Veterinarians Bill

Part 3, which deals with complaints, disciplinary hearings, medical and competence assessments, and conditions of practice, is a necessary part. If we are to have robust legislation and a series of requirements—and a number of members have spoken about the necessity of having a credible veterinary practice—we need mechanisms to deal with anomalies, much as we would hope that there are none, or, indeed, very few, if any. This part deals with that.

I may have missed something, but I have sat here and read the headings of the 40 clauses that Part 3 had, before the division that we have just agreed to with the absorption of Supplementary Order Paper 8 in the name of the Minister Jim Anderton. I have read the 40 clauses, and I do not understand. There is clause 30AA, “Interpretation”, and then mention in clause 30 of some sort of quango that I cannot identify anywhere else in the bill. That is the complaints assessment committee. The complaints assessment committee is mentioned at least 17 times in Part 3 as an all-powerful, all-knowledgable creature that will deal with problems. But I do not find, when reading the bill, how that beast—that complaints assessment committee—will be created, who will be on it, what the requirements to be on it will be, how often it will meet, how members will be replaced, how their performance might be reviewed, and what their role in this process will be. I am not saying that we do not need the committee, but, if we have it, we need to know where the members will come from and what their particular qualifications might be.

Rightfully, this Part 3 is very strong on words like “observe the rules of natural justice”. In clause 32 the words “good faith” are used. This body is to determine whether there have been breaches in performance by vets in a range of things, including practise, payment of dues, sloppy procedures, and inadequate recording—one thing after another. I want to know who those complaints assessment committee members will be, and how that committee will be created. That information may well be in the bill; if it is, it needs to be more prominent, because I have spent half an hour trying to find it. That in itself is an issue. I would like to be proven wrong, because I do not want to enact a power to an authority and not know where its members are from. The Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton, is nodding, so I will look forward to his response.

Let us assume that the information is in this bill, and that I have had a senior moment and not been able to see it or find out where it is. It would seem to me appropriate that those people would have some kind of veterinary experience. That would be somewhat logical, if they are to assess their peers. But if we are to take seriously the words about natural justice being observed, one must ask whether those people, if they are veterinarians, are practising, and whether they can be objective if they are in a practice that may or may not be in competition with someone who is deemed to have breached the rules and is required to appear before the all-powerful complaints assessment committee.

I say to the Minister that I think the Committee needs some elucidation on just who is on the complaints assessment committee, how committee members are created, and how their performance might be reviewed. Are they practising veterinarians, in competition with other veterinarians who might find themselves having to appear before the all-powerful, all-knowledgeable complaints assessment committee? I am just a little bit alarmed by the vagueness surrounding this issue. I see that the officials are now briefing the Minister, so I will look forward—

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: I can’t understand what you’re saying, either.

Well, look, it is quite clear. The Minister cannot understand, but I am asking quite clearly who sets up the complaints assessment committee. I can find no rules in Part 3, which is the part dealing with complaints and disciplinary hearings, as to where its members come from. Yes, they exist. Maybe they already exist. Are they set up under a provision in previous legislation? Before I can vote on this part, I need to know where they come from, who they are, and whether they are practising—all the matters I have mentioned. And that is of absolute, paramount importance. If this is a robust and credible piece of legislation, then how the committee is created ought to be recorded in Part 3, which is the part of the bill about complaints and disciplinary hearings. Does the Minister understand my request?

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Yes

Thank you.

I thank Eric Roy for his very good contribution to this debate. I am surprised the Minister could not answer him—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: I’m not.

No, I guess the member is right. But I see that the Minister is being briefed now so that he can try to explain his own legislation, because Eric Roy raised some very valid questions. I say to Eric Roy that he has to understand that some of the answers to the questions he has raised are clearly elucidated in Part 4. We will look forward to spending the next 4 or 5 hours discussing that part, so then his questions will be answered. The Minister now knows as well, as the officials have been busy telling him where a definition of the complaints assessment committee exists within the legislation.

This was a part of the legislation to which the select committee put in a huge amount of effort. We deal here with the very delicate situation of providing a rigorous, fair complaints procedure that has the opportunity to test the competency of veterinarians to practise within New Zealand. It became very interesting to the committee that 50 percent of the submissions we heard were actually from owners of pets that had died, and those owners felt very aggrieved that the veterinary profession had let them down. We had the sad case about which Doug Woolerton spoke so brilliantly earlier today in the Committee stage.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Oh, come on.

No, Doug Woolerton sat through the select committee deliberation when we had the submission on Bianca the cockatoo. Bianca the cockatoo was owned by Maureen Green and Jeanette Parker. In fact, Bianca’s full name was Bianca Parker-Green.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Is she allowed a vote?

No, Bianca is not allowed to vote; sadly, Bianca has passed on. But the point I am making here is that we were astounded by the strength of the submission we received around Bianca and her perceived treatment by the vet. So we want to make sure that we have a process—

💬 Katherine Rich: He’s crying; he’s moved.

No, no. I am certainly not that upset. We want to make sure that we develop a bill here that has a process by which, in future cases of a Bianca, the client of the vet has a legitimate process whereby the concern can be well aired and, if a vet has acted incompetently, the profession has a chance to discipline that particular person.

I tell Eric Roy—and the Minister may by now understand—that making a complaint to the complaints assessment committee will in fact be the very first procedure that an aggrieved pet owner will go through, and the committee will be the body by which the profession will judge whether a complaint is valid. It will not make a decision at that stage as to whether there should be disciplinary action. That is a further process, to be handled through what we call the judicial committee. But in the case of this new legislation, when passed, Ms Parker and Ms Green would first of all approach the complaints assessment committee and present their case about the sad demise of Bianca, and the committee would make a ruling as to whether a case existed that warranted investigation or whether the case required no further investigation.

I know that I have spent some time talking about Bianca, but that was the strongest case we had. We also had a very, very moving case from Caroline and Angus Macdonald, who were very concerned about the treatment their dog received. They took the opportunity to come before the select committee to try to ensure that we worked through this legislation to present an Act that would give such people the chance to have a fair hearing. Dennis and Gillian Weatherell also came to us because of the treatment they felt they had received from their own vet, at the time, on one of their dogs. The select committee found, with the strength of presentation of those submissions, that people feel very deeply, obviously—

💬 Katherine Rich: Passionate about their animals.

Hon DAVID CARTER:—absolutely passionate—more passionate than the Minister is at the moment, I might add, in his treatment of this legislation. People become very passionately involved in the treatment their animals receive.

After I listened to Mr Roy for 7 minutes, he still could not find where complaints assessment committees were mentioned in the bill. It is in clause 74: “Complaints assessment committees”—not surprisingly. The complaints assessment committee is actually appointed by the Veterinary Council.

I would like to look at other matters in Part 3 to do with the suspension of registration, with disciplinary hearings when a disciplinary action occurs, and also with the rights of appeal of those who apply to have a vet disciplined, and the rights of vets themselves to appeal when they are disciplined or have temporary suspension of their registration. I would like to signal that for me to move through those particular clauses, and the concerns that I have, may take a second 5-minute speech. I will be appealing to you, Madam Chairperson, that I have that opportunity, although I appreciate that it is at your discretion.

Before I embark on that particular matter, though, I would like to raise with members the matter of the unusual clause 30AA, “Interpretation”. They will recall a matter to do with clause 30AA that I outlined in my second reading speech. It was to do with those vets who would thwart disciplinary action or suspension by saying that because they no longer held practising certificates or because they were no longer registered, they could not be disciplined. In other words, they would say their sin, if you like, occurred in another life when they were registered or did have a practising certificate. They would say that yes, the relevant conduct may have occurred only 3 months ago, but that they no longer held a practising certificate, were no longer registered, and could not be caught.

Well, that is not the case, because the Primary Production Committee recommended to the Minister and Parliament that an amendment be inserted as new clause 30AA, to make it clear that for the purpose of complaints and disciplinary action, or for the issue of medical incompetence assessments, a “specified person” is defined as someone who holds a practising certificate, but also includes someone who held a practising certificate that had lapsed when he or she was called to account. If people were practising as vets or were seen to be practising as vets, whether or not they were registered and held a practising certificate, they can be held to account, but clause 30AA also deals to those people whose practising certificates have lapsed when they are called to account. I think that is an interesting thing to raise with members, simply because it is just one of the little loopholes that the select committee, through intense and expansive investigation, pulled out of the original bill and was able to fix.

I would like to move on to the other matters I signalled at the beginning of my speech that I want to traverse. First of all, concerning the issue of the grounds for a disciplinary hearing in clause 43, members will recall that in the debate on the last part I warned past and future vets that if they faced criminal charges and were convicted of crimes before the courts, their ability to practise veterinary science in this country is under threat. They should not embark on a life of crime, not only because, obviously, it hurts other New Zealanders but also because there are long-term consequences, as well as short-term consequences, that can hurt their careers—and I have warned them. Let it be said today that no vet shall be able to stand before a judge and say that Phil Heatley failed to warned him or her not embark on a life of crime. Vets will be held to account for their criminal convictions.

I want to raise another matter, which is brought up in clause 43. Not only can a vet be refused registration because he or she has committed a criminal offence, whether in this country or in another country, but that person can also be subject to the provisions of clause 43(1). The clause states that the council may take one or more actions at the conclusion of a disciplinary hearing, where it is satisfied that a vet has been convicted within the last 7 years or has another offence that has a direct bearing on the profession, where a vet’s practice reflects adversely on his or her fitness to practise as a veterinarian, or where a vet has been found guilty of professional misconduct or of any act or omission that affects or discredits the profession—and that person can be deregistered. That is a very serious act of discipline, indeed, because it could cut short what is potentially a very positive and fruitful career for that person. I would just say that someone can be refused registration as a vet if he or she embarks on criminal activity, but what is worse is that someone can effectively be deregistered if he or she is already a vet. Members should take warning; I have informed them of that today. So that is the matter of deregistration, or of being refused registration.

There is also the issue of the interim suspension of a veterinary practitioner. In fairness, an interim suspension is all about suspending a vet so that there can be an investigation that may or may not lead to proof of guilt in that case, and to possible deregistration. The debate that we had in the select committee was about how long a vet should have his or her registration suspended before it is reasonable for a decision to be made and for that person be reinstated, struck off, or deregistered. Originally, the legislation stated the period should be 20 working days, but the Veterinary Council and others came to us and said that although it was reasonable for the vet who has been suspended to have such a short time frame, it was not long enough for the council to do its investigations. The council wanted to have 50 working days.

We were a bit concerned about that. For someone who would be taking a forced suspension from his or her career and who would, effectively, be unemployed, there is immense uncertainty for up to 50 working days. But we succumbed to the arguments of the Veterinary Council. We listened to it, we heard its arguments, and we decided that if it takes 50 working days to gather the information, analyse it, and make a serious and considered judgment, so be it.

💬 Katherine Rich: 50?

We put the period at 50 working days. We allowed the Veterinary Council to take 50 working days before it had to, in effect, make a decision. Members will see that is provided for in clauses 37 and 37A.

Another matter that was raised was the matter of appeals. We have allowed vets to appeal a Veterinary Council decision to the District Court, and I do not think one could ask for more than that. The select committee has told vets that it would give them access to the District Court to appeal a decision made by the Veterinary Council. I think that vets have a very strong power here, indeed, to appeal against something that can seriously impinge on their career or give rise to questions over their conduct. If vets feel aggrieved in some way or feel that they have not had a decent hearing from their own council, they can now appeal to the District Court.

Interestingly enough, we did not allow that option for a vet’s accusers. We have not allowed those who bring a complaint against a vet to appeal to the District Court.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Why not?

Now members may ask why we did not—there is a big shout—but the simple reason is that complainants are witnesses to the vet’s practice. They are simply witnesses to the vet’s practice, but the vet himself or herself is an active participant in either foul practice or good practice that has been misinterpreted. Complainants are simply witnesses, so why should they be allowed to appeal to the District Court? They can, though, go to the High Court and seek a judicial review, to look at the issue and check that all has been done properly. So complainants can challenge the complaints assessment committee process by judicial review in the High Court, but they cannot go to the District Court.

As many members in the Committee have probably realised, I am not one to get bogged down in the detail unless it is absolutely essential, but I have to say that—

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Tell us about Bianca.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I will, because that story goes to the heart of what this bill is all about. People who look on their pets, who have pets in their lives, and who transfer their love to those pets—

💬 Phil Heatley: Companions.

R DOUG WOOLERTON:—companions; that is the way those people look at it—want to know whether any redress is available to them if things go wrong, if their pets are not treated in a professional manner, or if the pets are not treated by someone their owners see as competent. If they are not happy, they want to know whether something can be done.

In the case of Bianca, Bianca’s family—her parents, her caregivers; I shall put it that way—wanted to know what the select committee would do about it and, through the select committee, they wanted to know what Parliament would do about it. They were in what they saw as the highest court in the land, and they demanded some answers from our chairman. To give our chairman some credit—which I do not like doing too often—he took that case seriously. He brought us into line as a committee and said that we must do something in this bill to reassure people that they have redress, that veterinary practitioners are competent, and that even where the veterinarian is competent and a member of the public feels they are not, there is somewhere members of the public can go to have the matter sorted out. It is not only about competency; it is not only about being right; it is about the public being satisfied that right has been done. Our chairman, to his credit, took that case up and made sure that the provisions dealing with complaints were in the bill, to ensure that those things happened.

The public must have confidence in vets. Out on the farm there is an element of callousness—

💬 Hon David Carter: They have more confidence in vets than they do in New Zealand First.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Mr Carter, as a farmer, will understand that he will spend a finite amount of money on a sheep, a cattle beast, or whatever. But, when it comes to small animals—to cockatiels, to Bianca—there is no limit to what a person is prepared to spend. There is no limit to the redress they will demand if they do not believe that their “Bianca” is being treated right, and our chairman made sure that the bill took care of that. So it is not only a matter of ensuring that right is done but also that the public need to have complete faith that it is being done, and they need to see that it is being done. In the end, they need to know that there is a process that is robust and that will censure those vets. In the tragic case of Bianca, the public did not feel there was enough censure in the system, so we have worked hard to put that into the system.

What an inspirational contribution that was. I think that people sitting at home listening to this debate can rest easy knowing that with people on the Primary Production Committee like Doug Woolerton, David Carter, and Phil Heatley, they have strong advocates there. Pet owners of this nation can feel happy that they have people on that committee who are just as passionate about their pets as they are.

We have heard a number of members discuss the sad case of Bianca Parker-Green, the sulphur-crested cockatoo. I think we should rename this part the “Bianca part”, because this whole part is really about how we deal with complaints against vets. We should really refer to this part as the one that deals with what happens when vets go bad. This is where New Zealanders who have—

R Doug Woolerton: When they go ape!

Mr Woolerton says: “When they go ape!”. It is the part that sets out how complaints will be dealt with and how they will be treated, and the steps that the Veterinary Council goes through when it receives valid complaints about the treatment that some vets in this country have delivered.

So I will speak this evening about the complaints assessment committee. I would like to make a few comparisons between the set-up that the bill will put in place for the complaints assessment committee and the set-up that we have for select committees in this Parliament. One of the things I am unsure about is the power that the complaints assessment committee will have. I would like members to turn to clause 35A, “Power to call for information or documents”, which states: “… a complaints assessment committee may, by written notice, require any person to provide to the committee any papers, documents, records, or things.” Just as a small aside, I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Parekura Horomia, to stand and tell us what is meant by the word “things”. Since we are talking about vets, the mind boggles about some of the “things” that could be called upon.

If we look at the power this assessment committee has, we see that it has stronger powers than a parliamentary select committee. People who have followed a similar inquiry—or complaint, as such—within Parliament at the moment will have been watching the TVNZ inquiry. One of the things the select committee found was that even though it could invite people to appear before the committee, or could write to people such as Susan Wood, Bill Ralston, or Paul Holmes, there really was no requirement for any of those people to attend. But if we liken the powers that this complaints assessment committee will have, we see that it will have the legal right to require any person to attend a committee. So we have the situation of the complaints assessment committee having stronger rights than a parliamentary select committee. I wonder why that is. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain why the complaints assessment committee has stronger powers than a parliamentary select committee.

As one of the previous speakers pointed out when talking about the Bianca incident, the owners of that cockatoo felt that they were coming to the highest court in the land to put forward their views. I would agree with that. Yet here we have the situation whereby a very, very minor court—if we could call it that—the complaints assessment committee, will have stronger powers than a parliamentary select committee. That TVNZ inquiry has called person after person to appear, and those people have declined to come. Yet we will say to vets that if they are in the gun, if there is a complaint about them, the complaints assessment committee will have the power to call absolutely anybody as it makes an assessment of those complaints. I do not think that is right. I think the Minister needs to explain why he is satisfied that the assessment committee has stronger powers than a select committee.

It is always sad when we hear a very emotional speech from Doug Woolerton. I suppose, when somebody speaks emotionally about Bianca Parker-Green, we remember our own pets. Mine was Gee. He was a mongrel. He did not worry about that. He got run over and he has gone to that big kennel in the sky. We took him to the vet but he died overnight. It is ironic that it was on the day of my first National Party regional conference in Auckland, and I was not there for him. I picked him up and took him home, and we buried him in the backyard, where the daisies grow now.

💬 Katherine Rich: Are you allowed to do that in Auckland?

Absolutely! It is my land. But I always wondered whether the vet had done the right thing by my dog. I always had the feeling in the back of my head—

💬 Jo Goodhew: Gut—in your gut!

—in my gut. Well, there is plenty of it. I wondered whether the vet had done the right thing by Gee.

💬 Phil Heatley: Who killed Old Yeller?

Who killed Gee? Was it the person who was driving the boy-racer car, or was it the vet? To this day I really do not know. How ironic it is that we are talking—[Interruption] I see that the comedy act for Labour, the Minister of Māori Affairs, has turned up. He sat in the chair for about 5 minutes, and did not know what he was doing.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Before I was rudely interrupted by the dinner break, I was talking about my dear departed Gee, the hybrid—not mongrel, I am told—dog. I will be attempting to take another call, as I am allowed to do under the Standing Orders, but I want to say that we have always wondered whether the vet did right by our dog. We still, to this day, do not know whether the vet let him toddle off into kennel land. I suppose the irony of it is today we are celebrating the opening of King Kong down the road. King Kong is another animal that is doomed to go to the big ape place in the sky—something that maybe New Zealand First members know something about.

I want to talk about the part of the commentary dealing with the complaints assessment committee. It states: “Some submitters said the existing complaints and disciplinary processes are weighted in favour of veterinarians.”—hence the insertion of, I think, clause 30. It is just like the Police Complaints Authority; people need to have trust and faith in the process. I still think there is some way we can fix this. I still think there is a provision in this bill that we should change. It is veterinarians who are on the assessment committee and it is veterinarians who are on the judicial committee. It is a wee bit too much like the Police Complaints Authority, where police investigate complaints against the police. There needs to be, somewhere in Part 3, a defined demarcation between the council, those who sit on the assessment committee, and those who sit on the judicial committee.

That is what this part is supposed to do—to give a bit of trust. It is supposed to provide a process that the public can trust. Many people in this country have pets, whether they be birds, dogs, cats, goldfish, horses, or, in Mr Woolerton’s case, cows.

💬 Chris Tremain: Three of them.

He has three cows. He is a huge farmer. Daisy is one of Doug Woolerton’s cows, I think. We are supposed to engender that trust and faith in a process, and I still do not think Part 3 actually does that, at all. The Primary Production Committee has done its utmost to try to get that separation between the organisations, but if somebody feels he or she has a complaint to make against a veterinarian, there still is no clear demarcation between those who are on the assessment committee and those who are on the judicial committee, and I would like to see more work done on that.

💬 Kate Wilkinson: That’s in Part 4, Tau.

No, it is not. If the member reads the bill properly—as I am sure she has; I am not for 1 minute accusing her of having not read the bill—she will see that Part 3 is about the assessment committee and the judicial committee. There has to be more demarcation between the two. Like I said, it is a bit like the Police Complaints Authority; we really have to engender some trust and faith in those processes in order for them to work. We have seen, in the case of Bianca Parker-Green, the sulphur-green cockatoo, that the owners did not have enough faith or trust in the process. Where could they go to get that trust, that faith and confidence in the process? It is a delicate balance, because there have to be skilled people on these committees. I would question how people get on those committees, but, as my learned colleague said, that comes up in Part 4.

I want to take a brief moment to congratulate the chairman of the committee, the Hon David Carter, and also my bench mate, Phil Heatley, on his impassioned plea about clause 30AA. That clause catches those who run away and say they are not veterinarians any more.

💬 Phil Heatley: You can’t keep running.

They cannot keep running—“You can run but you can’t hide.” That is the great thing about that clause. Phil Heatley did an amazing amount of work on it. I congratulate the committee on that part of it. It really does try to get the balance right, and to get some faith and trust in the process, but I am afraid that it falls a bit short because the council picks the people who do the assessment and also the people who sit on the judicial committee. So I think we need to tweak that a little bit.

I do not know what the Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton, might have to say about that. I hope he takes a call and points out where I am going wrong—or not. I say that if we are to have a process that works properly, then we have to make sure that the process does work, and that people have enough trust and faith in that process to go down that track whenever they feel that their pet has not been given justice, I suppose, or the right medicine. Those are my issues on that. I hope the Minister takes a call.

Sometimes in talkback land one can let the facts get away with one’s prejudice, but here in the Chamber one cannot. It would be a good idea if people kept to the facts—or made an attempt at it. We are told that the committees are all mixed up, and that there are veterinarians all over the place. Actually, the member was dealing with new Part 3A anyway, which is inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 8 in my name, and which we are not supposed to be dealing with.

💬 Hon David Carter: No, clause 69.

Well, let us look at clause 69, “Composition of Council”, for a start. We can see the composition of the council is three veterinarians, two laypersons, one veterinarian appointed by the Minister, and the person for the time being responsible for veterinary science at Massey University. So we have a mix there.

💬 Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am trying to help the Minister. He is now moving to clause 69, which is in Part 4. We are still discussing Part 3, with Part 3A to go. Then we will move to Part 4, when we will have plenty of time to talk about the composition of the council.

Speaking to the point of order, we just heard that all the judicial committees and all the complaints committees are all mixed up, with veterinarians and council members everywhere. I responded to that by saying that the facts are that the council members appoint the committees. In the committees we are looking at, we have district court judges or retired court judges. The last time I knew or thought about it, I was aware a barrister or solicitor of the High Court was unlikely to be a practising veterinarian. I would like the member to get on to the facts of this legislation and not mislead the people who may be listening.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to raise two points. First, my colleague raised a point of order with you. The Minister rose and, speaking to the point of order, basically started a 5-minute speech. I ask you to try to rule on that first.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Does the member want me to deal with it as he goes along?

In a short while, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): What is the other part?

The other part of the point of order was that I was accused of misleading the Committee. I think that is out of order.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Misleading the people who are listening.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank both of you for raising that, whatever it was. I think the point of order was wrongly raised in the first place. I took it that the Minister was simply making those references by way of comparison. I thought they were relevant. I thought that much of the other stuff that has been said was irrelevant. We will move on. The Minister has had his say; does anyone else wish to speak?

I rise to speak on Part 3 and to offer sympathy to Tau Henare about Gee. I am still not sure whether Gee got run over by the vet or the boy racer, but Gee needed protection. He needed protection and justice, and Part 3 goes some way towards ensuring that he would have got that justice. Part 3, as we all know, relates to complaints, disciplinary hearings, medical and competence assessments, and conditions of practice. Whilst I am not a practising veterinarian, I was a practicing barrister and solicitor so I suppose I am halfway there. We must have transparent and robust processes.

I go back to my original theme. My original stance was that this bill is all about protecting the brand. It is all about protecting the brand of the veterinarians. It is all about protecting the reputation of veterinarians, not just in New Zealand but also in overseas jurisdictions. We have an enviable record of wonderful veterinarians, and if we do not have the legislation to support that reputation, then it has only one way to go, and that is downwards. This bill is about maintaining the consistency of those standards. Part 3 goes some way towards putting in place the glue that holds those standards together.

We all have pets. For some of us they are part of our families, although no doubt they do not qualify for the Working for Families beneficiary scheme. I actually think that is somewhat discriminatory for some, but, however, I will stick to the point, because I do believe in showing some relevance. The public and their pets must have confidence in their vets. That is the ultimate test. Do pets and the public have confidence in their vets? They must have confidence in the process and in the substance of the process. They must be confident that the mistakes—and we have seen that people do make mistakes—will be addressed; that the mistakes will not be denied; that the mistakes will not be forgotten, as happened 23 years ago; and that the mistakes will not be refuted. For example, if a cat or a dog has been bullied with a tennis ball by a vet, that vet must be held to account. This part goes some way towards addressing that. A vet cannot hide behind any so-called privilege of the House, because this process is intended to be open and transparent. It is not dissimilar to a court. We have rules of procedure.

I am pleased to see that at least some cognisance has been taken of the ability of some legal assessors. For example, clause 31 allows for the appointment of a legal assessor who can advise the Veterinary Council on procedure and proceedings. That is a very important point in relation to the impartiality of the council, which, after all, is determining the fate of the pet, the pet’s owner, or the pet’s vet.

💬 Phil Heatley: Will the vet leak the results?

It is open and transparent. I understand that it is open to the public, so the public can listen to the results. However, it might have been the pet that was doing the leaking. [Interruption] Oh, sorry!

Having said that, and moving on, I am pleased to point out that there is legal provision for an assessor to make sure that rules and procedures are put in place, to make sure that they are unbiased, to make sure that they are impartial, and to make sure that justice is at least seen to be done, that there is some sense of natural justice in the whole process. It is important that the vet is protected as much as the pet owner, because at the end of the day that is part of our principle of natural justice. This part goes some way towards protecting that rule of natural justice. That rule includes the right to a fair hearing. I am pleased to see that some procedures and rules will be in place to ensure that vets cannot be unilaterally charged.

I rise to speak on Part 3, particularly in relation to complaints, disciplinary hearings, medical competence assessments, and conditions of practice. The point I would particularly like to make tonight concerns the interpretation of a “specified person”. I ask the Minister to take a call on this point, particularly in relation to clause 30AA and clause 33. The point I have risen to speak about is the definition of a specified person.

Clause 30AA(a) states that a specified person “means a veterinarian or a person who was a veterinarian at the time of the relevant conduct;”. That is pretty clear; I do not have a problem with that. Subclause (b) states: “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 defines the person as a vet, but it does not define whether the acts that were committed have anything to do with whether the person was working as a vet, which is a very important point. I will tell members why that is a very important point, and the Minister may like to take a call to indicate whether further definition is needed in the interpretation of “specified person” to clarify the point.

Under clause 33 someone can raise complaints about a veterinarian or a specified person. Clause 33(1) states that any person may make a written—tuhituhi—complaint to the council about the conduct of a veterinarian or a specified person. That raises the question about what type of complaint can be made. Does it have to be a complaint about the role of a vet when working as a vet, or can it be outside his or her capacity as a vet? Does it mean that a person may decide to make a complaint because, for example, he or she drives past a vet who is speeding to the pub? There may be some other examples that members of the Committee can give me tonight, to help me. A number of things may raise the question—

💬 Dr Jackie Blue: Foul language.

Perhaps someone may walk into a veterinarian’s surgery and hear some foul language used.

💬 Kate Wilkinson: That’s not good.

It is not good. Perhaps playing bad tennis could be an example.

The point I really want to get to is: what would happen if a complaint was written because a male veterinary surgeon was sitting next to a child on an Air New Zealand or Qantas plane? He should not sit next to a child—

💬 Jacqui Dean: Because there could be a complaint.

Exactly. That is the point I make. Could someone make a written complaint about a male veterinarian because he is sitting next to a child?

I want to add a point to that, because it shocks me entirely. The leadership of this Government has not come out and said something strongly about the male roles in the community and the fact that a man should be able to sit next to a child. The Government should be able to say exactly where it stands on that issue. Men are being pushed into a section of the community where they cannot be trusted with children any longer, and, frankly, that is not good enough. Men are fathers. They deserve to be able to sit next to children on aeroplanes.

Let us go back to Part 3 and imagine that a male vet was sitting next to a child on a aeroplane, and that somebody has decided to write a complaint to the veterinarians complaints authority about the fact that he was sitting next to a child on an Air New Zealand flight.

💬 Kate Wilkinson: With a tennis ball.

That would not be good.

So I come back to the question I talked about. It is a serious question, and I ask the Minister to take a call on it. It is about the definition of when the complaint can be made. Can a complaint be made in a veterinary situation or can it be made outside a veterinary situation? I think we need to go back to the interpretation clause and clarify that. Fortunately, the process is stopped early in the piece, as clause 35(2) states: “However, if at any time after receiving a complaint …’. That is where the confusion is.

I rise to speak to Part 3, “Complaints, disciplinary hearings, medical and competence assessments, and conditions of practice”. I do so because this is a very important part of the bill. Why so? Well, we know that about half of the submissions before the Primary Production Committee were from worried pet owners. Why would there be worried pet owners? Because pet owners are second only to parents in terms of protecting the vulnerable—children and pets. That is why we have emotive pleas from pet owners and emotive pleas from parents that we look after their interests. That is why there is a provision that deals with complaints, disciplinary hearings, medical and competence assessments, and conditions of practice. We have this part of the bill because those things are important if we are to protect pets as we would children. They are very vulnerable members of our families, our whānau, and that is why Part 3 has 34 pages—34 of the total of 91 pages. It is very, very significant.

My learned colleagues who are members of the Primary Production Committee that considered this bill have given us excellent insight into the deliberations of the select committee, and I make no apologies for repeating my former theme. A large number of amendments were proposed by the select committee; a large number of paragraphs were struck out and new paragraphs put in—unanimously, of course. They represent the very hard work that the select committee did to achieve a balance between the interests of the veterinarians and the interests of the pet owners.

I am speaking to Part 3 because I am a pet owner, so I understand. My pet, Hogan, a cat, is reaching a stage, at 18 years of age, when he is a very, very old pet. Of course I am concerned, because before too much longer he will be visiting my friendly vet. I spoke to my vet today, and he really encourages us to get this bill through the House before Christmas because it is very important for him. One day, before too much longer, Hogan will be visiting the vet, and it will be for the last time. I want to make sure there is a process in place should I want to make a complaint about the vet—but I doubt I ever would.

I want to refer to an earlier question asked by a colleague of mine about what the “things” might be in clause 32. I have an idea of what the “things” might be, for I know that my vet stores the dead pets in the freezer. I think the “things” might be the dead pets in the freezer awaiting repatriation to their owners, their whānau, their family. They may be the “things”. I propose that this is perhaps an answer to that question.

I do feel very passionately about this part, because it is about protection for pets such as Hogan, our 18-year-old cat, who may soon be shuffling off this mortal coil, or kicking the bucket, or going to the great cattery in the sky. I, like other owners—like the owners of Bianca Parker-Green, the cockatoo—feel very, very strongly about the protection of my pets. But as someone who has had a profession and is married to a professional, I understand that there needs to be a balance between the rights of the vets and the rights of the pets and the pets’ owners. My learned colleague mentioned natural justice, and Part 3 is the part of the bill that sets it all out so that we understand how these processes should take place. I remind members that Mr Heatley warned the vets.

We know that the members of the select committee balanced both sides and came up with the many amendments. The original bill was a mess because the previous Minister of Agriculture had not consulted the sector groups.

I move, That the question be now put.

I too rise to speak to Part 3, “Complaints, disciplinary hearings, medical and competence assessments, and conditions of practice”. While I have every sympathy for others, I can share my own story of a pet who is now departed.

💬 Dr Jackie Blue: Oh no. Who’s that?

Sally.

💬 Dr Jackie Blue: What was Sally?

Sally was a dear pet of ours. She was a Jack Russell terrier, a faithful family pet. Do members know what her favourite game was?

💬 Hon Members: What?

We would chuck a tennis ball, and the dear little thing would chase after it. My goodness, we loved that little dog. She would catch it in her mouth, the sweetheart. Her little teeth would pierce the tennis ball, but that would not make her stop. She would continue to try to stuff it in her little mouth. She would get about half of it in, and then, burdened by that tennis ball—because she was only a wee Jack Russell with little legs—she would make her way back to us. It was so cute. [Interruption] No, we did not tape her paws. It looked like we taped her paws, because she was just a wee dog. This poor wee dog Sally whom we loved very dearly one day developed a fatal attraction to State Highway 1. It was very sad.

💬 Hon David Carter: Don’t tell me it was the motorcade! Helen Clark again?

There was a swish of air. The vehicle was going so fast that I saw just a figure in the back seat reading, so I do not know who it was. But it was a very sad moment for our family. We picked Sally up off State Highway 1 and took her inside.

💬 Phil Heatley: Healed her up?

I wish we could have. We had to take her to the vet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am just curious to know what clause or clauses this matter is relevant to.

I am addressing Part 3, because the point of the story is that Sally died. We left her with the vet, we went home, and we then had a phone call to say that Sally had died that night in the hands of the vet.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): OK.

It was very important to us to know that Sally had been looked after, because we have two children who cared about that dog very much. OK, I jest, but I think it is very important that, if we had not felt that Sally had been in good hands, we would have had recourse. Had we needed to make a complaint against the vet, we as a family needed to know we had good recourse. I believe that there needs to be protection not only for ourselves as pet owners but also, equally, for the vet who has been delivered this poor little creature with a tennis ball in its mouth and on its last legs. It is very important that both sides have protection.

This bill is not only about pets—and I know that members in this room are feeling a bit bruised because of all the sad stories. It is also about farm animals. In fact, I am a farmer. I have 10 heifers on our property. I need to tell members—and this does have a point, Mr Chairperson—[Interruption] The member is right; there is a bit of bull involved in this story. My dear husband rang me last night to say: “A terrible thing has happened, my love.” I said: “What, my darling?”. He said: “You know those 10 2-year-old heifers we have down in the paddock?”, and I said: “Yes, darling.” He said: “Guess what, the neighbour’s bulls have hopped the fence. Worse than that, those neighbouring bulls have had their way with our tender little heifers.” So we were faced with a genuine farming emergency, as members with an agricultural background will know—and the National Party is blessed with many members with an agricultural background.

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 32 be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (2) the word “counsel”, and substitute the words “a justice of the peace”.