Veterinarians Bill

This includes debate on schedule 1.

We come to a part that is critical to the bill and, first, I take the opportunity of actually congratulating the Government. If we go through Part 4, we see that it is one of the few parts that did not have to be almost totally rewritten because of the incompetence of the previous Minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton. We finally have a part that we can get through relatively unscathed.

The clause I want to concentrate on in this contribution is, of course, clause 69, “Composition of Council”. Many people have taken the opportunity to talk about the vital role the council will have under this legislation. I take this opportunity to thank the current Veterinary Council for its role in helping us get this legislation right. It was invaluable and its advice was well received by the committee. It is a great pity that the previous Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Jim Sutton, totally ignored its advice prior to the drafting of the bill.

Clause 69 states that the council must have seven members. The council must have: (a) 3 veterinarians elected in accordance with regulations”—and I will talk about that in my second contribution—“(b) 2 laypersons appointed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette;” and (c) 1 veterinarian appointed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette; and (d) the person for the time being responsible for the veterinary science academic programme at Massey University.” Under clause 69 the person from Massey University is very easy to appoint. It should not be much trouble for the Minister. Then we move to the vet whom the Minister must appoint. I have a candidate I would like to suggest. It is the Hon Pete Hodgson, because he will be looking for a job in the very near future—within the next 12 or 18 months when the Government falls to bits. The Minister ought to keep Pete Hodgson in mind as a possible appointment because he will certainly be looking for a job.

Clause 69(b) requires two laypersons to be appointed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. Again we have a nomination tonight—Dame Ann Hercus. I believe that she is looking for a job. I believe that she has a little bit of additional time in her diary. She was a very valued member of the Television New Zealand board until a matter of hours ago. Surprisingly, after the examination of TVNZ at the Finance and Expenditure Committee today, she has created a bit of room in her diary. She has done the honourable thing and fallen on her sword—because, of course, there has been a large number of leaks, but we will talk about the leaks later. She is an excellent candidate for consideration. So we have one candidate, and she will do a good job for the Minister. She will certainly report any matters that might be of embarrassment to the Minister. After all, she did a very good job reporting matters of embarrassment to the Minister of Broadcasting, so she has a track record.

💬 Simon Power: What about Dianne Yates? She is retiring early.

No, I have to say to my learned colleague Simon Power, I would not recommend Dianne Yates. She is famous for only one thing. She has a bill before Parliament at the moment about the docking of dogs’ tails. Vets earn a huge amount of money from the cosmetic docking of dogs’ tails. I think she would have a conflict of interest.

💬 Katherine Rich: She did a dog impression in the House.

She did do a dog impression in the House, so she has shown some expertise.

We need to be considering advising the Minister on his ability to appoint two laypersons under clause 69(b). We have found one candidate, and we will continue, throughout the rest of tonight, to come up with suitable recommendations from the National caucus. We are here to help. We want this legislation passed as quickly as possible. We want the composition of the council determined as quickly as possible. We know that the Hon Jim Anderton is new to this field and has no familiarity with the farming sector or the veterinary profession. Therefore, we will make sure that over the next couple of hours we take every opportunity to assist him in making good nominations for the one further position he has to find on the Veterinary Council. It needs to be someone who can work closely and collegially with Dame Ann Hercus.

For any members opposite who may be looking for a job after the Christmas break, there is an opportunity to sit on the Veterinary Council. I know that the member from Dunedin South, the Hon David Benson-Pope, might be looking for a job over the Christmas break. I know he has been looking at his options. I understand that he has an offer to be a ballboy at Wimbledon, but I do not think he is quick enough on his feet to take up that one. So he might like to stand as a member of the Veterinary Council. It might be a useful job for the Hon David Benson-Pope.

There are other opportunities on the council. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jim Anderton, whether the veterinarian appointment has to be a veterinarian who holds a practising certificate, because that has not been stated in the legislation. I would be interested to know that, because members opposite may have tripped themselves up. I do not think Pete Hodgson holds a practising certificate, and if he does not, he may not be able to get this “job for the boys” and he will miss out altogether.

I notice that there is no paragraph (e) in clause 69 to appoint a member of the council who does not sit on the council and who takes no responsibility for any other business. If there were such a provision, we could have Winston Peters as the fifth member. He could sit on the council only for things relating to his particular skills, which, of course, would be dealing with the equine industry. As the Minister for Racing he has an opportunity there.

So there are plenty of job opportunities. Three veterinarians are to be elected in accordance with the regulations. Two laypersons are to be appointed by the Minister. David Benson-Pope is a possibility there. One veterinarian is to be appointed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. The last is the person who, for the time being, is responsible for the veterinary science academic programme at Massey University—[Interruption] Well, there is a candidate. There are plenty of opportunities there for former Labour members of Parliament after the Christmas break.

I move to another matter, clause 78. I took some practical steps and wandered along to the Bills Office regarding this particular matter. I was interested to see that the annual report by the Minister for that financial year has to be tabled in the House of Representatives 16 days after he receives it. Well, the Bills Office has never received an annual report. [Interruption]

Darren Hughes’ heckling is so effective, is it not! He has tripped me up, what, every 10 seconds in this speech! He has nailed me; I am on the cross. Darren Hughes is a phenomenal heckler. I tell members what would be more effective. After Christmas he will take his pills, his voice will break, and then there will be a deep voice booming across the Chamber, instead of a little squeak, and it will blow us off our feet. But up until now it is the small voice of Darren Hughes heckling the members on the other side of the House. He should come back when his voice breaks, heckle us, and he will be effective—he will knock us off our feet.

💬 Hon David Carter: Maybe they’ll drop before he comes back.

Yes, they will drop over Christmas and the member will be an effective heckler. He will certainly take it to members on this side of the House. He will not have to squeak and carry on, and we will respect him.

Anyway, I turn again to clause 78, “Annual report”. Subclause (2) states: “Within 16 days of receiving the annual report from the Council, the Minister must present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives.” We have not had one to date. There are none in the Bills Office. There are none in the records. I congratulate the Government on the fact that presenting a copy will now be compulsory and the council will have that transparency. I will certainly be getting the annual report of the Veterinary Council to see the progress of its work over the next year, with the passage of that particular measure.

💬 Darren Hughes: He has nothing else to do. He can’t get promoted.

Only dogs can hear Darren Hughes. Only dogs are put off when Darren Hughes heckles, because his voice is so high.

We have been waiting now for 5 weeks to find out what it was that the Exclusive Brethren paid for. What was it that they were buying from the National Party with all that investment? What was the deep issue that the Labour Government was proposing that had the Exclusive Brethren so up in arms that many of them actually voted in this election for the first time in their lives, according to our check on the electoral rolls? What is in this bill that has the Opposition members talking? Having told us that they would take only one call on each bill after—which one was it?

💬 Darren Hughes: After the ports bill.

They said they would take only one call on each bill after the ports bill but suddenly, the entire C-team of the National caucus has come into full flight in the Chamber. What has caused that? The Veterinarians Bill. Why would the National Party caucus be so excited about the Veterinarians Bill? We get excited about bills about humans, but they get excited about bills about animals. I can think why that would be, but probably the Standing Orders would prevent me from saying so. It is animals that get the people opposite so excited; humans they pass over. They have had so many opportunities today to talk about other things but they have chosen to talk about this.

Mr Heatley had one main point. It was that we have not had, under this left-wing, socialist tax-grabbing Government, a single report from the Veterinary Council as provided for in the Veterinarians Bill. Well, no, we will not have any reports until we pass the bill. Then the council will have to produce an annual report and table it. It is appallingly true that until an Act is passed requiring people to table an annual report, they do not have to table it. But, of course, if we had given the veterinarians a tax cut, they would table an annual report all by themselves without being required to by the Government! So I thank the Opposition for doing our job for us. Carry on—we are watching the clock tick away. We are just baffled by what their tactics are at this point in the evening.

After that contribution, I think it is important to note that it does not matter whether the issue is big or small—the National Party will take the issue seriously, and I think that pet owners and veterinarians up and down the country will be concerned to hear the comments made by Dr Michael Cullen that he does not think that their concerns are important enough to warrant a serious and thorough debate.

I turn my attention to Part 4, which is about the make-up of the Veterinary Council. Once again, I turn my attention to the complaints assessment committee. I see the new member Shane Jones heckling away there. The point I would like to make is that the complaints assessment committee has greater powers than the committee that he currently chairs. I will recap for those who were not here earlier. This bill allows a complaints assessment committee, by written notice, to demand anybody it wants to come before it and to demand any information it wants on any complaint. It can demand anything, whatever that thing might be, to be brought to it. Basically, it has stronger powers than a select committee of this House.

I know that that member Shane Jones just wishes he had those powers right now as he oversees the TVNZ inquiry, where, impotently, the Finance and Expenditure Committee invited Bill Ralston to come along to the select committee and he declined; invited Susan Wood to come along, but she declined; and invited Paul Holmes to come along to the committee, but he declined. Had Mr Jones been the chair of a Veterinary Council’s complaints assessment committee, he would have had a better chance of getting all those TVNZ staff members to come along and talk about issues of import to him.

So we have a committee that must have two or more people. How we can have a committee with just two people on it, I do not know. It is more of a couple than a committee. They sit and deal with complaints that might be very important but might be less significant than some of the issues that the Finance and Expenditure Committee currently inquires about here in Parliament.

One of the things that do concern me about this part is clause 74(5), which states: “A resolution of a complaints assessment committee is passed if a majority of votes are cast for it.” Well, I have a bit of a problem with that provision because each committee has only three people on it. That is my reading of clause 74(2), which states that each committee has two vets and one layperson. Well, in the event that there is a complaint that is contentious, the vets can gang up on the layperson and they need to have only a majority of one for that complaints assessment resolution to be passed.

That does not seem very fair. That does not seem to be due process. Surely, if significant complaints are brought before the complaints assessment committee—for example, the Bianca incident, which my colleague David Carter mentioned earlier—and the debate is contentious, and the members of the committee do not agree, they need to have only a majority of one on a committee of three for the resolution to be passed. I think that as the complaints assessment committee may deal with some quite contentious issues, that is not good enough. The complaints committee obviously needs to have more people on it, and it needs to have a greater balance. Otherwise we will always be in a position of the vets ganging up on the layperson, or two people ganging up on one. I really think the resolutions need to be passed by consensus, given that the committee is so very, very small.

We have talked about the composition of the council, and that clause has been renamed the “Hercus clause” by my colleague David Carter. I wonder why the Minister needs to appoint anybody on to a council that is basically going to oversee veterinarians. Why do we need to have any political influence at all? Why can we not trust veterinarians to put people on to their board whom they trust and vote for?

It is interesting to hear strident cries from National members about undemocratic process and appointments to committees of the council. I have just checked with the officials that the composition of the Veterinary Council is exactly the same as the composition set by the 1994 Act. Who was the 1994 Act passed by?

💬 Darren Hughes: The Labour Party?

Was it? I did not think Labour was in Government then, so I do not think it was. No, the National Government passed the Act but National members are now saying the Veterinary Council is a hopeless hotbed of socialist intrigue and undemocratic process—and it has not changed! It has not changed one scrap. I was thinking maybe I had missed something and that maybe it had changed. But this bit of the Act is exactly the same as the previous one. Furthermore, it has been the same all the time the Primary Production Committee has been looking at the legislation. So if it is so bad now—and everyone has to examine this very closely—then what was the select committee doing? I thought that under the very capable chairmanship of David Carter everything was hunky-dory and going along swimmingly. So nothing changed in the 1994 Act. Everything was fine, because National passed it, but now, on this night, it all has to be filibustered as though there is a plot against democratic process as we know it.

I do not think any self-respecting vet will be listening to the debate but if they are, then I would like them to consider this: we are told that the National Party wants to help the veterinary profession and get this bill passed. The Government was criticised just a few hours ago—although it seems like days, with the quality of the speeches—for holding the bill up; that it had to get in; that the vets were ready to celebrate and the champagne bottles were going to be opened. Yet here we are, hours later, arguing footling amendments, ridiculously trivial rubbish, that the so-called famous chairman of the select committee, all on his own behalf, changes the number, and all the rest of it. There have been hours and hours of delay.

I treat with complete derision what is going on here. The National Party may think it is funny or smart. I think it derides and undermines the reputation of the House, and I treat that behaviour with contempt. If those members carry on like that, then there is nothing in what they are doing that will advance the sum of knowledge in the veterinary profession by one millimetre. But they should go on doing it if they think that is the way to gain their reputation outside this Parliament. They should go ahead and make our day.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I presume that after a contribution like that we will be allowed a wide-ranging debate on the remaining part. After the Minister rose to—

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: They haven’t been already.

It is totally contrary to Speakers’ rulings for a Minister in the chair to interject.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is absolutely right, but he invited it.

No, I did not.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I may have misheard, but that is the way I understood it. The member spoke, and the Minister responded.

We now seek a ruling after having had a contribution from the Minister in which he referred to the bill I think once. Prior to that, members on this side of the Chamber had been pulled back to the point of the bill by you on several occasions. I noticed that Dr Cullen, in his contribution—which had very little to do with the bill—was not required to address the part in any serious way. I ask you now to advise the Committee on whether it is your intention to allow a wide-ranging discussion on the remaining part.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, I will continue to run the Committee as I have done, and I would say that people from both sides have strayed from the bill.

I want to bring to the attention of the Committee just how holier than thou the Minister seems to be. Never in his—how many years has the Minister been here, 20 years?

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Longer than you.

The Minister blurts out: “Longer than you.” Obviously, any fool would know that. [Interruption] Here we go, bring it on! It will be 40 love in a minute, I say to Mr Benson-Pope. He should keep his trap shut. [Interruption] Absolutely! At least I am not a bully, and at least I did not lie to the House. At least I did not make up stories and come down to the Chamber and tell—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

The Minister has the holier-than-thou attitude of a long-serving member of Parliament that says we are bringing the House into disrepute with our so-called tactics, as if he has never been party to a good discussion on a long bill that is actually a very intense bill. He has never been party to any sort of tactic in the House. That is what happens when one becomes an angry old pensioner.

The leader of New Zealand First is the other half of the angry pensioner duo.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I would like some semblance to the subject of the debate.

Is that right? I was just following what the last two Government speakers were on about. I am sorry that I have misread the situation. Clause 69(b) states: “(b) 2 laypersons appointed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette; …”. What it should really state is: “(b) 2 Labour Party cronies appointed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette; …”—and, yes, not only Ann Hercus, as my learned colleague says.

I hear that Jonathan Hunt is on his way back now. Do members know why? The reason is that the leader of New Zealand First will pick up the job as High Commissioner when he has done a bit of a stint as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Jonathan Hunt will come home, then he will end up with the plum job on that council.

But he is not the only one. What about John Goulter? He could be one of the laypersons who is appointed to the council. Or maybe it could be Ken Douglas, another angry pensioner. He is not doing much these days. The Minister should put him on the council. I tell members that he would be the first red veterinary councillor they have ever seen. He would be good. But here is another one—another guy who does not do much for a living. In fact, he makes his living off an appointment by the Labour Party. It is none other than the president himself, Mike Williams. Mike Williams could be on this council. He is a good candidate.

The Minister can sit there with a smug smile and a smug face, and he can shake his head all that he wants to. But the holier-than-thou attitude is gone, Mr Angry Pensioner.

At this point in the debate, as I stand up to address Part 4, “Veterinary Council of New Zealand”, I think it is very important to reflect for just a moment on why this bill is so important to the members of the National Party. I think we just need to look at the map of the electoral seats as a result of the last election to note the large swathe of blue that provincial and rural New Zealand is now painted. We need only reflect on the number of electorate seats that have been returned to their rightful National home to realise that, yes, the concerns of rural and provincial New Zealand are very important to us, as indeed is the Veterinarians Bill.

It has been noted on the other side of the Chamber how keen and enthusiastic we on the National side are to debate this part of the bill, and I want to take a moment now to thank my more senior colleagues for the time they have taken to come to provincial and rural New Zealand to support our campaigns. I want to thank Phil Heatley, who came down to Otago to help me campaign in order to win back Otago to National, so that farmers would be well represented in Otago. I want to thank Simon Power, who took time out of his busy schedule to come down to Otago. I took him through Middlemarch in the middle of winter, and we heard the concerns of farmers in Otago. We went through black ice but that did not deter us, because we were very, very concerned about the issues to do with farming in New Zealand. The issues are not just about pets for us in the National Party; they are also about farming.

I return to Part 4, Veterinary Council of New Zealand. I note that clause 67, “Functions of Council”, states: “The Council’s functions are—(a) to advise and make recommendations to the Minister on any matter relating to veterinarians and the practice of veterinary science:”. Clearly, this part of the bill is of vital importance and interest to us on the National side of the House. I want to move to paragraph (g) of clause 67, in which the council’s function is: “to receive, investigate, and hear complaints about, inquire into the conduct of, make assessments of, and discipline specified persons under Part 3:”. Now, just returning to Part 3 very briefly, I tell members that people have very strongly held affections not only for their vets but also for their farm animals. I think we in National have a very clear understanding of why this bill is so very important to us.

I rise to speak to Part 4, “Veterinary Council of New Zealand”, and I do so because it is a very important part—remarkable, indeed. But, unlike Mr Cullen, I actually want to talk about Part 4. I want, first of all, to thank the Minister for his enlightening comments, but, in fact, I had already noted that there are, unlike many parts of this bill, few, if any, changes to Part 4. Why is that? It is because the former Minister of Agriculture did not manage to meddle with this part before presenting the original draft. In fact, the details around the Veterinary Council, around the complaints assessment committees, and around the judicial committees obviously met with the approval of the sector—the very same sector that was not consulted with prior to putting together the rest of the bill. So Part 4 is remarkable for that.

Part 4 is also very important because it concerns the registration body of the peers, and the peers are the vets. The council members are there to examine, to register, to advise the Minister on any matter, including education, to talk to other countries about reciprocal arrangements, to hear complaints, and also to prescribe standards. I want to refer to talking to other countries about reciprocal arrangements and why that is so important. Again, we come back to the fact that we are short of vets, and particularly of rural vets. And I reflect on what my colleague has said about the blue tide that has swept through New Zealand—the blue tide that recognises that provincial New Zealand is important. The primary production sector is important, and that area of New Zealand has been callously disregarded by the Labour Government. In fact, on 17 September it was Labour’s peril. We see in the Chamber tonight many members who now hold former Labour seats, myself included.

When we look at the complaints assessment committees we see they have, as my colleague Katherine Rich has suggested, very, very powerful powers. Again, we are still to be illuminated about things. I put it to members again that those things are still probably the frozen bodies of the pets in the freezer. The judicial committees are a very important part of the process. We see that because Part 4 does not have many changes, if any; it is just a mere five pages, compared with the 31 pages that we saw in Part 3.

We can talk about clause 69, “Composition of Council”—three elected veterinarians and also another appointed one, and two lay persons. I may have to take a slightly divergent view from that of my colleague Katherine Rich regarding the make-up of that committee. I believe it is in the best interest of veterinarians that they represent the views of pet owners, by making sure that there are no bad apples amongst them. I do believe veterinarians will judge their peers very harshly on occasions when they are before them, so therefore there will be a balance of views that looks to the interests of pets and vets. We have heard here tonight about the emotive issues around those who worry terribly about their pets, and the balance on that council is very important.

I have just a final comment to make regarding the possible laypersons who could be appointed, and I say we have had some suggestions. Earlier this week I saw in the Timaru Herald that the Hon Jim Sutton is looking for a new job, so I wonder whether he could be a candidate. But chillingly, I also suggest—

💬 Hon David Carter: A racing car driver!

Oh, true, yes he could also do that. Chillingly, I also suggest that there will be some National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) markers who are disenchanted and disillusioned with their jobs. They too will be looking for a new job. So it may be that NCEA markers would be a very good idea as lay members of the council. I believe that my colleagues will come up with many more suggestions about those lay people. We have had some great suggestions here tonight, but I still think that perhaps the Hon Jim Sutton should be right up there, because he has suggested that he may be looking for a new occupation.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have been looking forward to taking a call on Part 4—

💬 Darren Hughes: He wants to go on the council!

Mr Hughes chips in and says that I want to be on the council. It seems to me there are a fair number of candidates on the other side who would make excellent lay people on the Veterinary Council, not the least of whom is dear old Paul Swain there—one of the good centrists and moderates of the caucus, who is about to gracefully exit. This would be a good way for “Swainy and the boys” to make a few dollars on the side when they leave Parliament. We would support his nomination. If he puts his nomination in, National will support Paul Swain going on the council. I tell members that the thing that worries us about good people, such as Paul Swain, who are sliding out of the Labour Party is that we will be left with a whole lot of lefties over there with none of the sort of sensible, middle-of-the-road guys like Jim Sutton and Paul Swain. We always know. We can smell it coming. And poor old Swainy, who is well regarded on all sides of the House, is on his way out. He has done the honourable thing and decided he will move on before the axe falls. I tell Swainy to come on over. If he wants to be on the council we will sort it out for him.

Of course, we have plenty of other candidates to choose from, although none of them are as good as Paul Swain and Jim Sutton. But I could imagine Dianne Yates on the council. She knows a lot about taking tails off dogs. She would be an ideal person for this particular committee. Or Jill Pettis would be an excellent person to have on the committee. Martin Gallagher sits at the back there smiling and shaking his head. But we all know that secretly he wants to give away the chair of the Law and Order Committee and get himself on to the Veterinary Council. I tell members that it would be easier for him to manage that than the Law and Order Committee where he has to rely on Ron Mark turning up some time in the first 10 minutes to make sure he has a quorum. Poor old Martin Gallagher is struggling in that job. This is a job for him. Let us get Martin Gallagher on to the Veterinary Council. He could sit there with Swainy and Jim Sutton. They would make a great team.

What about Russell Fairbrother? Poor old Russell Fairbrother. He was on the way up. He got the suicide posting of having to chair the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. He was a future Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, but he was swatted in Napier, and now he is destined for the Veterinary Council. Poor old Russell Fairbrother! Whatever happened to him?

What about that nice Rick Barker? Whatever happened to him? I say to members that of all the Ministers that this Government has had, he signed JPs’ nominations better than anybody else when he was in charge.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Rick Barker should be on the council.

Paul Swain says that Rick Barker should be on the Veterinary Council. [Interruption] With a name like Barker, that is quite right. If we had Swainy on the council, we would have more of those little quips. I say well done to Paul Swain, and I think Rick Barker should chair it.

What about poor old Moana Mackey? I have to confess I think Moana Mackey makes an intelligent contribution to this House. Unfortunately, she is languishing at the bottom of the Labour list. She is gone. I think she would make a valuable contribution to the Veterinary Council. I think that would be an ideal place. She could talk about the effect of student loans on cats. I think it would be an excellent place for her to be. She has a big future on the Veterinary Council, along with Martin Gallagher if he gives away the Law and Order Committee, and along with Paul Swain, who is gracefully trying to retire.

What about Shane Jones? I tell him to cut out the middleman and go straight to the Veterinary Council. He should forget about Cabinet, and go round the Finance and Expenditure Committee and straight on to the Veterinary Council. National will even support his nomination if that is where he wants to go. I figure that David Parker’s workload is so small that if he was put on the Veterinary Council, sure, he would refuse to do media interviews about the appointment for a month, but in the end, he would get on to the council and do some serious and real work, because he has made such an impact on the transport area and on climate change—he has been the Minister for 3 weeks and carbon tax has gone.

So that is what the composition of the lay people on the council would look like. We would have a rotating system of lay people like Dianne Yates, Jill Pettis, Russell Fairbrother, Moana Mackey, Jim Sutton, and Paul Swain—a man who, I believe, could make a seriously valuable contribution in that arena.

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 69 be agreed to:

to omit paragraph (d), and substitute the following paragraph:

(d) The person nominated by Massey University as a representative of their veterinary science academic programme.