Veterinarians Bill

It was with amusement that I read the schedules during the select committee inquiry into this legislation. I am reminded of them now because clause 1 of schedule 1 provides for the “Term of appointment or election”, clause 3 provides for “Removal from office”, and of course clause 7 provides for “Remuneration and allowances of members and others”. Of course, it dawned on members on this side of the Chamber who had been naming the likely Labour Party picks for this particular Veterinary Council—I think we had a number of them. We had Pete Hodgson, David Benson-Pope, Rick Barker, Jim Sutton, and a whole lot of others, and of course Ann Hercus’ name was raised. I note that it says here that a member appointed holds office. So any member appointed by this Government holds office for 3 years, or for a shorter period stated in the notice of appointment, and may be reappointed but may not be a member for 9 consecutive years. It dawned on members on this side of the Chamber that the Labour Party could decide to make ministerial appointments with those Ministers for whom the sun is setting on their careers. Many of them are looking at sitting on this council as an interim 3-year jaunt, so that in the 2008 election they might come back and have a crack at the seats they lost in 2005.

In other words, how do we keep our backsides warm, and how do we keep the money coming through the door over the next 3 years? We want to toddle off and try something else, but because we lost our seats so dramatically we would like to have another chance in 2008. MPs come to mind. Rick Barker is one. How did Rick Barker lose the seat of Tukituki? How does one lose the seat of Tukituki, after holding it for about 20 years?

💬 Dr Richard Worth: 1951.

Since 1951. How does one lose it after so many years? Rick Barker may wish to go on the Veterinary Council, and come back in 3 years’ time. He could have a job in the interim, and run again for another seat. Jim Sutton is another. There is an opportunity for Jim Sutton to do something for 3 years, and perhaps run for another seat for the Labour Party in 3 years’ time. David Parker did well—he is another one—and Russell Fairbrother, who lost the seat of Napier. I think that seat has been held for a good 40 years.

💬 Dr Richard Worth: Since 1951.

It has been held by the Labour Party since 1951. Russell Fairbrother, who was a rising star for the Labour Party, took the bitter pill of chairing the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that diddled Māori and every other New Zealander. He was the fall guy for that, and we can see the sun setting on his career. So he might like to be on the Veterinary Council for a 3-year period, and then come back. Of course, there is an opportunity to stand again in another seat somewhere in this country.

Of course, there is the seat of Tauranga. I do not think Winston Peters can spend 3 years wandering around the world, drinking, and dining, and going to rugby games in Scotland. I do not know that that will be enough to entertain him. Perhaps he would like to sit on the Veterinary Council board, absolutely as a non-contributor, and that is what the council would like because I think vets would prefer to have laymen who do very little. Winston Peters could take that opportunity, and in 3 years’ time he could perhaps stand again in Tauranga against Mr Clarkson and take the campaign to new lows. Perhaps he could dig up more dirt. We would go to new lows. There could be another court case where he could claim that other candidates had spent $14 billion on their campaign, when in fact they did not. So there are opportunities there for Labour Party members, when the sun is setting on their careers, to take up this 3-year term, to feel fulfilled in some sort of role in this country, and, perhaps, get some other opportunity to enter the Labour Party as the tide goes out on them in the 2008 election.

Moving on from that, I want to talk about clause 3, “Removal from office”, of schedule 1, which I will call the Prime Minister’s clause. It states: “The Minister may remove a member from office by written notice to the member … at any time for any of the following reasons proved to the satisfaction of the Minister: (a) neglect of a member’s duties; or (b) failure or inability to perform … or (c) misconduct by the member; or (d) bankruptcy.” There is an opportunity for members of the Veterinary Council to be removed due to neglect, failure or inability to perform, misconduct by the member, or bankruptcy. I call that the Prime Minister’s clause, simply because it is usually the Prime Minister’s prerogative—in this Government, for example—to remove Ministers from office.

We have seen it hundreds of times. We have not seen it with David Benson-Pope, but we have seen it with all sorts of other people. We saw Ruth Dyson’s removal from office. We saw it with Lianne Dalziel, who I believe did not tell the full truth. She was removed from office. I do not believe that David Benson-Pope has been removed. No, he has not been removed from office. We saw it with Dover Samuels. He was removed from office, was he not?

💬 Hon David Carter: What did he do?

I do not know what he did, but he was removed from office.

💬 Hon Member: Tamihere?

John Tamihere was removed. Was David Benson-Pope removed? No, David Benson-Pope was not removed from office. John Tamihere was removed from office, I recall that. Phillida Bunkle was removed from office. Has David Benson-Pope been removed? No, he has not been removed. Phillida Bunkle was removed from office but I do not know that David Benson-Pope was removed. Did he neglect his duties as a member? Did he fail or be unable to perform? Was there misconduct on his part? Was he bankrupt? I do not know the answers to those questions, but I do know that “The Minister may remove a member from office by written notice to the member … at any time for any of the following reasons proved to the satisfaction of the Minister:”

I think it is a good thing that people can be removed from the Veterinary Council if they neglect their duties, if there is a failure or an inability to perform, if there is misconduct, or if there is bankruptcy. It should reflect the case of what has happened in this House, time after time, when we have seen people like Dover Samuels, Ruth Dyson, Lianne Dalziel, John Tamihere, and all sorts of others fall on their swords, and put up their hands to say that they surrender.

I acknowledge Ruth Dyson for doing that. I thought it was honourable at the time, and I mean that genuinely. We hope that David Benson-Pope, in the same way, will say: “Listen, I surrender, I did something that was misconduct. It was some years ago. I misrepresented it in the House, I leaked documents to a Sunday newspaper in the weekend, I’ve done all these things. I’ve tried to cover up, I’ve failed, and I surrender and I resign.” I would like to hear that from David Benson-Pope before Christmas.

I range off the topic, so I come back to it. The National Party will support clause 3. We will be voting for this clause.

I move to clause 7, “Remuneration and allowances of members and others”, in schedule 1, “Further provisions applying to Council and its members”. That clause talks about the entitlement of those Labour Party hacks who will be put on the Veterinary Council as the sun sets on their careers, and what they will receive in terms of funds, remuneration, and allowances for the services they perform. Now, it will likely not be some sort of performance remuneration, because they will effectively be lay members on the council. Subclause (2) states: “The Council may also approve payments for services to members of complaints assessment, judicial, or any other committees appointed by the Council in accordance with the same framework.” I support the fact that there should be some sort of allowance, but the National Party will be watching very, very closely in order to ensure that this does not become some quasi-quango where Labour Party members settle for the rest of their careers.

I stand to speak to the title clause of the Veterinarians Bill. It is quite appropriate that this bill talks about being based on principles rather than being overly prescriptive. However, I must commend my fellow members around me in the Chamber for identifying many issues that are related to the devil in the detail around the bill. When we stop and think about the vital role that vets play in the New Zealand economy, we realise that it is very important for that body of people to be treated with the due respect and dignity it deserves. Vets have the responsibility of ensuring that we look after the animal welfare, biosecurity, and food safety of this nation. We have a platinum level of food safety, which enables us to export more than $12 billion worth of what we produce in this country, and we must say a big thankyou to the people who make up the dedicated body of veterinarians throughout the country.

Vets are stretched very widely and thinly; therefore, it is appropriate that we give serious consideration to them and that we give them the opportunity to be able to adapt to the circumstances they face today. When I see what is happening out in the rural areas, I am hugely concerned that we are bogged down in detail, because at the end of the day unless we adapt ourselves, much as is the case with regard to medical doctors in rural areas, we will find that we do not have the ability to respond to biosecurity incursions. We will fall into situations very much like the one that happened at Waiheke Island, where the television crews turned up before the vets or the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry authorities. So it is quite important that we recognise the importance of attracting and retaining capable young people as vets. I take great delight in looking at clause 13, where I see a lot more flexibility is given to vets, to the association, and to the Veterinary Council.

I must admit to being a bit surprised, when this bill was going through the Primary Production Committee before I became a member of it, that many vets came to me and complained about the arrogance and ignorance being exhibited by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry authorities and the Food Safety Authority. One point that I really would like to take up and take exception to was a comment around the fact that the amendments had to address the concerns of the Food Safety Authority in maintaining the biosecurity regime. It sought to establish the principle that a second-tier veterinary person with limited registration would undermine that regime. It used the example of the meat-processing industry going to a cheaper, lower form of scope of practice so that the industry could save costs. I point out that Dr Andrew McKenzie from the Food Safety Authority is himself a vet, and that although the wages of the meat inspectors are paid by the meat companies themselves, the inspectors are employed by the Government. Again I take it upon myself to point that out. When that issue goes back to the select committee, I think we should remove those erroneous connotations, so that the people who are at the coalface can deliver on the needs of this country.

The trends within the veterinary sector are very concerning. What appeals today is urbanisation. We also see the attraction of vets back to small practices, and we find that more women are being attracted into the veterinary service today, so it makes huge sense to attract and retain vets from the United Kingdom or similar nations. The relationship that exists between New Zealand and northern hemisphere countries is very appropriate. On that basis we are able to capitalise on New Zealand’s seasonality. We are able to attract those people here, and by virtue of being able to extend to them the opportunity to operate here for 12 months, with a right of renewal, we will not only attract them but also help to retain them. That is very, very appropriate. We realise the workload that falls on the shoulders of our vets in rural areas is alarming, when we consider the seasonality of lambing, calving, and things like that.

I rise to speak again on the Veterinarians Bill and to respond to some comments that suggested that perhaps this bill is not important to members of the National Party. We know that the Veterinarians Bill is very important to members of the National Party.

💬 Katherine Rich: Paramount.

It is paramount, thank you. What is the reason for the Veterinarians Bill being of paramount importance to the members of the National Party? It is obvious. All that members need to do is look along the row upon row of National MPs in this Chamber to see that there is a mix of the experienced and the fresh, keen National MPs who represent rural and provincial electorates up and down New Zealand, who have at heart the interests of rural and provincial people, of pet owners, of sheep farmers, of deer farmers, and of all sorts of agricultural sectors. All that members have to do is get out a map showing the results of the past election and they will see blue. They will see blue, starting at the top of the North Island, and in a great swathe all the way down the North Island. That blue tide continues down the South Island, taking in my own electorate, the rural and provincial electorate of Otago, and on down the country, all the way to Invercargill. So if it is to be suggested tonight—as it has been—that the National Party does not have a passionate concern about the Veterinarians Bill, then let us put that silly notion to rest right now.

But it is not just as members of the National Party that we are concerned about the Veterinarians Bill; as individuals we are deeply, deeply concerned about the effects of the bill. I mentioned in the Committee this evening the sad demise of our dear dog Sally. Interestingly enough, Sally is not the only canine member of our family. We also had a littermate of Sally, a dog called Tommy. Tommy was a funny little dog, actually. [Interruption] I will tell members about Tommy because it is very relevant to the title and commencement of the Veterinarians Bill. Tommy was the cutest little puppy and he was the littermate of Sally. Sally is the dog I mentioned before, who loved to chase tennis balls. Unfortunately Sally met a very sad end on State Highway 1. We do not quite know who ran her over; it is something we have never been quite able to figure out. [Interruption] Well, there was a rumbling of wheels coming down State Highway 1. There was a swish of air and a number of cars—one could almost call it a motorcade—rumbling down State Highway 1. It was around the area of Waimate, perhaps a little further south, and the cars were travelling very fast—and I can tell members that Sally paid the price.

What does that have to do with the bill? I will tell members what it has to do with the bill. When our dear little dog Sally—who loved to chase tennis balls, who would nip them with her dear little teeth, who would puncture tennis balls with her dear little teeth, and force them into her dear little mouth, because she was like that—met her end on State Highway 1 under the wheels of a motorcade, we knew that we had to trust the vet. We delivered our little dog into the tender care of the vet, and we needed to know that, whatever the outcome for our dear little dog Sally, we had the provisions set out in the Veterinarians Bill.

The opportunity to comment on this particular stage in the parliamentary process of the Veterinarians Bill is simply not one to be ignored. Along with other members of the Committee, I am sure, I have just listened with great sadness to a story from a leading member of the National Party in connection with the death of Sally on State Highway 1. On one view of it such are issues that should not detain the Committee, but on another view they are incredibly important, because the care and welfare of animals touch us all so deeply. I do not think Dr Cullen has a heart that bleeds in any realistic way, but I offer to other members, apart from him, the sadness that assails one when confronted with the death of a loved pet.

The Veterinarians Bill is, of course, supported by National, but not without a measure of reservation. In the short time available to me I would like to detail some of the reservations that National members have expressed to me about this legislation. It is important legislation in the context of the aspirations that veterinarians have for this legislation, which will govern their rules of conduct and discipline. It is interesting just to pause for a moment, to reflect on the amount of legislation that has come through Parliament in the last period from occupational groupings that have sought to establish protections around their particular professions, industries, or trades. I reflect on the position of legislation in respect of lawyers and conveyancers. That legislation has languished because the Government is fearful of advancing it to a conclusion. What is the next step in that process? It is the Committee stage. But I am sure we will move on from that stage tonight in relation to the Veterinarians Bill, in order to see this important legislation passed.

The bill is structured in a way that would appeal to most veterinarians, because of the logic and symmetry that lies behind the work that Parliamentary Counsel has done. The bill deals most appropriately with the preliminary provisions, moving from issues of registration and practising certificates to complaints, disciplinary hearings, and issues touching the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, and then to a raft of miscellaneous provisions that seem to be so important in the setting up of disciplinary structures.

In the short time that remains available I would like to talk about the important provisions in Part 3 contained in clause 32, “Evidence and privilege”. For many people that might be a clause that would pass them by, but it should not. It should not, because of the critical importance of those provisions; under the heading “Evidence and privilege”, the significant issues are laid out for consideration by the Committee. It is there stated: “(1) For the purposes of this Part, every person has the same privileges as a witness in a court of law in relation to—(a) providing documents, things,”—and that is the word I want to come back to in a moment—“or information to the Council in relation to a disciplinary hearing or a medical or competence assessment;”. In the next paragraph another issue relates to the giving of evidence or answering of questions at a disciplinary hearing. I raise the question for consideration by the Minister, the Hon Jim Anderton, who, with pen poised and listening intently, I see, is about to make a substantial contribution. In relation to disciplinary proceedings, the significant issue is about why professional privilege should be permitted. After all, are not disciplinary proceedings about getting to the truth? Why is it necessary, I ask the Minister, for legal professional privilege to be attached to those issues? I sense from the Minister’s thinking silence that he is about to offer a considered contribution to this debate on what is, I believe, a truly important matter.

I would like to make some concluding comments about the Veterinarians Bill. Earlier today I picked up a marvellous document written by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand, dated March 2005, which has been very informative. The council has made some very good comments about why we need this bill, and I would like to go over those comments.

The council feels it needs to have the ability to assess the competency of a veterinarian, and that is absolutely as it should be. But I would like to comment about competency in relation to the complaints assessment committees, which have very wide-ranging powers.

It is interesting that the competency clause of this bill is very similar to the competency clause in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, which I mentioned earlier. However, in the 1970s the medical community had to be dragged kicking and screaming through change. We had the Cartwright inquiry, where people had to really question their practices, question what they were doing, and then move on. Human beings naturally hate change, and the medical community undertook that change. It took time but it certainly did it. I would hope that the veterinary establishment can move much more quickly through change, and that it will not have to go through the pain and anguish the medical community went through.

As far as complaints assessment committees are concerned, I have actually supported a number of colleagues undergoing review through tribunal hearings, and it is a very, very stressful process. I would urge—I do not think there is anything of the sort in this bill—that there be some compassion and support for those vets undergoing a hearing by a complaints assessment committee.

From my experience of supporting colleagues who have gone through this process, I think that there is humanity and empathy within the Medical Council. I think the council has done an extremely good job. To review one’s peers and question their competency is a difficult situation. It is basically a doctor’s worst nightmare. It is such a litigious situation in New Zealand—and it is becoming more and more so, which is not a bad thing; patients do have the right to question and examine—that it is very difficult for doctors to go through this process. So I would urge that there be some sort of empathy support system for those vets.

The next point the Veterinary Council makes is that this bill gives it flexibility in terms of accepting people for registration in New Zealand and in deciding what type of registration its members will work under. As I mentioned before, this is very important because we have a workforce issue and we have to be able to accept overseas vets of a similar training. We have to look out for emergency situations, such as foot-and-mouth. There needs to be flexibility so we can use other personnel who may not be fully qualified vets. Certainly, it could be just like a pandemic flu situation, where we may have to call on the retired medical workforce, people from other professions such as Plunket, or people who could be trained up quite quickly to help look after the sick in their homes, because the whole pattern of primary health care will change when we have the flu pandemic.

The Veterinary Council recognises this factor and has alluded to it in its document, Veterinary Council of New Zealand Newsbrief, dated March 2005. The council recognises that it needs a greater measure of self-regulation: “[This] will include fee setting, the ability to prescribe the minimum standards for registration and ongoing registration—this would include things such as fitness to practise statements and possibly required continuing education if that was seen to be a particular issue needing attention.”

I would like to talk about fee setting, because my colleagues have already alluded to the fact that they see fee setting as no more than just another Labour tax grab. Yes, we have to agree that that is the case. It is more money. Although the vets want self-regulation, they do need to be checked. There need to be some checks and balances. It is like any regulation—there needs to be some balance, and we have to wonder where that balance will come from.

As members know from my previous speeches, I am very concerned about our workforce issues. Earlier this year I wrote an article in the New Zealand Medical Journal on breast-cancer screening in New Zealand. I am very concerned about workforce issues—there are a good couple of paragraphs on it in that article.

I would like to join with the sentiments expressed by my colleague Dr Jackie Blue, particularly in relation to workplace practices and habits. During an earlier discourse this evening by Mr Field, I think it was, I was asked to stick to the subject of the bill. I speak in favour of the bill, particularly in respect of the significance of workplace conditions for vets.

Veterinarians are a fine body of people and an essential part of the well-being of our agricultural industry. They are hard-working people, but in fact they have not been mentioned much during the debate tonight. We have talked about dogs, parakeets, cockatoos, a dog called Tommy, chooks, and the odd pussycat, but what of vets—those fine people making diagnoses without the benefit of intelligent verbal response from those they are keen to help and make well? It is a bit like question time in this House, where on this side we put up with ministerial mumblings and mealy-mouthed responses to questions, leaving us to guess what on earth was meant by the answers. Vets are obliged to commune with their patients in silence. The training, though, that they engage in is prolonged and thorough, and—and I am being quite serious—the demands on large animal veterinary practitioners is often severe.

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Oh, what’s going on!

Well, the member might not know, because he might think that farming is just something that happens so that it can be taxed and so that farmers’ wealth can be distributed to that member’s friends and supporters. But in fact vets work extremely hard for their money. They undergo periods of huge stress in farming. I happen to have been a practitioner in farming myself, and I know what it is like in the spring. I know what it is like when farmers are very busy. For a vet coming out of veterinary school—

💬 Hon Mark Burton: Why is your tie inside your shirt?

I thank the member. I am sorry to have distracted him and caused a break in his concentration, but I thank him very much for pointing it out. I feel much better now.

Young vets coming out of training and going into practice are often placed in the position of going on to farms where farmers are already under stress and having to deal with stressful situations, but those vets do not have extensive training in managing the business of being vets. They are simply trained to treat the animals. So workplace conditions and support for vets in new practice are most important. I know that in parts of the country vets have a buddy system, whereby new vets go out with more experienced ones. But, again, that is limiting the resource immediately available to farmers.

I support this bill, particularly those aspects of it that provide support for veterinarians, so that we can—[Interruption] I beg the member’s pardon. I thought he was saying something intelligent. I paused but, no, it did not happen. It was a hope—a false hope.

💬 Hon David Carter: It was in English.

Yes, but it was a hoax. I am sorry about that. So I support the bill, particularly in those areas in which it provides better working conditions for young veterinarians going into the field, so that they can do their job to the best of their ability.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading