woolerton for his humour and involvement in the select committee process.

I did move the odd amendment through the night to try to see whether we could make the bill even better. I must admit that my success rate was not very high. I thought that in the spirit of Christmas the odd amendment might have been passed with a bit of acclamation from the Labour Party, but no, the meanness displayed to my amendments—well, I guess we have to learn to live with that.

But we have certainly had a very spirited debate. We have seen members of the National Party caucus make substantial contributions. We have heard about a number of affiliations that the National Party caucus has with the profession, and the role that the vets play in our society. We had the excellent contribution from Jo Goodhew, who succeeded the previous lacklustre Minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton. She was able to tell us all about her cat, Hogan. Then we had Jacqui Dean, the new member for Otago, giving a spirited description of Sally the dog—the dog that used to chase tennis balls. We forgot to ask whether it was tennis balls around Bayfield High School, but I think certainly a number of tennis balls were chased by Sally, who met a very unfortunate end underneath a motorcade on State Highway 1. But I do take the opportunity of stating to the House that Jacqui Dean did not go so far as to say it was “the motorcade” that received such important attention from the media this year.

The veterinary profession is extremely important to New Zealand, and that is why I am pleased that the House has spent a considerable amount of time on this legislation. This country is totally dependent on agriculture. That is a fact that many on the Labour Party side of the House tend to miss, but we are totally dependent on agriculture. For agriculture to work well in this country we need a sound and strong veterinary profession. I express concern in the closing stage of this debate about the number of vets available to practice in New Zealand. We know we are qualifying a lot of vets, but many younger people are taking the opportunity to earn substantially more money overseas and pay less tax, and who can blame them?

But a particular area of concern to me is that we, as parliamentarians, need to keep a note on how many vets actually choose rural practice. Because if we see a decline in rural practice by veterinarians, as we have seen a decline in rural practice by the medical profession, then that puts our economy under considerable risk.

I want to conclude by paying special thanks to the role of the Veterinary Council—Julie Haggie, its chief executive officer, and Ron Gibson, its chair. I thank those people for their contribution and advice during the select committee process. I note that Julie is still in the House, having been here throughout the total debate and taking an interest. Finally I thank Murray Gibb, the chief executive of the New Zealand Veterinary Association, for his advice to the select committee. We have succeeded in getting a much-improved piece of legislation that I think will stand the veterinary profession in good stead for a number of years.

I rise to speak in the third reading of this bill, just as I did in a previous reading. I certainly also listened with great interest to the contribution of members of Parliament during the Committee stage of the bill. I think, for the sake of those who are listening to this House tonight, that it is very important to focus on what this bill is about.

The Veterinarians Bill repeals the Veterinarians Act 1994, which, among other things, sets out the requirements to register as a veterinarian in New Zealand. That very, very important issue is addressed by this bill. The legislation is to be implemented by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, and the bill aims to take a principled approach to the regulatory framework for veterinarians rather than a more prescriptive approach. The approach is intended to provide greater flexibility for the council to implement the legislative framework. I note that the key provisions of the bill relate to the qualification requirement for veterinarians, the registration processes for and categories of veterinarians, the disciplinary powers of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, and I note the commentary on the bill focuses on the main issues examined in it. I will talk later on about the very critical importance of vets to New Zealand and the importance surrounding that branding issue.

I was personally touched by the sincerity and focus that members of the Opposition had, particularly in terms of naming potential appointees to the Veterinary Council. Although I think it is a compliment that they must have such a high view of the members they were naming, I do think it is very important that we should, of course, look further afield than members of this House. I thank those who nominated me as a potential member of the council for their kind words and kind thoughts, but I think we do need to look very extensively for potential appointees. I think a lot of people outside this Parliament could do the job equally as well as people like myself, if not absolutely better.

I think the Opposition may wish to reflect on the people it did nominate, because I can obviously think of a number of people in the Opposition who may have time on their hands later in this term. It is a contribution, for example, that Dr Brash could possibly make later in the term, in view of his vast array of skills and experiences. He, of course,—and I think this is obvious and I predict this here in Parliament, in the closing stages of the year 2005—will have time on his hands. I do think we on the Government side of the House will certainly be going to the Minister to say that would be a fitting role for Dr Brash, in terms of his service to our nation.

I thought the contribution made by the member for Otago—I have not heard her speak much in this House before; I know she has spoken, obviously, but I was not in the Chamber at the time—touched on a very important and valid point, which is the role of the family pet. We often underestimate just how meaningful and how important pets are. People do genuinely love their animals and they are an integral part of the family. We look at other people and we say that they are mad; we wonder how they could like a dog as much as they do. But, having had a dearly loved German shepherd in our family that we kept alive as long as possible until the vet came and said that it was time for our dog to exit this life, I can certainly relate to the member for Otago’s sincerity and anguish. She highlighted just how important the family pet is, and I was personally quite moved by her commentary on and wonderful insight into and observation of just how meaningful pets are.

I have been with my kids when the Siamese cats and the German shepherd had to go, and they were taken along to the vet for the injection. That is a skill in human relations and sometimes we underestimate it, but I think it is a critical part of a vet’s empathy and training. Obviously we want children to be brought up to have a love of and a care for animals. I think that is a reflection of their humanity. I do not underestimate how important pets are. I want to go on record as thanking the member for Otago for her very good contribution and observation. Of course, she highlighted the actual importance of this bill.

I want to move on and take the opportunity to thank the Primary Production Committee for its good work. I think, sadly, to a degree the chair of the committee, perhaps unwittingly, got into some point-scoring, which diminished the wonderful work he did. I will pay him a compliment. I know he is not an electorate member, and certainly he will have time at his disposal. I understand that the member stood in the Banks Peninsula electorate. I have looked at the map. I saw that electorate did not go blue; it is a very red electorate. But certainly I will be gracious and compliment the chair of the committee, and also the other members of it. I thank my good mate Clayton Cosgrove for the wonderful work he did, and for his focus. I also thank Doug Woolerton. He is a very good member of the committee.

Certainly I do compliment the chair on his very, very gracious words with regard to the deputy chair of the committee in the previous term, who is our good mate on the Government side of the House—and I think on all sides of the House—Janet Mackey. Yes, there is possibly a role for her on the Veterinary Council. Whether Janet Mackey would be willing to play a role on it is food for thought. She was, in my view, a very good example of an excellent member who covered a huge geographical area in her electorate.

I say, without being at all patronising or condescending—which I am not—to the Opposition members, that if they want to learn how to be excellent, wonderful constituency members of Parliament and how to cover areas with a huge geographical spread, they should look no further than to Janet Mackey. She had an exceptionally down-to-earth approach. She was very, very close to the people who did not have that view. I say to the new Opposition members, and also to Sandra Goudie, that they should stop and watch to make sure they do not get a born-to-rule mentality. If I can give some advice to the new members of the National Party, in the context of this bill and of the contributions they made on it, it is not to get a born-to-rule mentality. Janet Mackey is a very, very good role model for them.

In the time that I have left, I want to say it is absolutely important that we clearly keep the brand, if one likes, of veterinarians. There is an item in the report about branding and focus. This is why I agree with previous speakers. I represent an electorate that is at the heart of the Waikato, which is a major export and rural agricultural area. Of course, as a member of Parliament for that area I am deeply interested in this bill. I want to join other members in complimenting the Veterinary Council of New Zealand and the Veterinarians Association. They do excellent work, and they have a very, very important role in this country, which literally lives or dies by its ability to produce and export products that come from our farms and from the land. I think that this bill is very, very important. I know that during the Committee stage all members treated this bill with absolute seriousness, because it is a very important bill.

I say to the Opposition members that if they want to have a good advocate for rural people, quite frankly Richard Worth, the previous member for Epsom, may leave some members for dead. I found more passion in his contribution than in the contributions of some of the so-called provincial members. Richard Worth is from an inner-city seat. I compliment him tonight. Frankly, some of the newer members of the National Party could learn from Richard Worth’s passion and interest. He made a very, very credible and very interesting contribution during the Committee stage. I think it is the culmination of his esteemed legal career that he should arrive in this House as an Opposition spokesperson and make the contribution he did on the Veterinarians Bill. I compliment Richard Worth on that.

I will close by saying that being a member of the Veterinary Council would be a good role for Dr Brash. It would be an honour for him, and I will be promoting that later in this term when he is looking for a new job.

I think those scathing comments from Martin Gallagher about Moana Mackey’s performance in the last election in losing her mother’s seat were unnecessary. I think he could have been much more charitable to Moana Mackey about her attempt to win that seat. This has been very much cross-party legislation, on which the parties have worked together—National has voted with Labour on most of it tonight—and for him to attack not National members but members within his own caucus is entirely unnecessary. I have a lot of respect for Martin Gallagher, and I am disappointed about that. Anne Tolley did a good job, but that should not take anything away from Moana Mackey, who genuinely ran for that seat, and who wanted to represent those people. To compare her with her mother is entirely unfair and unfortunate.

On the other hand I would like to acknowledge my colleagues—not cut them down, as that member chose to do with his colleagues. I acknowledge four colleagues in particular—and I do not intend to cause offence to those whom I leave out. This is their first urgency, and they have been debating the Veterinarians Bill since roughly 4 o’clock. Those members are Jacqui Dean, Jackie Blue, Jo Goodhew, and Kate Wilkinson, and they have been involved in every single—

💬 Hon David Carter: What about Chester Borrows?

I am coming to the gentlemen. Those four, in particular, have been involved in every single part of the bill. I have kept a record, and they have risen to debate every part. [Interruption] I will be tabling the record. They contributed as they saw fit, and I acknowledge them for that—we really appreciate it. They also took the time to laugh at all our jokes—and they are doing it again—and we have appreciated that, and I would like to acknowledge them. Of course, Chris Tremain, the member for Napier, has been here, and Chester Borrows, the wonderful member for Whanganui. We have been surrounded by support, and I guess David Carter and I are quite overwhelmed. It has been quite wonderful, and I thank those members very much for that.

We would like to acknowledge the Veterinary Association, also, and the Veterinary Council, which contributed so much to the legislation—of course, not tonight in this Chamber but at the select committee. They were there, we consulted them, and we brought in their experience. Clearly, most of us are not vets—the Hon Pete Hodgson is the only member of the House who was a veterinary surgeon—so that advice was much appreciated, and also, of course, the advice of the Meat Board.

We do need the bill to pass this evening. As David Carter pointed out, it has languished on the Table of the House for 6 months. The Primary Production Committee worked very, very hard from February of this year through to June to move it, and for it then to languish on the Order Paper for 6 months has been quite soul-destroying for the Veterinary Association and the Veterinary Council, which wanted us to get on with it to ensure that they could register vets for next year, instead of having to wait a further 18 months or 2 years. But finally we have forced the Government to put the bill through under urgency, and we are delighted with the outcome.

Issues in the bill that we challenged at the select committee included, particularly, the limited registration criteria. The Minister of Agriculture was hell-bent on making sure we could have South African vets, United States vets, Canadian vets, and European vets come into the country. We welcome them, too. Labour is hell-bent on bringing them into the country, but it does not acknowledge all the other professionals, including vets, who train here but leave to go overseas—600 a week—because of the high taxes, the political correctness, the compliance costs, and the headaches they face in practising here. Vets are leaving New Zealand. We have invested in them and they are going overseas. Architects are leaving, doctors are leaving, teachers are leaving, nurses are leaving—everybody is leaving. It is only the loyal National Party members who are willing to stay and fight. We see that all the time. Vets are leaving, too. In the bill, the Minister is trying to encourage vets from other nations to come over and serve our rural communities, and our inner-city communities with small-animal surgeries, yet he is ignoring the plight of the vets who train here. The National Party makes a plea to the Government to look after our own, as well as looking after the interests of those whom we are seeking to attract to this country.

National will support the bill, as it has done through all its stages, and I commend it to the Committee.

It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in the third reading debate on the Veterinarians Bill. The bill, of course, repeals the Veterinarians Act 1994. I guess I see things slightly differently from the Minister in charge of the bill, Jim Anderton, when we talk about where the bill has come from.

The history of the bill, as I understand it, is that it went to the Primary Production Committee in a pretty disrespectful state. The reason for that was that the sector had not been consulted when the bill was drafted. The former Minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton, had not sought the views of the sector. In fact, when we look at the document, and at the many, many changes within it, we see that the clauses of the bill with no changes are the clauses that survived from the last legislation. Therefore, there was no need to consult the sector on that part—it was already a done deal.

The primary production sector is very, very important to New Zealand, and the veterinarians are very important to that primary production sector. But the very Minister who was involved, the then Minister of Agriculture, did not seek the views of the sector when he brought the bill to the House. After that, the bill went to the Primary Production Committee, and I certainly commend its work under the very able chairmanship of National’s Hon David Carter. An enormous amount of work was put in. One only has to look at the pages of the document to see the work that went into making the bill fit to come into the House again today. Thank goodness the veterinarians will get what they want. They will see the bill passed by Christmas, because we will certainly support it.

We have already heard about the blue tide that has swept through New Zealand, and we see many new members from rural provincial New Zealand in the House tonight who are supporting the bill. I just remind those present that Part 2, which deals with registration, was a very important part because it sought the ability for us to encourage overseas vets to come and practise in New Zealand. Why do we need overseas vets practising in New Zealand? It is quite simple: many of the registered vets from New Zealand are leaving our shores. We know about the more than 600 New Zealanders who go to Australia each week. We know about those highly skilled, highly qualified people. Well, amongst them are vets. We know that those vets are going because of high taxes, compliance costs, and complications like the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. We know there are approximately 500 rural vets. My own vet is married to a German vet, and I understand that they cannot wait to see the passing of the bill, because they work in rural provincial New Zealand and they know the problems involved in getting extra vets.

We know that the submissions to the Primary Production Committee numbered about 10. Massey University certainly took the time to submit that it was in support of the bill, and it gave its ideas in the submission process. We also know that half of the submissions were from pet owners, which brings me to Part 3. The provisions in this very important part mean that pet owners can be sure that they will have a process by which to address any concerns they may have. This afternoon and this evening we heard about Bianca, we heard about my very own Hogan, and we heard about Gee, Sally, and Tommy. Again, I reiterate what I said before: the reasons we hear those emotive stories about our pets is that pets are second only to children when it comes to the emotional needs of the owners, or parents. So we must have legislation that clearly sets out how we can keep them safe, and how we can be sure that there is a process to follow if we feel that our pets, just like our children, are not safe.

Part 4 deals with the make-up of the Veterinary Council and what it is charged with doing. The council examines, registers, advises the Minister on issues like education, talks to other countries about reciprocal arrangements—and by golly, we need those if we are going to encourage vets to register in New Zealand—hears complaints, and prescribes standards. We heard that there are some layperson vacancies on the council. I want to put forward my own nomination for a layperson vacancy. The Hon Jim Sutton has indicated that he is looking for a job, so who better? He has an agricultural background and he probably has some understanding of what to expect from a vet. [Interruption] And Ann Hercus—the council does need two laypeople. I also note that some disenchanted National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) markers will be looking for something to keep them interested after they have decided never to mark again. [Interruption] Road markers? That would be pretty sad, after marking NCEA exams, but it would be much simpler and much easier, and at least they would know what the rules were.

In conclusion, I just say that this bill is very, very important to the National Party members gathered here, to the veterinarians of New Zealand, and to New Zealand as a country, because we are so dependent upon the primary production sector. We know that the shortages of vets are in the rural areas. It is vitally important that this bill gets the attention it deserves, that we get it through by Christmas, and that we can say that this is a good deal done.

I rise to support this bill. Veterinary science is a remarkable profession, and what a profession it will be as a consequence of vets enjoying the benefits of Labour’s remarkable student loan scheme. It is hard to imagine a more meaningful contribution that members on this side of the House have made to that profession. However, in thinking about that profession I would say that it is necessary also to expedite the return of the kindergarten teaching profession, because there is much work to be done amongst the speakers from the Opposition we have heard tonight. They need that sort of assistance.

The Opposition has shown a great deal of interest this evening in the role and importance of a vet. Of course, I am reminded of the role a vet plays in putting down the family pet. We have heard a great many accounts of cats and dogs, but when I look across the Chamber I wonder what pet National members are preparing to put down in their obsession with this bill. Is it an English Pointer? Is it Mr English, who, upon hearing the guns during shooting, would flee, constantly stiff and apprehensive? Or is it Mr Brownlee, who is living proof that climate change is dislocating a range of species—not the least of which is the beached walrus? What role will the vet have there? Let me continue. Perhaps it is a Blue Heeler.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The whole House knows that I am a very sensitive member, and I understand that Mr Jones was attempting to insult me with his comments. Apparently—according, in particular, to the ACT party—I am also a very slow member, but I do not understand what Mr Jones was saying. I wonder, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether you could indulge the House by allowing Mr Jones an extension to his 10 minutes, so that he might explain his insult and so that I can feel the full brunt of his attack upon me.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank Mr Brownlee. He was entitled to raise the point of order if he felt offended. I think he is drawing a long bow, really, to think that Mr Jones made the comment to him or about him, even though Mr Jones might have meant it to be that way.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The man just stood up and said that I was a beached walrus.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he did not. I heard it, and I say that he did not. But I am prepared to accept the member’s point of order. I do not want it to continue on. I do not accept that Mr Jones made the comment about the member or to the member but, if the member is offended, I have no doubt that Mr Jones will withdraw it.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: No, I am not offended; I am simply in need of further explanation.

There was no intention to offer offence. Firstly, the walrus was a fictional thing. [Interruption] Oh, I can hear the Tauranga tugger—or is it tigger? The reference to the walrus can hardly have been offensive, because a walrus is not indigenous.

Let me continue on with the other roles that vets obviously have, according to the discussions we have heard this evening. Well, my fellow representative from Whangarei, Mr Heatley, during the course of the evening generated some heat but precious little light in relation—

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is debating material, and there are outrageous claims. I tell Mr Jones that for him to say that he is a representative of Whangarei is an outrageous claim. He is a Labour Party list lackey, and that is what he should describe himself as. [Interruption]

The tugger has an unusual interest in the crotch, but more about that at a later date—

💬 Bob Clarkson: Point of order—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just say to Mr Jones that I think we have had enough references to members in the House. Those references should not be made that way.

We have heard a number of references this evening about the importance of the veterinary profession. Obviously, Labour is of the view that this bill advances vets and protects the brand, unlike the view of a host of members of the Opposition, who historically through their policies, have undermined the brands of guilds, trades, and professions. Through the removal of the appropriate recognition and the necessary training and funding, those trades and professions have degenerated over the last 10 years. That is why this bill is an overdue improvement on the way in which those things were treated in the early to mid 1990s.

The bill also refers to how it will be necessary to improve the number of professionals working in areas that are not represented purely by members of the National Party. Those areas are also very well known to Labour and represented by us. This bill is a good idea and will not only improve the prospect of our having more vets—indeed, that will occur through our student loans policy—but also provide an opportunity for those who come from overseas to have their professional qualifications and talents, perhaps gained from other parts and warmer climes, recognised. Those qualifications and talents will be used in the pursuit of animal health and rural infrastructure and, in general, contribute to the pastoral economy, which is something this party is proud to have driven fantastically well. Opposition members will hear a great deal more about that over the next 3 years, as they sit very lonely in a neglected part of the Chamber.

💬 Hon David Carter: It won’t take that long.

Mr Carter says that it will not take that long, but this evening we have been subjected to extremely long and tedious speeches that show that the Chihuahua of the House from Piako did not understand that a very well-trained pet knows when to respond to a question. If National members had not pursued the strategy they pursued this evening, we would have had question time tomorrow.

There are a number of doctors in the National Party, as well, and I am particularly interested in the reference that the proposed legislation makes to emulating the qualifications framework and process that doctors go through.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)