Veterinarians Bill

The principal area that I have as a matter of concern is clause 6, “Entitlement to registration”. Logically, a lot of it makes sense. The person must pay a prescribed fee. I am not sure how that fee is set and what it is for, but OK, there has to be membership of some recognised organisation. The person must have a recognised veterinary science degree or a diploma from a recognised institution. That all makes sense. We are, after all, dealing with matters that relate to animal health.

In many respects a veterinarian has a more difficult role than that of a doctor. When someone goes to the doctor, he or she can say: “I’ve got a pain. It hurts me here. It throbs. My temperature is up.”, or whatever. But when we take an animal to a vet, the animal does not have a dialogue with the vet. So in many ways the vet has to be able to interpret signs of ill health in a much more difficult arena than doctors do.

💬 Phil Heatley: Doctors don’t make house calls. Vets do.

That is another point. Vets are required to make house calls today.

The point I wish to make is that I really disagree quite strongly with clause 6(1)(b), which states: “(b) a veterinary science degree or diploma of not less than 4 years of study and 1 or more of the following: …”. The point that I would like the Minister to respond to is why we have a designated time that it takes to learn. The principle should be based on what qualifications one has, what area of learning one has, and what exams one has passed, not on how long it took to get those qualifications. To me, it seems an absolute nonsense that we are prescribing—no matter what people’s qualifications are—that they have to have studied for 4 years. Ultimately, the qualification is important, not how long people were at university for.

I well recall some debates in the House 3 or 5 years ago where we had similar arguments relating to physiotherapy students and physiotherapy legislation. At that time it seemed totally improper to me that a time limit was prescribed by those who were managing and running physiotherapy schools. They said that it had to be a 4-year course, from memory. Again they were just extending out the whole process, which created more job opportunities and a whole range of things surrounding that. But the issue was quite clear: it was whether those people were qualified to practise, not a matter of how long it had taken them to get there.

Further on, in clause 6(1)(b)(iii), there are some areas that I would like the Minister to comment on, as well, relating to a pass and assessment programme approved by the council. We are designating a responsibility, without instruction, to the council for it to come up with something that could be quite subjective. Again, having just read another provision where the important thing is how long someone took to study, I would like to know with a little more preciseness what sorts of things the council might require and to have this provision removed from the subjective arena. I would like an explanation from the Minister as to why that time requirement is pre-eminent and why there is no designation about what level degrees have to be at. I see the officials are now instructing the Minister, so I look forward to a contribution on that point.

Let us be quite clear: it is important that we have the best possible veterinarians that we can get. For that purpose we need to have the most appropriate people taking veterinary courses, which must have the best syllabus, the best curriculum, and the best practices. Those things are absolutely essential, but to require a designated time seems quite confusing to me.

I would like to outline to members and to those who are listening the importance of clause 9, “Disqualification from registration”. I think that provision should be recorded in Hansard and not just set out in the bill, where many of us will not ever read it again and many of the public will never read it. There are subclauses covering disqualification from registration, and because the Veterinary Council can take that very significant step, with quite life-changing, far-reaching consequences for some vets, I would like to read out parts of the clause.

Clause 9 states that a person is not entitled to be registered as a veterinarian if he or she has been convicted by any court in New Zealand or elsewhere, within the past 7 years, of any offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 3 months or longer. I say to current and future veterinarians that they should be warned. If they have had a conviction within the last 7 years that is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 3 months or longer, they can be deregistered or not registered at all. That will not automatically apply; there is an “and” provision. Not only does the person have to have been convicted but the council has to be satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, including the time that has elapsed since the conviction, that the offence reflects adversely on the person’s fitness to practise as a veterinarian. In other words, people can have a conviction and still be registered if it is deemed that the conviction will not in any way reflect adversely on their fitness to practise as a veterinarian. Even so, I say vets should be warned. They should avoid getting a conviction, not just because of the jail term but because it can affect their career in ways they may not have envisaged.

Clause 9 also provides that a person is not entitled to be registered if the council is satisfied that registration of the person would be inappropriate because, in another country, he or she is the subject of professional disciplinary proceedings. People should not assume they can come from another country where they practised as a vet and be registered in New Zealand, if they have been a ratbag back home. If vets are the subject of professional disciplinary proceedings overseas, they should not expect to be registered in New Zealand. The clause also provides that they are not entitled to be registered if they are under investigation, or have been struck off the relevant overseas register of veterinarians, or have been otherwise disciplined by a veterinary professional organisation. They should take note of that. Lastly, if the council is satisfied that a person cannot practise satisfactorily as a veterinarian because of a mental or physical condition, the council can refuse to register that person.

So if people have faced convictions in this country or overseas, or have been disciplined overseas, or if it is determined that they cannot satisfactorily practise as a veterinarian because of a mental or physical condition, they may not be registered in this country. They should take that as a warning. I warn them upfront of that now, if they are listening to this debate.

I also draw attention to clause 13, “Scopes of practice for limited registration”. Members may remember that I brought up the issue of people who were temporarily in New Zealand. People who come to New Zealand for a short time from South Africa, Europe, or the United States to practise as vets—and it used to be for just 3 months, but could be extended for a further 3 months—come under the term “limited registration”. The Primary Production Committee had to strike out the original clause 13, which extended that to 12 months. We wanted to talk about the scopes of practice for limited registration, because it is important that the people who come from overseas, whether they serve in general veterinary practice in New Zealand or are specialists, are useful to this country.

I have already noted that it is important that vets have not been convicted by any court in their own country. It is important that those visitors who want to practise as vets in this country are not under any professional disciplinary proceedings or under investigation overseas, but also it is important that they can contribute to the professionalism in this country when they practise here. In my second reading speech I pointed out to members that the Minister had extended the time frame within which an overseas-qualified vet could work in New Zealand. We removed the time frames altogether. We removed the roll-over period, which was 3 months plus 3 months, and then 12 months plus 12 months. In other words, an overseas vet could practise in New Zealand under limited registration for a maximum of 2 years, and now there is no limit. I raise the issue that the reason we did that is that we need overseas vets. We need good South African and European vets to practise in New Zealand. We need good vets from Asia, the United States, and elsewhere in the world to practise in New Zealand, because the vets we train here are fleeing the country. They are fleeing the taxes, the compliances costs, and the political correctness. They are going overseas, and we have to replace them.

I have a question for the Minister on clause 13, which deals with limited registration for temporary, overseas-qualified vets to work in this country. When the Minister extended the time frame within which they could work in New Zealand from 3 months to 12 months, and extended the roll-over time from 3 months to 12 months, what else was he going to do to make sure that we have enough vets practising in this country? He extended those time frames so that we could get more overseas vets here, and, hopefully, hook them for life, but what will he do about the young vets who train here, soaking up taxpayers’ money and contributing a whole lot of their own money to their training, and then leave our shores? What will he do to bring them back, and what will he do to stop them leaving? Where is the Minister’s answer?

The Minister can put a few pretty clauses in this legislation to extend the time frames for overseas-trained vets to work in New Zealand, but what will he do about ensuring our own young vets work in this country? What can we do about our own medical professionals, our own architects, our own engineers, our own nurses, our own teachers—all the young people who go overseas, having had an investment made in them by the New Zealand taxpayer? What is the Minister’s answer to that? I applaud the fact that we are welcoming overseas-qualified professional people, but I want young Kiwis to stay here and work here. I have invested in them. [Interruption] I do not want them to be driven overseas by Dianne Yates screeching across the House. Not everyone is like Dianne Yates—that is what I would tell them. If I asked people not to leave, they would say they are not leaving just because of Dianne Yates, even though, my goodness she is scary. They would say they are leaving because of the taxes, the compliance costs, the political correctness, and then because of Dianne Yates. But they are leaving, and I want them to stay.

I am glad we are going to attract, hook, and retain overseas-trained vets, but I want the young ones whom we invest in to stay here, as well. They can go overseas for a couple of years, but then return. I ask the Minister, Jim Anderton, what he is doing about them. Where are the clauses in this legislation that deal with the young people whom we have invested in as taxpayers and as members of this country? What is the Minister’s solution? I invite the Minister to take a call on that particular matter and enlighten this Committee on what he is doing to retain those young professionals.

What the Government is doing in clause 13 is inviting the member to read it. There is no time limit on it—no statutory time limit. The member has wasted 5 minutes railing about it, and it is not there. If he reads it, he will see that there is no statutory time limit for limited registration, so I invite him to read the clause.

A couple of other points were raised about the 4-year qualification period. I understand that that was agreed to with the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. The council says, in terms of qualifications both specific and time-limited, that the qualifications require a 4-year course. I am not going to second-guess the Veterinary Council. If the member wants to do that, he can go and see the councillors and have a chat to them. But I presume that select committee members understood that when they discussed the bill; if they did not, they may well have asked the question. But that is where it came from—from discussions held with the Veterinary Council.

The question was raised originally just to get the bona fides right about my qualifications in terms of my ministerial warrant. I have the authority as the Minister of Agriculture to deal with all matters in that portfolio—including animal health, this bill and the Act that will result from it, as well as the current Act, of course.

I want to remind members who are complaining about the time frame for this bill, by the way, that it was introduced in January 2005. It is actually going through the House in December 2005. That is not too bad. If members want a track record of bills like this, I can tell them that the original bill, which was enacted in 1994, was in the House for 17 years. It was 17 years in the process, before it became an Act. So if we are looking for blame on time constraints, there is plenty to go around. That bill was in the House from the early 1970s to 1994, so we are processing this bill at lightening speed in comparison with what was happening before.

In terms of the questions as to why there are changes, I am a bit mystified. I sat in my chair and listened to National Party members railing that this bill has taken too long—like 1 year—that we had to get it passed urgently, and that vets were waiting and would be celebrating. Now I am asked why we are progressing it. Well, we are doing so because there were amendments that the vets themselves wanted made, and when those amendments were considered in relation to the Act, it was actually discovered that because the previous bill had been in the House for so long—for 17 years—it had virtually become antediluvian by the time it was passed and it was time to revise it virtually before it was enacted. So we are now doing the work that previous Parliaments did not do—and I think we are doing it with great expedition.

It was good to see the Minister taking a call, but he did not answer one of the questions that I had in relation to the previous part, which was: why are we not dealing with some of the changes here by way of amendment? Why do we need to repeal the Veterinarians Act of 1994 in total and put in place a totally new bill? Why can we not just deal with some of the concerns the sector has had, by just incorporating the changes? It seems to me to be just a lot of work.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: I answered that.

The Minister says he answered that question, but he might like to clarify his position. My colleague Phil Heatley made some comments about some of the concerns of veterinarians. Although there seems to be consensus and support for this bill, I am wondering how the vets up and down the country are feeling as a result of one of the Government’s announcements today. The Government has announced that it will increase the accident compensation levy for vets next year. It has just confirmed the rates for the 2006-07 year. As we know, most vets are self-employed, and the Government is going to increase the accident compensation levy from $3.22 to $3.54. So while we are dealing with a lot of issues related to the broader concerns of registration and how the vets run their sector, another decision has been made today by the Government and it is basically a bit of a kick in the guts to veterinarians who are trying to remain in business and provide a very valuable service to their local people. So while the Government, I am sure, is trying to be helpful by bringing in this bill, it is doing so on a day when it is making some decisions to the detriment of many veterinarians up and down the country. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on that.

Once again, when we look at Part 2, we see that the bill has been absolutely rewritten as a result of the select committee’s work. I understand that select committees do review legislation and may make some very important changes, but when we look at Part 2, which has been rewritten almost in its entirety, we wonder about the level of work that went into the writing of the first draft that had its first reading. I understand that there will be some changes during the select committee process—often some significant changes—but it is seldom that we see a bill coming back to the House that has been almost totally rewritten. It makes me wonder what work went into the bill prior to its first reading, when it is clear that as a result of greater scrutiny at the select committee the members on that committee have seen fit to make dramatic changes. Clause after clause has been struck out and totally rewritten, and I see here that that process was unanimously supported.

But also, when we look at this part, we see that it attempts to prescribe in law a step-by-step approach for the Veterinary Council to make decisions about how it looks at registrations, how it evaluates them, and on what grounds it can decline them, and I am wondering why the process has to be prescribed in law in such great detail. Surely, once the council has been appointed one should have a certain amount of faith in it and in the work it does to oversee the registration of veterinarians. One does not need to prescribe what it does to the nth degree, which gives the council very little flexibility. I would not be surprised if this legislation contains a clause that I have not seen yet, telling the Veterinary Council when it can and cannot have its coffee breaks, because the prescription of the work the council will do basically gives very little leeway for it to make decisions. I believe that overarching legislation can be set in place, but there has to be faith in the industry and its representatives.

I was not going to take a call on this part, but I am concerned about the comments made by the Minister, who took the opportunity to criticise my colleague Phil Heatley—who put a tremendous amount of work into this legislation—when he was talking about limited registration.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Ask him whether he was right.

I will certainly take the opportunity of pointing out to the Committee that Phil Heatley obviously understands this legislation far better than the Minister does, after being briefed. Mr Heatley spent some time talking about time limits on limited registration, but the Minister does not seem to have been briefed on the point that the previous legislation had a 3-month time limit. The legislation as drafted by the previous Minister’s office suggested a time limit of, initially, 12 months, with the ability to extend it for a further 12 months. To tidy up the mess created by the work of the previous Minister, the Primary Production Committee had to work closely with the Veterinary Council and it found that the best solution was not to have a time limit at all. That is the history of this, I tell Mr Anderton. It was the select committee, not the original legislation drafted by the Labour-Progressive Government, that finally got it right.

We value the opportunity to have limited registration, for two reasons. We acknowledge that because the oppressive tax rates of this country are driving a lot of our young, qualified vets offshore where they can earn more money in places like America, Australia, and England, we need to capture the opportunity of—

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Not because of the tax rates, though.

I say to the Minister that about 600 young, qualified, and talented New Zealanders leave this country every week. If he asked them why they go, one of the reasons they would give him is the dramatic tax rates they have to pay in this country, compared with what they have to pay elsewhere around the world. The other reason is that the pay rates overseas are considerably better than they are here. That means that people who make the choice to go actually have far more money in their pockets at the end of each week. If the Minister had been awake earlier in the debate, he would have heard me say that my own niece who qualified as a vet at Massey University has spent most of her time practising in Melbourne rather than New Zealand because of tax rates and pay rates in Australia compared with New Zealand.

However, I want to concentrate on the time limits on limited registration, which is the part that the Minister clearly has not been well briefed on. I tell him that if he wants to take the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage, then I would appreciate his doing so. I really do appreciate finally having a Minister who takes the opportunity to rise to his feet and make a few comments as we ask questions, but he should at least take the opportunity of being briefed about the true history of the legislation.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Brief your colleague.

I can assure the Minister that Phil Heatley worked diligently on this legislation.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: But he got it wrong.

No, we did not get it wrong. Every Labour member on the Primary Production Committee voted with us. This legislation has now come back before the House unanimously supported by the Labour members on that committee, so we did not get it wrong. That is why we are here today, passing the legislation through the House. We are happy to support it, because now it is right. It is right because the select committee did the work, and it is right because we had significant support from the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association.

I want to comment a little more on limited registration. Among the things that became very evident to the select committee was that when we become so desperately short of qualified veterinarians in this country, we have the opportunity to employ vets who have specialist qualifications in a particular area. An example may be qualified veterinarians who have specialised in the area of food safety. Those people may not have extensive experience in large or small animal work, but that does not matter. We have the opportunity to recognise that those people have qualifications in their particular field, and that we need to grab their services because we are desperately short of qualified veterinarians in this country.

I move, That the question be now put.

I think I am particularly qualified to talk on this bill, because I am a lawyer and I have a dog. I think that that makes me more than suitably qualified—

💬 Hon Member: And you have a gun licence.

Yes, I do have a gun licence. So I do realise the importance of registration, and I do realise the importance of practising certificates, which is what I particularly want to focus on in relation to Part 2. There are certain parallels between the veterinary profession and the legal profession. Whilst lawyers do not necessarily deal with animals, they do at times have clients who may behave like animals. So I think that adds even more to my qualifications to talk on this matter.

The law profession is very similar to the veterinary profession, because lawyers who are registered as barristers and solicitors of the High Court of New Zealand are also required to hold a practising certificate, as are veterinarians under this bill. That is to promote the standards, the branding, and the consistency of the profession’s reputation, and I will keep coming back to that. It is the same with veterinarians. In New Zealand veterinarians are a very well respected profession, and it is very important for the integrity of the profession that those standards and the branding are protected. I think that the amendment requiring a veterinarian to be both a registered person and the holder of a practising certificate—it is not an either-or situation; one must have both—is a very important one, and I commend the Primary Production Committee for that amendment and for insisting that it happen. Just for the sake of background, I refer to the explanatory note of the bill, which makes the bill’s principal purpose clear—again, going back to the question of branding and reputation. The explanatory note states that the amendment: “will assist the Council to protect the reputation of the veterinary ‘brand’, ensuring that only those persons who have current skills and knowledge, and are subject to the Council’s control, can use the term veterinarian.” I think that is very important.

Clauses 22 to 28 refer to the different provisions relating to the practising certificate. Again, it is not unlike a lawyer’s practising certificate. Whilst we can be lawyers, we cannot hold ourselves out as practising solicitors without having a practising certificate. Similarly, with the veterinarians, the practising certificate has to be renewed annually, and that enables the council—whatever council that might be; whether it be the New Zealand Law Society in the case of barristers and solicitors or the Veterinary Council in the case of vets—to actually ensure that the person who is requesting and renewing a practising certificate is maintaining that consistency of standards and will not harm the reputation of the veterinary profession. And it ensures, in fact, that the branding of the veterinarians is maintained throughout the currency of that practising certificate. Similarly, with a lawyer’s practising certificate—and just as an aside, it is rather ironic that whilst we regulate in certain professions, there is a Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill coming through that is actually deregulating lawyers, but I guess that is a matter for another time. But in relation to the practising certificate, of course there must be provision for that practising certificate to be withheld and, in fact, suspended. That is just common practice. If somebody in the profession has breached the standards required of such a highly regarded profession, it is only right and fit that that person is no longer able to practise and can no longer hold a practising certificate.

So again I go back to the consistency of standards. This legislation is about maintaining the reputation and the correct branding for our highly regarded veterinarians. I will keep drawing the parallels with the barristers and solicitors legislation, the Law Practitioners Act, because, again, if required, we must hand in our practising certificate. If there has been an event of misconduct or some such thing, then it is for the reputation of all the good apples in the box that that practising certificate be withdrawn.

I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Veterinarians Bill, regarding registration and practising certificates. I, too, have been registered and have held a practising certificate. There are a number of points that I will make.

It is only right and proper that the registration process be thorough. Interestingly, in this legislation it is so thorough that I return to my former theme—that is, that Part 2 is absolutely full of areas that are struck out, and through the hard work of the Primary Production Committee new parts have come into this bill. Again I remind those present that this is because the original preparation work did not happen. When the former Minister of Agriculture brought this bill to the House, consultation with the appropriate sector had not happened, yet that sector had sought this bill, and members of that sector had said that this bill was necessary and that they should go forward into the future with the provisions that they would like. But the work had not gone in, and, therefore, it was left to the select committee. I hope one day that I will be a member of a select committee that will do such studious work and will come forward with something that is obviously well supported by the members of this House. I have not had the benefit of working with such a committee, but, as I say, I am looking forward to it. I also note the former comments that there was very good consultation and collaboration with the sector. That has resulted in the provisions that are now in this bill, and, in particular, registration and practising certificates.

Another really good point that has been made by one of my colleagues is that this legislation is for registration of not only overseas veterinarians but also of New Zealand veterinarians. I wish that more of the New Zealand veterinarians were registered, and that we could keep them here in this country. I return to the theme that has been brought up before—the theme of why these veterinarians are leaving New Zealand. There is no doubt in my mind that it is because of high taxation and high compliance costs. Earlier today we heard the amendments on the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation debated, and that is the bane of some veterinarians’ lives as well. Then there are the PC problems, and the fact that the rest of their families are paying tax too. They have high student loans and indebtedness, and they are going overseas because they know they can put more money in their pockets by being anywhere but New Zealand. We have heard of the 600 people per week who head off to Australia—our highly skilled and highly trained New Zealanders. So I say that it is really sad that veterinarians have waited for this bill for the last 6 months, because they are certainly looking forward to it.

The registration and practising certificate part of this bill is particularly important because it does protect the public of New Zealand, and it protects the animals of New Zealand. That is very important, because we have already heard about the cockatoo that had not been protected—the cockatoo with the very good name that had been mistaken for a girl, a daughter, a woman, or something like that.

💬 Kate Wilkinson: A lover!

No, I am not sure it was the lover.

💬 Eric Roy: Bestiality!

No, we will not get into anything like that, thank you. The registration and practising certificate part of the bill does, in fact, protect both the animals of New Zealand and also the public. As we know, people get very emotive when they believe that the person who is providing care for their animal may not be appropriately registered. So it is only appropriate that all of the work that has gone on during this select committee process is in the legislation—it is just such a shame that the original bill had not been carefully prepared by the Hon Jim Sutton, the previous Minister of Agriculture.

💬 Phil Heatley: Is he still a vet?

I do not believe that the Hon Jim Sutton was a vet, but as a former farmer then he most certainly should have had in his heart the animals that he had formerly cared for and, in fact, his rural practice. It is interesting that in the House today we heard from Mr Woolerton and from Tariana Turia, who were both members of that committee, and we do find that—

This part deals with the issues of quality and competence from veterinarians. It is the bit of the bill that makes sure that those who are practising as veterinarians have the skills necessary, and it goes a bit further. In some cases it may provide for the limited registration of people so they can work with animals, either by species or by the particular conditions that those animals present.

But I think it is very interesting that on a day when the Government has decided to proceed with caution on the issue of xenotransplantation, there appears to be no capacity in this bill to ensure that a veterinarian working with animals who are part of a xenotransplanatation programme must care for those animals appropriately.

💬 Eric Roy: What’s that all about?

Well, this is about the science of taking genetic material from an animal and perhaps transplanting that material into the body of a human, or perhaps even taking—

💬 Katherine Rich: What!

Well, that is basically how it works. The member might be a little bit concerned about that, but the Government has decided today to proceed with that science.

I know that there will be a lot of diabetics around who want that to progress. We do not have too much of a problem with that. Members will have seen this morning’s Dominion Post. It featured a cartoon of the mouse with a human ear growing off its back. The deal there is that various molecules are transplanted into the mouse, the ear is grown, removed from the back of the mouse, and transplanted on to the human in the case of accidents. It is an interesting field of science. It is one that we simply cannot ignore because it will become more and more common.

💬 Hon Member: What’s that got to do with this bill?

Well, let me just open the minds of members a little bit. Let me invite members to think outside the square and just consider that a veterinarian is basically an animal doctor. Do we not want those animals, who may eventually have some of their tissue transferred into humans, to be as well treated as possible? Do not those veterinarians have to have a far greater understanding of the medicine of the human body as well? It does not appear to me that there is anywhere in this part—this is the part that states how people become qualified to be veterinarians—any provision for that particular field of expertise to develop with recognition from the Veterinary Council of New Zealand.

I would like the Minister to indicate to the Committee whether that has been considered. When they were taking the report from that excellent Minister, Mr David Benson-Pope, recommending the cautious proceeding with xenotransplantation technology, did they get any sort of report from him about the particular husbandry that may need to go around animals that are part of that programme? It is not a simple issue. It is not a funny issue. It is a very serious one, because one would not want to have—as the Green Party has pointed out—some form of viral transmission through the fact that the various animals that are going to provide opportunities for people to have a better quality of life have not had the best of care or the best of understanding from those who are looking after them during the process of developing the tissue of any type that is to be transplanted. So it is a serious issue, and one, not surprisingly, that has not been considered—but there must have been a Cabinet paper at least, or a line on a report somewhere that mentioned the particular issue.

At the same time, I am interested in clause 13, which deals with the scopes of limited registration. I am a little bit confused about this. Would, for example, someone dealing with the very, very specific science of xenotransplantation end up with a limited registration? Would we, for example, say that the person does not have to know a great deal about the husbandry of horses or any other animals other than those that are of part of the xenotransplantation programme? Could that person be, in fact, a scientist who had a general interest in science and was qualified enough to be granted a limited practising certificate and limited registration? Speaking of limited, I say to members that if they want to see people who are limited they should look across to the New Zealand First Party. Not only are they limited, they are oppressed; they are a people oppressed. There are only a few of them, of course, and there will be even fewer of them in the future. I wonder where their leader is today. He should be here, talking about this bill.

I ask the Minister, quite seriously, whether this limited registration will be a way for various scientists to gain partial registration to advance the cause of xenotransplantation. I see the Minister is thumbing through some papers. I assume he has something there to—

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Whatever I’ve got is more sensible than this speech.

The Minister says it is not sensible. I am asking the Minister what the Government would do if one of the programmes for xenotransplantation saw the transport of a virus from an animal to a human. That is exactly what we are worried about when it comes to bird flu. The Minister sits there laughing and saying this is not a serious issue. It is an issue that is bothering households up and down this country as we speak. It is an issue that is bothering nations all around the world as we speak. But Mr Anderton says that it makes no sense and is not even worth talking about.

What we have here is a bill determining who may work with animals. We have another part of the Government saying that we may now get into xenotransplantation—cautiously, but none the less it is going to happen. We saw the example on the news this morning of tissue being taken from pigs to be placed into humans. If that tissue has a virus attached to it that otherwise would not affect a human and therefore goes into the human body and starts another reaction in the chain—this is the Greens’ issue, and I agree with them on this—what might be the consequences? There is not a single qualification in this bill to ensure that those who work with those animals have that understanding. The Veterinary Council is allowed to give limited registration, but what does that mean in this context? The council is allowed to register veterinarians, but how does that work in this context?

I think that the Minister, who is sitting there, saying we are talking a load of rubbish, is a bit like the ostrich putting his head in the sand, or like the fellow in the early part of the 19th century who said that all scientific knowledge in the world had been discovered. This issue is going to go on. It is going to keep bothering people, and bills like this should not ignore it. I would like to see where this enlightened Government took its advice from. Clearly there will be a Cabinet paper, probably somewhere on Mr Benson-Pope’s desk, that indicates there is a link between these two.

💬 Hon Bill English: He will leak it.

My colleague Bill English says that there is every possibility that we will read about it in a selected Sunday newspaper, as Mr Benson-Pope leaks it to them in order that the right slant might be put upon xenotechnology vis-à-vis the veterinarians’ story. I would like the Minister to indicate whether that has been considered, and perhaps indicate whether the Government does see the issue of viral transportation from one species to another as being a serious risk not only for New Zealand but for all countries.

There are, of course, some people who would benefit enormously from a bit of xenotransplantation. If it were possible, Winston Peters would, I think, be slicing genes out of poodles and shoving them into his members just as quickly as he possibly could.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to take a different tack on this. Part 2 contains the most prescriptive rubbish I have ever seen. The problem with this country is that we are over-regulated. We have far too many Acts of Parliament. What do we see here? It is a part of a bill about veterinarians that basically tells them how to suck eggs and to do everything else in between. Sure, the council should be the body that gets everybody together and takes the registrations, but what do we do? We 121 members of Parliament say: “Right, on Monday at 10 o’clock you’ll do this.” That is basically, in effect, what Part 2 does. From day to day it sets out exactly what the council is there for and what it does. It does not give the council any room to manoeuvre. It does not give the council any way, shape, or form to go about doing its business.

💬 Phil Heatley: Flexible.

It cannot be flexible. This is the most inflexible legislation I have seen. Oh yes, of course we will vote for it, because at the end of the day it is about quality, and about the registration and operation of veterinarians. But I do not like it one bit. I do not like it because of the fact that it is too prescriptive. It is far too prescriptive. The trouble with this country is that the 121 members of Parliament believe that we are the experts. Why do we not leave the experts’ job to the experts?

R Doug Woolerton: We realise you aren’t.

There we go. We have a classic example in this House of a failed farmer who thinks he is a vet, thinks he knows what he is talking about because he moved a couple of cows into the milking shed, and thinks that now gives him the right and the expertise to talk about veterinarians. [Interruption] Well, I do not know what he did with the cows while he was in the milking shed, but I do not want to go there—that is not actually part of the bill.

In respect of overseas vets, this is a classic example of how we try to over-regulate the market and tell everybody what to do. If an overseas veterinarian comes here, why does the Veterinary Council of New Zealand not take up the cudgels, take up the job, and look at that person’s qualifications? Overseas veterinarians should be checked out, by all means—that is not a problem. Why does that have to be in an Act of Parliament? Why can we not allow the council to do its job? That job is to look after the registration and to look after the quality of vets that we have in the country. It is pretty simple.

The Hon Brian Donnelly is looking over at me while I am speaking and is pointing at the Minister. Why would he point to the Minister? I know what that means. Brian Donnelly is saying that it is the Minister’s fault, but it is not his fault. It is the fault of the coalition partner—New Zealand First. We know that it is the fault of the coalition partner. I have heard people say it is the “Peters-Clark” leadership, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about giving the power to those who know best.

Those people know their industry. Why are we saying to the council: “Look, guys, we’ll take the registrations, we’ll suss out whether you are a good person—we’ll do all of that.” Why do we pretend to know everything about everything? Why do we do that? Is it because we want a job in the next 10 to 15 years, so that once in a blue moon somebody will come to the House or to a parliamentarian and say: “Under the Veterinarians Act 2005 …”? It is a load of rubbish. We are over-regulated.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 6 be agreed to:

to omit from paragraph (b) of subclause (1) the number “4”, and substitute the number “5”.

Before beginning Part 3, there is a proposal to divide Part 3 by the insertion of a new Part 3A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8, with clauses 56 to 64, formerly part of Part 3, becoming part of the new Part 3A.

By way of information for members of the Committee, I am advised by the clerk that this is the appropriate procedure for this provision. I move, That Part 3 be divided by the insertion of a new Part 3A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8, with clauses 56 to 64, formerly part of Part 3, becoming part of a new Part 3A.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can I just check whether we will have the opportunity to debate the new part in a separate debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, you certainly will. That is a separate debate.

Motion agreed to.

Part 3 Complaints, disciplinary hearings, medical and competence assessments, and conditions of practice