Veterinarians Bill

Part 3A, “Conditions of practice and appeals”, of the Veterinarians Bill is indeed worthy of support. It causes me to reflect on the working conditions, as well as the imposed conditions, of veterinary practice. Just for a moment I would like to reflect on the working conditions of veterinarians, not so much nowadays but in the past decades, when vets built up the tremendous rapport with farmers that has given us the very successful pastoral industries we have today.

I have been privileged to live in some parts of New Zealand that are really very rural. One such place was Hokianga, where my brothers and I had a dairy farm on Wharekawa Road at Oue. The vets that used to service the area were dedicated and did a terrific job, but the conditions of practice were not always the best.

I recall hearing of one such event that occurred in the 1970s, when a vet received a phone call from an aggrieved client whose cow had just died after it had been treated by the vet. It was a sad situation. It was raining heavily at the time—the rain was almost horizontal—and it was about 10.30 at night. Those were rotten conditions to practise in.

💬 Hon Member: On the West Coast?

No, no, this was in Hokianga in the far north—the winterless north. But it was very wet.

💬 Hon Member: It was warm.

It was warm and wet.

The farmer suggested that there were two things they could do. One was for the vet to accept the farmer’s diagnosis of the death. The cow, shortly after the treatment, had been seen fighting with another cow, and the farmer considered that the lunging thrust of the aggressive cow’s horns had twisted the calf inside the cow, which had caused the blood vessels to choke off from the heart, leading to the cow’s demise. That was the farmer’s interpretation and, in the view of the farmer, it had sustained the cow’s death. The vet was told that the alternative was to come out straight away and perform what the farmer called a “postal mortem”. The vet, however, had no difficulty in agreeing with the farmer’s diagnosis.

I recall another such event, in terms of the conditions that vets had to practise under, when the same vet—a good Scots-trained practitioner—was asked to assist a cow calving at Taheke. It was another foul night, and the rain was similarly horizontal.

💬 Hon Member: On the West Coast?

No, no, still up in Hokianga.

💬 Hon Member: The winterless north?

Well, it was winter and the rain was warm, but it was raining. The vet said he would get on his way, as he imagined the creek was coming up. The farmer said that yes, it was, and that the cow was in fact in the creek and having difficulty calving. The farmer thought that the cow probably had a broken leg. “Gracious,” said the vet, “she is in the creek, she is having difficulty calving, and you think she has a broken leg? I’ll get there as soon as I can.” “No rush,” said the farmer, “I think she’s quite comfortable.” Those were the conditions that vets had to practise in.

The life of a vet was not without difficulty, even in a domestic sense, although often the difficulty came from absence rather than presence. I remember another occasion in Kaitāia, in the winterless far north—

💬 Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is to be no comment at all during a point of order.

💬 Taito Phillip Field: That sounded like a very nice story for children at night, but I ask the member to be more relevant to the part we are debating.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his contribution. I ask the member to continue.

💬 Hon Member: What was the ruling?

The ruling was to please continue. Indeed, on that occasion, the vet was away and he had to engage a locum.

On occasions when the normal veterinary practice has changed, systems have changed, and farmers get confused, we need some quite specific conditions that apply to the practice of veterinary-trained people. We need the sorts of conditions that are specified in Part 3A. In looking at the conditions of practice and appeals, we could start with the proposed new clause 55A and go through the clauses in a precise manner, looking at each one. But, in reality, National supports this bill.

I rise not to join in the pitiful filibuster of the National Party. In the extremely unlikely event that anybody is listening to Parliament tonight, I just want to assure listeners that what they have been hearing is the National Party’s attempt at a filibuster. That term was invented in America to refer to parties that try endlessly to delay a Parliament. Is this what the National Party members are reduced to—talking about pets and filibustering? Is this how they think they will throw their weight around Parliament and impress listeners? I can tell those members that all this will do is turn people off and turn off the voters, because it is a complete waste of Parliament’s time. We have heard a lot about pets tonight, but what about the other animals in New Zealand that veterinarians care for?

This part of the bill is all about the conditions of practice of veterinarians, but what about the conditions of the millions of farm animals in New Zealand that live in conditions of utter cruelty? Millions of hens live in cages where they have only a very tiny area in which to turn round. There are millions of hens in New Zealand that are fed antibiotics continuously. If veterinarians were concerned about the conditions that hens in this country live in, those cruel conditions would end tomorrow. Of course, there is one other person—who happens to be in this room—who could bring to an end the cruel conditions that hens, and pigs in sow crates, have to endure in New Zealand. That person is the Minister of Agriculture.

But since we are talking about veterinarians we need to think about, for example, the millions of chickens that endure terrible conditions—up to 40,000 of them are crammed into sheds—and are fed antibiotics continuously for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We know that the continuous feeding of low doses of antibiotics to millions of animals that are not even sick will cause antibiotic resistance—and it is doing so. Fifty percent of the chicken flocks in New Zealand have been found to carry antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Now, why is that practice taking place? Who is dispensing the antibiotics? Who is prescribing antibiotics to millions of chickens in New Zealand, continuously, in low doses, for their breakfast, their lunch, and their dinner? It is the veterinarians who are writing out the prescriptions for the continuous feeding of antibiotics, even though they know, as every member of this Parliament knows, that that practice is causing antibiotic resistance. It is putting the future health of New Zealanders at risk. The Minister of Agriculture is laughing, but he will not be laughing when antibiotic resistance develops to such an extent that we are not able to treat basic diseases in New Zealand.

Unfortunately, it is the veterinarians of this country who are not only filling out the prescriptions to enable these appalling, shameful practices to take place but who are not speaking out. If veterinarians were to say that it is cruel to keep hens in cages where they cannot turn round or even stretch their wings, then I am sure that that practice would be eliminated—even if this Parliament is so spineless and so pathetic that it will do nothing to end the suffering of the millions of animals that are enduring horrendous conditions every single day, even as we speak. Even as we speak, there are pigs in sow crates that cannot even turn round and are driven to despair. There are also hens in cages, and all those animals are there because veterinarians are tolerating the practice and turning a blind eye to it—and, of course, the Minister of Agriculture, who is laughing, is allowing that practice to continue.

I rise to speak in support of new Part 3A, “Conditions of practice and appeals”. It is part of today’s Supplementary Order Paper 8, which is amending the Veterinarians Bill reported by the Primary Production Committee. I think that committee has done a commendable and very thorough job. I have been reading through the bill, and in particular Part 3, “Complaints, disciplinary hearings, medical and competence assessments, and conditions of practice”, and of course the Supplementary Order Paper amendments to insert new Part 3A, “Conditions of practice and appeals”, which is very thorough. I have been really impressed that the provisions are so similar to those of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. Members may know that I am a medical doctor—

💬 Chris Auchinvole: We knew that.

Yes, and I would like to recount two stories about my life as a medical student, which have relevance to new Part 3A. They are two stories that impressed me, and that I remember very well.

In the 1970s I was a medical student at various Auckland hospitals. It was before the Cartwright inquiry; we did not have the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act and we did not have a process for obtaining informed consent. The first story happened when I was a student at Green Lane Hospital—as I say, before the Cartwright inquiry. As students, we were asked to perform vaginal examinations, as part of our gaining experience and so forth, but we did not have any informed consent process for those women patients. The examinations were done under anaesthetic; the patients were unaware of those vaginal examinations done by students. It felt vaguely wrong but none of us spoke out, I am ashamed to say. Then of course we had the Cartwright inquiry, and that dragged all the doctors, kicking and screaming, into the position where we had to have informed consent and respect patient rights.

A second episode that also struck me was when I was a student at Auckland Hospital’s sexually transmitted diseases clinic. A male patient was brought in. He was not asked if he would allow students to be with the doctor. He was asked to strip, and was then examined with all those students around. He was embarrassed, I was embarrassed, but nobody spoke up.

Now, some 30 years later, we do have the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, and now we have the Veterinarians Bill, which is being amended. I endorse the position of veterinarians in supporting this bill. It a good to have something that is transparent and robust. I will read from the March 2005 news brief of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. The council supports this change in the complaints process, and I would like to read a short section: “The Bill allows the council to require a competency assessment of a veterinarian to ensure that the veterinarian is meeting the minimum standards for continuing practice.” That is just like the provision of the medical Act—the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act—and I endorse it absolutely. The change is necessary. We have seen that important change come over the medical fraternity during the last 30 years, and it is natural that it would follow into the veterinary world as well.

I also agree with Sue Kedgley in her comments regarding the welfare of animals around New Zealand. The difference between humans and animals is that humans have the means to complain but animals do not. So people need to complain for them, or there needs to be some sort of transparent process for their welfare. That is why I thoroughly endorse the Veterinarians Bill, particularly new Part 3A.

I will continue with a consideration of Part 3A, “Conditions of practice and appeals’. I would like to raise a matter with the Committee as it sits and deliberates on this bill—the matter of when the conditions of practice and appeals are removed. Members will recall that those conditions of practice are all about the Veterinary Council imposing conditions on specific people: how they might practice and whether there are any guidelines as to where they can practise, and particular disciplines within veterinary medicine they are restricted to and other areas they are restricted from. A restriction might come about through a recommendation by a complaints assessment committee, or it might be a result of a disciplinary hearing or a medical competency assessment. It could come about through all manner of means. It could be some sort of limited discretion or registration provision for a vet, perhaps a vet newly out of vet school who is able to practice only in a particular area for a time, before he or she gains competence and moves on. That is what this part is about.

My concern is simply this: when we move to new clause 55C, we see that it discusses when the Veterinary Council may cease to apply the restrictions. So there are conditions around a particular vet practising, for all the reasons I have just outlined, and the council may move to remove those restrictions. It can do that on the earliest of the following dates, as stated in new clause 55C(1): “(a) the date stated in the relevant notice under section 55B(1): (b) the date on which the Council is satisfied that the specified person has completed, in relation to the condition, the requirement or requirements stated in the relevant notice under section 55B(1): (c) the date on which the Council is satisfied that the specified person is able to comply with the relevant minimum standards of practice without the imposition of the condition.” So, in all cases, the council can remove the imposition on that particular vet. My concern is simply this—and members will guess what I am about to ask; everyone is leaning forward because they can all guess—how often does the council—

💬 Hon Member: Meet.

—meet? Well, how often does the council meet? The reality is that the members of that council are dispersed throughout the country. They come together from time to time to release these vets out into the workforce and to remove restrictions on them. They might meet in November, but then might not meet in December; they are not like the National Party, which is working right to the wire. They might not meet in January. They are not like National Party members, who will be out there right throughout January, door-knocking and seeing what the people want. People might see me on the beaches, but I will not be sunbathing. I will be out there talking to New Zealanders.

💬 Georgina Beyer: You are tempting me now!

I will see Georgina Beyer in her bikini on the beaches of the Wairarapa, but I will be working.

But the Veterinary Council might not meet in December, and it might not meet in January. We would hope that it would convene in February, but the point is simply this: if a veterinary practitioner wants to be released from the restrictions around him or her because he or she has proved competency, and if this council, which meets in the first week of the month, meets in November and the application falls past that time, the vet has to wait all through November, December, and January. That is 3 months before the decision is made. I think that that is quite appalling. I believe that there should be a change made in this legislation to make sure—[Interruption] The member Rick Barker, who is heckling, is busy in Wellington because he has no electorate to service any more.

I follow another worthy contribution from my learned colleague Phil Heatley, one of the members of the Primary Production Committee who has worked slavishly on this bill to make it what it is today. I think the pet owners and veterinarians of this country can be very thankful that we have members on that committee of the merit of that member and of my colleague David Carter, who sat on that committee, as well.

I have learnt something new tonight as a result of reading Supplementary Order Paper 8, which inserts a new Part 3A. It is that when bills become Acts—get the royal assent—all the numbering can change. One of the concerns I had when looking at this Supplementary Order Paper was that it states that “clauses 46 to 47A (line 20 on page 50 to line 26 on page 54)” are to be omitted. That may sound very technical, and mean very little to listeners at home, but basically it takes out all the provisions between and including clauses 46 and 47A. When I looked at the whole bill, I thought: “Hang on a minute. Clause 45 then will jump to clause 48. What happens to the numbering?”. So I went and had a chat with the Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton, and with his agreement I had a chat with the officials. I was not aware that sometimes when we make changes in Committee, when we take out chunks, paste them, and move them round the place, we mess up the numbering, and it is not until the very last part of the process that all the numbers change. Doing that can have quite an impact, because bills that go through the House that undergo huge, strong debate are often referred to by clause numbers, and that numbering can change quite late in the piece. That was certainly of personal interest to me to learn, after having been here some 6 years.

It was interesting to hear Sue Kedgley chat about the contributions made by the National Party, then talk about all and sundry issues, such as sow crates and antibiotics in chickens. That makes me wonder what the relevance of some of those issues is to this bill, because this bill sets in place a structure so that veterinarians can go through their registration, be processed, and practise in this country, be they veterinarians from New Zealand or ones who have come into the country. Then, in the event that things go wrong and a complaint is made against them, there are quite straightforward procedures about how those complaints are handled.

If we look at the new Part 3A, we get into a discussion about what happens after a decision from the complaints assessment committee is made, and here we have quite detailed provisions about what happens to people who have had a judgment made against them. In reading these provisions I find myself becoming a bit confused, because someone who has had a judgment made against him or her can still practise, but only under specified conditions, in specified practices, and doing specified work. It seems to me that this level of detail is probably best not put into a bill like this one, but left for perhaps the Veterinary Council to make its own regulations and rules about how it deals with vets whom complaints have been made about. It ends up being quite confusing.

I am wondering—and I would be interested in the Minister’s view on this—whether part of this Supplementary Order Paper really relates to overseas vets who come into the country and have qualifications that do not necessarily marry up with the qualifications that New Zealand vets hold. They might have a qualification that forms part of a New Zealand vet’s qualification, but does not quite match the full qualification.

I rise to speak to new Part 3A, “Conditions of practice and appeals”, specifically. I was very interested to hear the comments made by Sue Kedgley earlier on and, although I believe that Ms Rich may have been a bit hard on Sue Kedgley, I found what Sue Kedgley had to say about battery hens incredibly interesting. I know a bit about battery hens because I have rescued a few in my time. I have kept hens for years, and I know all the benefits of looking after them. In that time I have done a bit of research on battery hens. Although people may think it was inappropriate that I was looking to rescue battery hens from their little cages, it is disgusting to go to visit those places where they are lined up in their little cells. As they peep out between the little bars, they are stacked up, three-high, on top of piles of excrement, which absolutely stinks to high heaven. They get their little bit of shot of water that they can nibble at, and they have their beaks clipped to stop them pecking at the others, and their feathers are ripped out by those they are sharing the cage with. They have their little allocation of food. The light is manipulated, so they think it is daytime when it is actually night-time. That is their lot.

A battery hen can crank out 270 eggs a year, or about one every 26 hours if it is kept in that manipulated state. So I took it upon myself—as someone who wanted to have his little slice of the good life on his quarter acre—to go and buy some of those hens. They were cheap—no pun intended. They were only $1.50 each, and I got six of them to take home. Some of them were so knackered that they just sat on the ground. They could not even stand, because they had been kept in those squalid conditions for so long. But after a little while, they started to dig around in the wood shavings that I had prepared for them, they had food they could help themselves to, and they were given clean water. As a result of reading an exquisite tome called The New Complete Book of Self-Sufficiency by John Seymour, I introduced a rooster. All those hens discovered a whole new pastime in the hen house. [Interruption] That member did his apprenticeship for this House by sharpening pencils for MPs. Some of us have knocked around for quite a while and we know a bit about hens and chickens. We know the difference anyway.

What happened was that those chickens, once they were allowed to scratch around in the dirt, have a bit of a dust-bath to keep the mites away, and have a bit of fun with the old rooster—which I am sure Mr Hughes knows all about, coming from Horowhenua—they found that they did not lay quite as many eggs, but they had a helluva lot more fun.

It struck me while I was listening to Ms Kedgley that it is very much like those people who vote Green and Labour. They never knew what they were missing when they were stuck in their little cage. They never knew, because their environment was so totally controlled. They had their little squirt of water, their little shot of pellets, their little shot of whatever it is up the jacksie, like Ms Kedgley was talking about, and they laid to their full potential. They never knew what life held for them until they came to live in my little hen house. When they were given a bit of freedom, some wood shavings to scratch around in, and the old rooster now and then, they knew what life was really about.

So those voters who have their environment manipulated, who get a little squirt every now and then, who have their lights turned on so they think that it is daytime when it is really night-time, trot off to the polling booth and cast their vote in the direction of Labour and the Greens. They are just like those battery hens. But those rescued battery hens—a little bit like myself—have come over to the right side. They have scratched around in the dust. They know a little bit about what life is like and they know a little bit about roosters. They know how much fun the old battery hen can have with a rooster. I tell the members that if those rescued battery hens could vote, they would be voting National.

I am worried about some of the practices that this council is going to be able to dictate.

I thank my learned colleague Mr Borrows for the lesson on battery hens and what to do and what not to do with them. I rise to speak to new Part 3A, and to bring some relevance to the debate, despite the assertions of non-relevance or irrelevance from my not-so-learned colleague from the Greens. I rise to put some relevance back into this debate, and to talk about the conditions of practice. I know that it might come as a surprise to members that I might actually address the question, but so be it.

I wonder whether sometimes it is the chicken before the egg or the egg before the chicken, because we are talking about the Veterinary Council having somewhat impressive, albeit discretionary, powers. Whenever any body has discretionary and impressive powers, one has to look at the body itself—in other words, the council. If we look at the composition of the council—and I know that this is in the next part of the bill, but it is relevant in terms of who has the authority to impose those conditions—it can be seen that the council includes two laypersons, one veterinarian appointed by the Minister, and an academic. I wonder whether that is entirely appropriate when we are setting the standards, in advance, for a profession that is obviously concerned about protecting its brand and its reputation, and maintaining the consistency of those standards.

I wonder whether the Minister has brought that to mind, as to the composition of the council, when imposing these conditions of practice, because these powers are impressive and they are subjective. There is always a danger with discretionary, subjective powers that there is a lack of certainty. When laws are uncertain they can lead to misunderstandings, and they can lead to their being regarded as bad law. The subjectivity, I think, is a concern. The conditions imposed must be only those that in the council’s opinion are necessary. There is no objectivity in that test, there is no requirement whatsoever as to what is reasonable or what is not reasonable, and I do wonder as to the appropriateness of the total subjectivity of the test.

My having said that, some of the conditions that have been listed—and, again, they are discretionary and not mandatory—seem to reek somewhat of common sense, I must confess. It is not unusual for many professions, for example, to require continuing education as a condition, and, in fact, many professions require continuing education in any event as a prerequisite to having a practising certificate, and I speak on that in relation to chartered accountants. They have an extensive continuing education programme that ensures that their profession does indeed protect its brand, its reputation, and does maintain as far as possible consistency of standards. There are conditions that I think are sensible, and for those veterinarians who have been censured it is entirely appropriate that a condition of supervision may be applied. Obviously, there are also conditions that a specified person may not perform any work of a stated kind, and this gives some flexibility if, for example, there is a certain field of expertise with which that vet is not familiar. I think, again, there is some common sense there.

My major objection to new Part 3A is in relation to the notice. A condition in new clause 55B prescribes that the council must notify the person of any conditions of practice it has imposed. There is absolutely no notice requirement in this provision. It is almost like having the verdict before the trial, and I am concerned that the sense of fairness—the sense of natural justice that pervades some of the rest of the bill, the sense of a right to be heard—seems to be omitted from new clause 55B. In effect, there is no notice requirement whatsoever in relation to any conditions that the council may subjectively and unilaterally impose. I am concerned that could lead to serious injustices.

Following on from the excellent contributions from National members of Parliament on new Part 3A, I want to raise a different point and to ask the Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton, for some answers. My concern is the process.

The bill went through the Primary Production Committee, was substantially rewritten with the help of parliamentary counsel, then came back to the House, and at that stage the committee, I think, had every right to assume that it had done a pretty good job. Then today Mr Anderton suddenly dumps Supplementary Order Paper 8 on the Table of the House. When I look through that Supplementary Order Paper I see that a good amount of it is technical and makes changes to drafting, and I accept that—I want to make sure that when the legislation finally leaves the House it is as accurate as possible—but the part that puzzles me, and I think it would only be fair that the Minister take a call and answer this question, is why the Minister has seen fit, subsequent to the select committee process, to remove clauses 46 to 47A from the bill as reported back, and put them entirely into a new part. If that is done as a matter of clarity, to give us better legislation, then I say to the Minister that that advice should have been given to the select committee at the time. I want the Minister to tell us why he has seen fit to present this substantial Supplementary Order Paper at the eleventh hour.

The second point I want to raise with the Minister is in regard to the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 8. The third bullet point states that the Supplementary Order Paper amends the Veterinarians Bill to “relocate the provisions of the Bill in relation to conditions of practice (from clauses 46 to 47A to new clauses 55A to 55C).” The next words are important, and the Committee should note them: “There is no substantive amendments to these provisions.” That is what the explanatory note states, and the Committee has every right to rely on it. But when I go through the Supplementary Order Paper and through clauses 46 to 47A in the bill, as I read it—and I admit that we have been working on this for some time, and we will continue working on it over the next couple of days, so I may have missed something—I do not find any change at all in the wording of the provisions on the Supplementary Order Paper. It seems to me that clauses 46 to 47A have been picked up in their entirety, put in new Part 3A, and denoted as clauses 55A to 55C.

If I am right, I am very suspicious of the wording of the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 8: “There is no substantive amendments to these provisions.” I see the Minister is seeking some advice; I would be very pleased to hear his explanation. I do not see any change; maybe there are some very small, minor changes—maybe punctuation or a minor change of wording—but we as the Committee need to know that. We become worried when explanatory notes of Supplementary Order Papers are inaccurate.

So I ask the Minister to give us an explanation of those two points only. I am sure it will not take him long to do that. I reiterate the two points, so he is clear on why we want the answers. First, why, subsequent to the select committee process, has there been a substantial change in drafting format? I think that advice should have been given to the select committee at the time, by parliamentary counsel. I do not criticise the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials; I enjoyed working with them and they did a great job. This is a drafting issue pertaining to parliamentary counsel. The second point is that I want to know whether there are any changes at all, or whether those clauses have just been picked up in their entirety, with no change, and put into the new part.

I move, That the question be now put.