Veterinarians Bill

I want to ask the Minister for her comments on three sections, and I want to start with clause 86, “Service of documents”. I raise this because I just wonder whether the Primary Production Committee, although it worked diligently on this, has actually missed something here. Clause 86(1) states: “Any document, notification, or summons required or authorised by or under this Act may be served—(a) by delivering it personally to the person; or (b) by posting it to the person at that person’s usual place of residence.” I have no concern with clause 86(1), but clause 86(2), I think, actually raises something that the Primary Production Committee may have missed, and I think the Minister should concentrate on this. Clause 86(2)(a) states that if a summons is served personally on a person, then that person must receive it “at least 48 hours before the attendance of the witness is required”.

The point I want to raise with the new Minister in the chair, the Hon Annette King, is that—[Interruption] Well, maybe this Minister will actually know something about it. The point I want to raise is that there seems to be an incredibly short time frame between the time someone is served a notice to appear and the time that that person must appear—at least 48 hours. I genuinely worry whether the Primary Production Committee has missed something, because I know that if the summons were served on a person like Dame Ann Hercus, she would have no trouble being there in 48 hours, because her diary is free now. But if the document were served on my vet, Dave Matheson, of Teddington, RD1 Lyttelton, who runs the most efficient vet clinic in Christchurch, the Shirley Vet Centre, then Dave would have huge difficulties clearing his diary, because he is one of the most competent vets in Christchurch—probably the most competent vet in Christchurch. He would have a very busy schedule if people brought Sally the dog or Bianca the cockatoo to him. Under this legislation, if summonsed, he would be required to be at the hearing in 48 hours.

I seriously say to the Minister—and the Minister might like to check with the officials—that maybe I am misinterpreting this, or maybe it is something we have missed at select committee, which would not be surprising, because the Primary Production Committee has had a huge job sorting the mess out after the Government delivered the bill in such a cruddy state in the first place. Again, I pay tribute to the assistance the committee received from the Veterinary Council in doing that.

The second point I raise with the Minister in the chair, Annette King, is the inclusion of new clause 79AA, “Protection for members of Council and others”: “Neither the Council nor any committee, member, committee member, employee, or agent of the Council is liable for anything done or omitted to be done, in good faith …”. I was worried about the inclusion of that clause at the time we examined it in the Primary Production Committee. But after hearing the contributions from members of this Committee on the previous part, where we talked about putting people like “Swainy and the boys”, Dianne Yates, Jill Pettis, and the likes on to the council as the ministerial lay appointments—because they are people who will have lots of time after the next month or two—then I think we probably do need to realise that some of the decision making will be pretty marginal, at best.

Let us take somebody like Russell Fairbrother. He has been a disaster as a member of Parliament, so he will probably be no better as an appointee to the Veterinary Council. We need to make sure that the whole of the council—some of them will be good people—does not become exposed to some of the marginal decisions that people like “Swainy and the boys” may make.

The final point I make before “Swainy” walks out relates to the fees referred to in clause 87. Clause 87 states that the council may prescribe fees. That is satisfactory; I agree that that is a necessary role of the council, but because the council will be stacked initially with Labour Party lackeys—

It is good to see Annette King in the chair. We can only hope that she has read the bill, unlike the previous Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton.

I also am intrigued by the miscellaneous provisions that were pointed out by the Hon David Carter. One of the new unanimous clauses is clause 79AA, “Protection for members of Council and others”, which reads: “Neither the Council nor any committee, member, committee member, employee, or agent of the Council is liable for any thing done or omitted to be done, in good faith in the performance or intended performance of their functions or duties, or the exercise of their powers, under this Act.” Why I find this—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There is just far too much chatter. It is not fair to the member speaking. [Interruption] I am on my feet. There was a lot of chatter coming from the member’s side of the Chamber. Would people give the speaker a fair go.

When we look at possible appointments to that council, like David Benson-Pope and all sorts of others who stumble, trip, and make mistakes and try to cover them up, is it any wonder that we see a protection for members of the council and others, which states that they may not be liable. Let us imagine David Benson-Pope sitting as a member on that council. Let us imagine a veterinarian coming before the council and David Benson-Pope tying the vet to a chair and shoving all sorts of veterinary apparatus in the vet’s mouth. If David Benson-Pope was on the Veterinary Council and did that to a vet who was before the council, let us imagine the problems he would have if this no-liability clause 79AA was not in the bill. How could we have members like David Benson-Pope running amok on the council—abusing vets and everyone who appeared before the council—and not have this out clause? He could simply say that it was not him, it was his press secretary. He could say it was not him that tied up the vet and shoved some sort of breeding device in his or her mouth, or anything like that, but that it was actually a staff member whom he has referred to the chair of the council to be dealt with in due course. He might not make any further comment, but there would be a leak at the weekend in one of the Sunday papers. David Benson-Pope would have this protection clause, whereby he would not be liable whatsoever.

Clause 82, however, is a clause made for Pete Hodgson. It is headed “Power of Council to supply evidence for registration overseas”. As we know, Pete Hodgson is on his way out; he is one of the old men of the Labour Party. Clause 82(1) states: “The Council may supply to a veterinarian or other registered person the documents it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling the veterinarian or person to seek registration as a veterinarian outside New Zealand.” Of course, Pete Hodgson wants a job overseas. The Labour Party is stacking the council so that it might supply the documentation for people like Pete Hodgson to get work overseas.

What is the quid pro quo? That is what members are asking at the moment—I can hear them. The answer is in clause 82(2), which states that a veterinarian who requests such documents may have to pay a fee. Pete Hodgson will have to give some sort of backhander to the council, and we all know what that will be: flu jabs. Only Ministers who send him overseas, and give him the permission and the certificates, will get flu jabs. Ministers of the Cabinet and members of the council will get the Tamiflu jabs. No other New Zealander will. Pete Hodgson, as a retiring old man of the Labour Party who wants a job overseas as a vet, will need that documentation to prove that he is a vet and that he can be registered to work overseas. The quid pro quo is that Annette King will receive a Tamiflu jab from Pete Hodgson, the current Minister of Health. She was unable to arrange that when she herself was the Minister of Health, as it would have been a conflict of interest.

There is much in these clauses that points to a conspiracy of the Labour Party. The sun is setting on so many of its members, such as Pete Hodgson. We heard about Russell Fairbrother, and we see people like Rick Barker, who took voluntary redundancy and just gave up in his seat in the last election. He lay down and waved the white flag. He gave up. The sun is setting on the careers of all those members of the Labour Party, and they are looking for jobs—Pete Hodgson as a vet overseas, and others as members of the Veterinary Council.

First of all, I say to Phil Heatley that his contribution was very droll, very amusing, and totally irrelevant, so I will spend no time on it, at all. However, the Hon David Carter made a very serious contribution to tonight’s debate. He debated clause 86, “Service of documents”. He wondered why a document would have to be served within 48 hours, and he mentioned his very good vet on Banks Peninsula somewhere, who is so busy that he or she would not be able to receive a document or go to pick it up. So I thought I would read the whole clause to the member.

Clause 86(1) states: “Any document, notification, or summons required or authorised by or under this Act may be served—(a) by delivering it personally to the person; or (b) by posting to the person at that person’s usual place of residence.” So we have the choice of delivering it or posting it via the very good New Zealand Post. Clause 86(2) states that if a document is served under clause 86(1), it has to be served—I tell Mr Carter to listen to this—within at least 48 hours. So it could be served 2 months beforehand, but at least 48 hours’ notice must be given before the attendance of the witness is required. If one wants to post the document, it must be served at least 10 days in advance. So Mr Carter’s very good vet on Banks Peninsula will have time to receive the summons. Let us face it, if the vet is receiving a summons, he or she may not be such a good vet.

Part 5 is very important, as has been outlined previously by my colleagues. I will speak to clause 4 of schedule 1, because it contains some wording that I find deeply disturbing. I am glad that Minister King is in the chair, because I think we might now hear some calls that shed some light on the bill. She might give us the answers to some questions.

Clause 4 of schedule 1 relates to members ceasing to hold office. Now, I understand that a member ceases to hold office if he or she resigns, in accordance with the legislation; or if he or she is removed from office—well, that makes sense to me—or if he or she stops being a veterinarian, which also makes sense to me, because obviously if that member is one of the people who has been appointed as a vet but ceases to be a vet, then clearly that member cannot hold his or her position. But I do find one thing deeply disturbing—clause 4 states that a member ceases to hold office if he or she dies.

💬 Jacqui Dean: What?

Yes. It states that a member ceases to hold office on the Veterinary Council if he or she dies. [Interruption] Now, not wanting to be—

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Not long ago members on this side of the Chamber were cautioned for their noise level while other members on the other side of the Chamber were making a contribution. I think it is fair to say that those of us sitting close to the speaker are having difficulty hearing what she has to say, so there is no way that other members present in the Chamber would be able to hear her. All I am asking is that the rule relating to respecting a member’s ability to speak in a reasonable level of quietness be applied equally to those on both sides of the Committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes; Simon Power is absolutely right. The whole Committee was cautioned before. I say to any members who have come in since then that there is a level of chatter, and that is very hard on the speaker.

Because of the noise in the Chamber at the time, I would just like to back the truck up a bit and start my point again. It relates to clause 4 of schedule 1. That clause is all about members who have to stand down from the Veterinary Council for one reason or another. Members on my side of the Chamber can fully understand that someone stands down from the council if they resign—that makes sense to us—or if they stop being a vet. That also makes sense to us. But we do not understand why the bill has to point out that a member ceases to hold office if he or she dies. Perhaps I am missing something. Perhaps there is some technical respect or difficult situation that the Veterinary Council has faced in the past, with dead people wanting to retain their membership on the council, but it does not seem to be particularly clear to me as to why we have to state the obvious.

Although I am sure that members of the Veterinary Council take their roles extremely seriously, it is quite obvious that if they have passed on they will not be able to attend meetings and play a very vigorous part on the Veterinary Council. It is also clear that although members of the Veterinary Council take their roles extremely seriously—and it is a role of huge honour—it is not a titled honour or some kind of position that passes from family to family in the event of a loved one’s death. So I would like to hear Minister King’s explanation of that. There may be something that members on this side of the Chamber are missing. There might be some clever, cunning plan to legislate away something that has occurred, some concern of the Veterinary Council, or some problem that Labour might have had in its experiences with some of its own Cabinet Ministers in the past—something that is not clear to members on this side—and that could explain why we have to state the obvious in clause 4. That is my first point.

My second point relates to the Minister’s ability to remove people from office just by written notice. The Minister has quite a powerful ability to remove whomever he or she chooses. The Minister can simply write to a council member if the Minister is dissatisfied with that member, if the member has neglected his or her duties, if he or she has failed to perform, or if there has been inadequate performance. Perhaps Labour members might like to read those clauses, because, once again, there might be some relevance to the Cabinet right now. What worries me is ministerial control and the ability of Ministers to influence the performance of the council, and, perhaps, to exert undue influence on the work of the council if its members are under threat of being removed.

I will take just a quick call to clear up the point the member was making about the clause stating that a member ceases to hold office if he or she dies. I am informed that that clause is in the current Veterinarians Act 1994. So there must have been a good reason why it was put in by the National Government in 1994. The member might also be interested to know that a similar clause is in the Electoral Act, which states that a seat becomes vacant if someone dies. However, many people on that side hold seats—and they are vacant already.

I would like to speak to Part 5, “Miscellaneous provisions”— which are numerous. Initially, I would like to make a comment about the suggestion that the Hon Pete Hodgson be an appointed member of the Veterinary Council—a veterinarian appointed by the Minister. He would not be able to be so appointed because he has not been practising as a vet, and under this new bill he would have to fulfil certain competency requirements and undergo some sort of retraining with supervision. Maybe we could have some suggestions over the course of the evening about who could supervise the Hon Pete Hodgson.

In Part 5, the first miscellaneous provision is found in clause 79AA, which members have discussed. It concerns protection for members of the council and others, and states: “Neither the Council nor any committee, member, committee member, employee, or agent of the Council is liable for any thing done or omitted to be done, in good faith in the performance or intended performance of their functions or duties, or the exercise of their powers, under this Act.” That is fair enough. The members of the council do need protection, but they also need to be accountable. There does need to be some balance in that.

The next matter I will talk about concerns clause 79, “Approved and prescribed matters to be notified and available for inspection”. Subclause (1) states that matters approved by the council must “(b) be made available so that members of the public may inspect the documents relating to the matter of free of charge.” That is also fair enough. That process needs to be transparent, and the public should have access to those documents. Subclause (2) goes on to state: “However, a person may be charged a reasonable fee if the person is supplied with a copy of any particulars.” I wonder what a reasonable fee is, and who decides what the amount will be. That is an important fact.

I move on to clause 80, concerning evidence, which I think is an important provision. It states that the certificate of the council is to be conclusive evidence, and I absolutely agree with that. It must stand up to close scrutiny, otherwise what is the point?

But clause 82 really worries me; “Power of Council to supply evidence for registration overseas” is of real concern, because it means that we are giving vets leaving New Zealand a certificate of competency for registration overseas, and that is a reflection of the state of our workforce. Not only are vets leaving in droves but so are so many other Kiwis—

💬 Phil Heatley: Taking their qualifications with them.

Dr JACKIE BLUE:—taking their qualifications with them. They see no future in New Zealand, and they are packing up and going off to a better life, with better salaries and better opportunities.

The vets themselves, as reported in the Veterinary Council news brief from February 2005, recognise that as an issue, and they recognise that their numbers in the workforce will fall short. I will read members a paragraph. It is quite important and highlights some parallels with other issues today: “The council will be able to offer limited registration, under conditions, to individuals whose qualifications don’t meet the recognised standards but whose skills sets are needed in specific areas. It is most likely that those individuals would be employed in sectors such as teaching and research, and in areas of specific need. … This category would be used to deal with any emergency disease outbreak,”—and that is my point. A flu pandemic will hit New Zealand at some point. It is not a question of if; it is a question of when, and we will have a real problem dealing with sick people in their homes and having to invent a new type of primary health care. We will have to call on non-governmental organisations and on professionals who have perhaps been out of the workforce for a while to help.

The vets are now recognising the same situation with a potential emergency disease outbreak of foot-and-mouth, I suspect, or something similar. I think it is sad that we are losing our workforce. The vets recognise it; they recognise that we need contingencies for emergency situations, and we need to do the same for the flu pandemic when it comes. There is an interesting parallel here, because I have been very concerned about the workforce issue in New Zealand, particularly with the situation of the breast cancer workforce. It has put our programme under immense pressure. In 2004 we had to send our women over to the Gold Coast for radiotherapy. We do not have to send our pets overseas to see vets at this stage, but it could become a problem. We may have to do that—to seek help.

I want to ask the Minister about clause 79(1) and (2). Clause 79(1)(b) states: “(1) Any matter approved or prescribed by the Council under this Act must—… (b) be made available so that members of the public may inspect the documents relating to the matter free of charge.” Clause 79(2) goes on to state: “(2) However, a person may be charged a reasonable fee if the person is supplied with a copy of any particulars.” I would ask the Minister what, in his mind, constitutes a reasonable fee. The interpretation of a reasonable fee is rather large. Is it $10, 60c per page, or 40c per page—what does that term actually constitute?

I thought that that was the only thing I would ask about Part 5, but as we read on, we see Part 5 sets out the fee structure. It is just another grubby little Labour Government grab of taxpayers’ money. The fees are all over the place. Clause 87, “Council may prescribe fees”, states: “(1) the Council may from time to time, by notice in the Gazette, …” prescribe fees. I go on to clause 88, “Principles guiding prescribing of fees”, to clause 89, which is also about fees, and to clause 90, “Further provisions relating to fees”. The Government could have called Part 5 “Miscellaneous provisions about fees”. It is a tax—exactly!

The point is that people out there will have to pay for that. The spin-off from this legislation is that vet fees will go up. The issue is not just about Veterinary Council fees and about how the council does its business; it is about putting the hand of the Government into the back pocket of the worker who may have a German shepherd—

💬 Shane Ardern: No, a cocky.

Exactly! How many dogs do farmers have to help them run the farm? Let us say it is six or seven little Australian cattle dogs, maybe. It means that when those dogs have to be taken to the vet because there may be a problem, one that is not of the farmer’s doing but basically because dogs may become sick, the farmer will be charged more. The Minister of Māori Affairs, who is sitting on the Government side of the Chamber and looking really interested in this point, may want to know about the dogs on his property, too. When he takes them to the vet, the vet will think that in case he or she has to front up to the council one day, he or she should put his or her charges up, and there we have the flow-on effect. So I am afraid that Part 5 is really about a tax grab, and I suppose that all the cockies and people who own pets and animals will most probably say the Government should take its hand out of their pockets.

Dr Jackie Blue raised the issue of clause 82, “Power of Council to supply evidence for registration overseas”. That would have been all right if there was a clause at about that point in the bill regarding the registration of overseas people as well, in order to bring them together so that we were not actually losing people.

💬 Phil Heatley: Exporting them.

Exactly! As my learned colleague from Whangarei said, we are exporting the skills of this country. That is what that is. What about the people in this country, for goodness sake! Do we not care about the people who have the Biancas, the Gees—do people remember Gee? He was the dog that was run over. This part of the bill is nothing more than a tax grab.

In closing, I just want to ask the Minister about clause 84, “Crown not liable for debts of Council”. However, in every other part of this bill, basically the Crown wants to have a say. The Crown is to appoint a couple of people to the board. The Crown is to do this and the Crown is to do that, but when it comes time to front up, the Crown does not want to be liable. It says it is not its fault if something goes wrong, and that it only appoints people and makes the laws. So what is that all about? That is a serious question, and I ask the Minister what that is all about. But I also want to ask why, in clause 84, the reference is to the Crown and not the Government. I ask whether somebody could explain to me the difference between the Crown and the Government. Who is the Crown and who is the Government, and is that reference just a ruse?

Lastly, I also want to say this.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Go on, treat yourself.

I will, actually. Nowhere in this bill is there a reference to the tangata whenua.

I too rise to speak on Part 5, but I would first like to applaud the comments made by our esteemed colleague the Hon David Carter and for his drawing attention to, inter alia, clause 86 of this bill. Clause 86(1) provides: “(1) Any document, notification, or summons required or authorised by or under this Act may be served—(a) by delivering it personally to the person; …”, and, in those circumstances, it must be served at least 48 hours before the attendance of the witness is required. The Hon David Carter made the comment that 48 hours may not be sufficient time. The question was asked of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Annette King, and she gave the glib reply that if it were a summons, the person may not be a very good vet.

I would like to raise the issue that a summons might be a summons to appear as an expert witness, or it might be in the form of a subpoena, in which case the vet may be a very, very good vet. If the vet is a very, very good vet, where he or she is being invited as an expert witness, that very, very good vet may, in fact, have a heavy time schedule. In the interests of small business and in keeping the economy of New Zealand and primary producers afloat, that vet may not be able to fit in, on 48 hours’ notice, a hearing that might not necessarily be in the vicinity of Banks Peninsula, in the case of the Hon David Carter’s vet.

I again ask the Minister responsible for the bill whether he will reconsider the sufficiency and adequacy of prescribing that 48 hours’ notice. It is very glib to say it is a minimum, but we all know that the minimum that prescribes the rule rather than the maximum as a matter of practice.

I think the Hon David Carter made a wonderful point, and that just shows people the depth and wisdom we have on this side of the Chamber. In fact, the more I get to know my parliamentary colleagues, the more I am impressed by them. Having visited Gisborne at the instigation of our spokesperson on agriculture, I was amazed and astounded at the ability of our spokesperson to be able to come to grips with all the issues regarding agriculture and to engage in meaningful conversation with those poor Gisborne growers of squash and tomatoes who have been hit by two civil defence events, and who have been met with a resounding silence and a decline of any form of relief from this Labour Government. That is appalling. If we look at the flow-on effects of that flood and the rain in Gisborne—a region that contributes some $2 billion to our exports—in terms of the economy of this country, then we realise the absolute importance of listening to farmers. So I cannot applaud enough the wisdom of our spokesperson on agriculture.

I move on to the question of fees. Clause 87 states that the council may from time to time prescribe fees. Unfortunately, we have to bring our minds back to the composition of this council. I have to confess that I have lost track of who the Labour appointment is to be, who the best candidate is. There are so many candidates. But my point is that three members of the New Zealand Veterinary Association are part of the composition of that council. That is three members out of a total national membership of something like 2,000 members. Three members have the power to impose unilaterally a fee on all other hard-working vets in New Zealand. I am just wondering about the efficacy of that actual prescription—that is, the council does not even have to consult in relation to imposing those fees. There is no notice requirement. There is no opportunity for the hard-working vets who are not one of the three members of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to be heard.

There is absolutely no opportunity in this bill for those vets to challenge the fees, to seek justification of those fees, and to have a fair hearing. I think that that is a complete breach of natural justice. I am aware, of course, that the fees must be fair and reasonable.

I move, That the question be now put.