Veterinarians Bill

At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, and that the committee present its final report on or before 14 June 2005.

There are currently 2,597 registered veterinarians in New Zealand, working in a broad range of roles in rural and urban practices, Government service, universities, research institutes, and key industries such as food processing and pharmaceuticals. Veterinarians are responsible for maintaining animal health and welfare, and in doing so they make an important contribution to our society.

Veterinarians also make a significant contribution to New Zealand’s economic performance. Livestock-based industries in which they are involved, both on-farm and off-farm, earned about 44 percent of New Zealand’s export earnings last year. As well, veterinarians play a vital role in providing assurance to domestic and international consumers that our livestock-based food products are safe to consume and free of biosecurity risks.

The current legislative framework for veterinary practice in New Zealand is governed by the Veterinarians Act of 1994. The Act established the Veterinary Council of New Zealand as the principal body responsible for protecting the public interest, by regulating the veterinary profession and by encouraging high standards of professional practice. In particular, the council is responsible for maintaining the registration of veterinarians, establishing the standards for veterinary practice, and hearing and determining complaints and exercising disciplinary powers.

The Veterinarians Bill will repeal and replace the 1994 Act. The impetus behind the change is the need to provide the veterinary profession with a more modern and flexible governance structure comparable to other professions, such as the medical profession.

The bill will also enable a larger pool of overseas-trained veterinarians to seek registration in New Zealand. That is because the bill repeals the previous requirement that only persons holding a 5-year veterinary science degree from certain recognised institutions are eligible for registration in New Zealand. Overseas veterinarians with 4-year veterinary science degrees from non-recognised institutions will be able to apply for registration, subject to successfully completing any examinations or training courses prescribed or approved by the council.

These changes reflect international trends—in particular, the increasing practice of overseas veterinary schools to offer 4½-year veterinary science degrees. The examinations and training courses are designed to help maintain the standard of veterinarians registered in New Zealand, and to continue to give consumers, including our trading partners, confidence in New Zealand’s veterinary services.

The bill also clarifies and improves provisions relating to the Veterinary Council’s disciplinary powers. In particular, it will provide the council with wider options for dealing with complaints than are currently available under the 1994 Act. That will better align the council’s disciplinary powers to the seriousness of offences. It also means that the council can impose penalties comparable to those contained in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. That will ensure that incentives are there for veterinarians to carry out their professional responsibilities to required standards.

These changes to the disciplinary powers and processes are important for the maintenance of confidence in the complaints process. It is important that veterinarians and members of the public have confidence in the system.

A further constraint in the Veterinarians Act is that it provides for the implementation of a number of its provisions through regulations. The council considers that to be time consuming and inflexible. It also ties up a lot of the Government’s time and resources. For instance, the Act requires that fees paid by veterinarians to the Veterinary Council be established by regulations. Fees are the council’s principal source of income, but the current process for the setting of fees is too inflexible and means the council cannot respond quickly to changes in its financial circumstances.

The bill empowers the Veterinary Council to prescribe its own fees in accordance with the principles contained in the Act, after consultation with those paying the fees, which will ensure that the fee-setting process is, indeed, transparent. The Regulations Review Committee will also be able to scrutinise the fees set by the council.

All other provisions of the Veterinarians Act remain substantially the same. The Veterinary Council and the New Zealand Veterinary Association, which is the professional body that represents all veterinarians, support the bill’s objectives, as the Veterinary Council will be assisted in discharging its statutory obligations. The Government would like to see the bill enacted this year, to enable the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to continue under the amended regulatory framework from 1 January 2006, the starting date of its new financial year.

I commend the bill to the House, and want to move that it be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, and that the committee present its final report on or before 14 June 2005.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister will move that motion after the bill has been read a first time.

National will support the Veterinarians Bill to the Production Committee, but in my comments today I want to make two or three points. Firstly, I express my concern about the regular use and abuse of Standing Order 289, whereby a bill is referred to a select committee and the committee is given 6 months to consider the bill and report it back to the House. Yet again we will see a bill referred to the Primary Production Committee, with a guillotine applied to it on the very day the Minister introduces it into the House.

I learnt today, for the first time, that the Primary Production Committee will be instructed to work on this legislation and report it back to the House on 14 June this year. I assure the Minister that the Primary Production Committee works very cooperatively and will adhere to that instruction, but I say to him that it is my understanding that this bill has been prepared and sitting on the Minister’s desk since the latter part of last year. It could have been presented last year, which would have made this guillotine option unnecessary. I also note that the bill has been sitting on the Order Paper since 25 January. So I say to the Minister, inexperienced though he is, that it is time he got his act together, because this legislation is important for the Veterinary Council, for the Veterinary Association, and for the vets around New Zealand.

Secondly, I want to talk about the significant disappointment expressed in comments I have heard from the industry, whereby there has been no liaison between the industry and the Minister’s office, because the Minister of Agriculture—the silent, Hon Jim Sutton—forbade the officials to liaise with the industry. That means that the legislation now to be presented to the select committee will require considerable work—and considerable submissions from the industry—as again it is asked by this Government to tidy up the mess. I say to the Minister, while he is in the Chamber, that I have little doubt that if only he had allowed the officials and the industry to work together cooperatively and collaboratively, the legislation being read today for the first time would be substantially better. But rest assured, yet again the Primary Production Committee will come to the rescue of the Minister. We will do the work on the bill that should have been done before being presented to the select committee. I give my undertaking today that again we will make sure the legislation comes back into the House in far better shape than the committee receives it.

What this dysfunction of the Minister of Agriculture in forbidding discussion between bureaucracy and the industry shows is a sign of absolute arrogance by Ministers. Ministers with “we know best” attitudes are not what any industry wants. It is time the Government and the Ministers got off their high horses and were prepared to accept the comments and the suggestions made by the industry, because that arrogance is something that has been noted throughout New Zealand. It is something that we are seeing day after day in the House during question time, and it is something that many, many New Zealanders are saying they have had enough of. In mentioning and criticising the Hon Jim Sutton as the Minister of Agriculture, I would be remiss not to suggest to him that he should take particular notice of this arrogance, because only in the last 2 weeks it has been brought to my attention that two separate provincial branches of Federated Farmers have passed a vote of no confidence in him as Minister.

Opposition Members: Oh!

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is outstanding, is it not? I have never known before a branch or provincial branch of Federated Farmers having to move motions of no confidence in the Minister. It is occurring because of the arrogance and the disconnection with the sector the Minister is meant to be representing.

Jill Pettis: Don’t be ridiculous.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Jill Pettis says: “Don’t be ridiculous.” She should say that to farmers belonging to Bay of Plenty Federated Farmers and Marlborough Federated Farmers, who, after working and slaving for the economy of New Zealand, go off to a meeting at 7.30 at night to discuss their concerns, and the result of their concerns is a substantial notice of motion of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture—and Jill Pettis the member for Whanganui interjects that we should not be ridiculous. I say to her that that sort of arrogance will cost her a place in this House after the next election. She is gone! Any time now, we will be having her valedictory speech, because she will not be back. The reason she will not be back is the arrogance that is now throughout the Government.

I want to make another comment on the principal purpose of the bill, which is to establish a far more flexible regime for recognising qualifications and allowing vets to operate in this country, and I applaud that. It will be essential, because what is happening now is that our young veterinarians are leaving Massey University and, because the pay, conditions, and lifestyle in places like Australia are so substantially superior to what we have in New Zealand, they are leaving this country. There is a lack of rural veterinarians throughout New Zealand and we will therefore have to start attracting people who have not qualified at Massey University. We will have to start attracting people from other universities, and have a sensible regime that allows those people to qualify. However, the point to be noted is that it is an absolute shame that we are putting that investment into young New Zealanders—and I happen to know of one personally, in my own extended family, who did a 5-year Massey University course and who is now operating in Melbourne—only to have that outcome, and that is something that this Government should take heed of.

The final issue I want to comment on is the genuine vulnerability in relation to vet practices. I had a discussion recently with some of my colleagues and members of the profession, and it was recognised that, while stud breeders with a high-value animal may continue to have significant involvement with the veterinary profession, as the vet charges continue to increase because of compliance costs that have been imposed by this Labour Government, the economics of calling a vet on to a commercial farm become more and more questionable. When that happens, I am genuinely concerned that there will then be a dislocation between the veterinary profession and many commercial farmers. That is a long-term danger for New Zealand, if we remember that agriculture is still the backbone of our economy. The buoyancy of the last 5 years has not been because of Dr Cullen one iota—quite the opposite, in fact. The buoyancy is because of agriculture in this country, but as we see rural veterinary practices put at some risk economically and commercial farmers having less and less contact with vets, then we are at serious risk of their being a lack communication, a lack of knowledge, and a lack of extension occurring at the farm gate. I raise that as a genuine concern and as something that worries me as a practising farmer.

Those comments come from a person—myself—who is currently a farmer and who was also a stud breeder for a number of years. In the time I was a stud breeder, I had considerable contact with the veterinary profession, and I learnt a lot from it. But as we move into intensive agriculture, farmers will be in a position of having to monitor the cost of each veterinary call and question the economics of calling a vet on to the farm and, if that happens, things will be at risk.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee as we progress the Veterinarians Bill. We will adhere to the guillotine instruction given by the Minister today and make sure the bill is back to the House before 14 June. Finally, I guarantee that the bill will come back, as usual, in far better shape than the shape in which it is presented to the select committee today.

I wish to take a short call on this important bill. I want to say, first of all, that the Veterinary Council and the New Zealand Veterinary Association support the bill’s objectives. I object to some of the statements that David Carter, the member from the National Party, has just made—

Hon David Cunliffe: Who?

JILL PETTIS: Well, most people would not know him—about the representation of the agricultural sector by the current Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Jim Sutton, who has been one of the best Ministers of Agriculture that this country has known. The level of confidence expressed in him has come from precisely the sector that he represents. A number of farmers that I speak to, both in my electorate and out of it, have spoken very highly of Jim Sutton’s accessibility, and of his common-sense, down-to-earth approach to agricultural matters. I think that the Opposition member was for some time a spokesperson on agriculture, but nobody would ever have known it.

This bill is important, because it does allow overseas veterinarians with 4-year veterinary science degrees from non-recognised institutions to apply for registration, subject to them successfully completing any examinations or training courses that are prescribed or approved by the Veterinary Council. That shows that the Veterinary Council itself and the New Zealand Veterinary Association are very closely associated with this legislation. It is good legislation, and I look forward to its rapid progress through the House, so that the sector it is aimed to benefit can start to benefit from it.

I seek leave to table a notice of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, Jim Sutton, from the Marlborough provincial Federated Farmers meeting held at Waihopai. It requests his resignation, and it was passed unanimously.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

I think right there, we have just found out where the motions of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture are coming from. I would suggest to Federated Farmers that they very quickly adopt what used to be the rule of having a non-partisan role in politics. I will be talking to their new chief executive officer when she comes to see me. [Interruption] I am sure the member has; I can see by the motion that he has. When she comes to see me, I will advise her that partisan politics in a lobby group such as Federated Farmers is not a very good idea. New Zealand First will be in favour of sending this bill to the select committee, and we look forward to doing that. However, I take note of and recognise the authenticity of what my National colleague David Carter was saying, when he said that our goodwill in the Primary Production Committee is being traded on just a little by Labour members, and that they should not do that. They are continually asking us to rush bills through that select committee—because we largely agree with one another—but that is not a good idea, because the day may come when we are not as cooperative as we currently are.

I think it is important to look behind this bill, to understand its ramifications and why it has come about. We are once again in a situation in this country where we are short of people on farms, and in particular in this case we are short of veterinarians who work on farms. The core intent of this bill is to ask us to bring into this country people with degrees or training that are lesser in standard than what we have imposed on our own veterinarians, to date. We may ask ourselves why that is, and Mr Carter has given us the answer. It is because our veterinarians, well trained in a 5-year course, are going overseas, and we are being forced to accept veterinarians from other countries, with lesser degrees, coming to practise in this country. Admittedly, there will be top-up exams and training courses for them, but that is a very sad situation. My leader, who is not one for clichés, would say that we are exporting First World expertise and importing Third World expertise for our citizens, and that can never be a good thing. So we understand the reasons for this bill, but we urge members to look further and ask why our veterinarians are leaving, as Mr Carter said, to go and practise in Australia or elsewhere, which means we face the situation of accepting into this country people with lesser degrees. That is not good.

I also hope that when these people come to this country we will not see the situation we have seen in other professions where people have been imported to fill a space on farms, which are the backbone of this country. We heard the dialogue between the two old parties in the House just a wee while ago about farmers being the backbone of the country—and they still are. I just hope that the people who come in really will commit themselves to serving, or to carrying out their profession, on farms. It would be sad, indeed, if we were to import them and they did not go on to farms but instead parked themselves in Auckland or in other big cities around the country, and attended to what veterinarians term their bread and butter: the small animal practices they run in cities, where they neuter cats, drench the like, and so on and so forth. Those city practices are very profitable, but they are not there for our No. 1 export. I am not downgrading somebody’s pet dog or anything else, but we are short of veterinarians on farms—

Brian Connell: Or their budgies.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: Or their budgies—and if this bill is carried through, we want to see that shortage fixed up. So I say that New Zealand First has that concern, and that members should look behind what is happening here and recognise the situation for what it is.

It is also interesting to note that the Act this bill is modifying was set in place only back in 1994, so it is not a very old Act, at all. That is another concern—that bills coming to this Parliament nowadays are replacing Acts that are not very old. In actual fact, not enough foresight is being put into the bills that are coming into the House these days.

Hon David Carter: We’ll watch that.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: We will have to watch that as this bill comes through the select committee—a very, very cooperative select committee, indeed.

I want to raise another question. Where is the foresight and the training, and where are the skills being put in place, to train more veterinarians in this country? If we are to lose a percentage—a good percentage, by the look of it—of our veterinarians to other countries because they are so well qualified and well recognised, let us produce more of them, instead of importing people of a lesser standard. I think that instead of seeing what we are seeing, and hearing what is exposed to us in question time when we learn of courses in this country that pass for university or training courses in such things as cooking pork bones, or whatever else it may be, let us see more resources being put in to the serious stuff like training veterinarians, doctors, and the like. Members will notice that I left lawyers off the list there, because there is a suggestion that we may already have enough of them. But let us put our resources into the productive areas.

Lastly, I want to suggest to the Labour Government, when it is talking about what it has done for farmers, that it has not done anything for them, at all. Before the National members start to burst into hysterical laughter, I would suggest that National has not done anything for farmers either. It has not been fashionable to do things for farmers over the last vast number of years. In closing, I can certainly tell the Labour Government what farmers have done for it. Farmers are still the backbone of this country. They are still the people who provide the exports and set the living standard for this country, and this Labour Government should never ever forget that.

I am delighted to speak on the first reading of the Veterinarians Bill. I made what I think was a wrong assumption that this bill would be totally non-political. This bill was, after all, meant to be about engaging with the veterinary community in fine-tuning what is needed to ensure that the very, very high competency standards of veterinarians remain and, indeed, are enhanced. Veterinarians also require certain flexibilities. I was very pleased to hear from veterinarians themselves—because I am one of those members who actually speak to them—that they were, broadly speaking, happy with the thrust of the bill. They said that they supported what the bill was trying to do.

But the veterinarians who have studied the bill have said to me that it is very untidy—that it is badly worded and needs significant changes. Mr David Carter, the chair of the Primary Production Committee, alluded to that earlier. I reiterate to the Minister and to officials that that message comes from a group of professional people who understand exactly what is needed. This bill is not about revenue gathering or self-benefit. The whole bill is about ensuring that veterinarians get an Act to govern that hugely important area of endeavour that will ensure the future of the agrarian sector—because it goes hand in hand with that of veterinarians—is very positive. I have been told on a number of occasions that this bill is right in intent but very, very wrong in content. So, yet again, the Primary Production Committee will have to tidy up the mess.

Let me give just one example of why this bill will need a tidy-up. If a veterinarian—just as in the case of a doctor—is deemed to be highly incompetent or to have a mental or physical incapacity, he or she should be suspended forthwith. Under the proposal in this PC nonsense, a meeting and a hearing will be set up. How long will that take? Meanwhile, very expensive thoroughbred horses, stud bulls, or whatever animals they may be could well be under threat. The industry needs the flexibility to move immediately in the unfortunate event of somebody not meeting the mental or physical standards required to become a vet or to retain his or her practising certificate. That person’s licence to practise needs to be withdrawn forthwith. The real question that arises is why that provision was not discussed with the veterinary profession.

Again, I want to reiterate what Mr David Carter said. He was absolutely correct in saying that the Veterinary Association, which represents the veterinarians themselves, has not been associated with the changes that show up in this bill. The question that really needs to be asked is why that is the case. Why did Jim Sutton not instruct his officials to go to the Veterinary Association and ask what needed to be put in this bill in order to ensure that the association—a professional body of people—was happy with it? If I had been the Minister, I would have asked the profession to write the bill and then bring it back to the Government to be tidied up in order to meet the Government’s standards and requirements, before being progressed. Instead, a huge amount of time will be spent in the select committee on tidying up the bill. We really have to ask why we did not get it right the first time. We need to go back to the question of why the Minister, Jim Sutton, did not ensure that that consultation took place in the first instance. I think it is dead right to say he has fallen out so badly with those who are directly or peripherally associated with agriculture that he no longer cares about their opinion.

It is also quite wrong of Jill Pettis—or, indeed, my colleague Doug Woolerton—to suggest that Federated Farmers are somehow backing certain parties in this House. I have been speaking with farmers and with Federated Farmers. I know they have political affiliations right across the spectrum. But there is one party that they are totally tossing out. Some of them flirted briefly with Jim Sutton and the Labour Party, but the members of Federated Farmers have seen so many bad decisions affect the farming community that they are demanding that their executive tell the Government it is wrong, and farmers do not want any part of it. [Interruption] There may even be one or two farmers left who will vote for New Zealand First! I tell Mr Woolerton there is an ugly rumour circulating to that effect. That may be the case.

R Doug Woolerton: They would advance their cause if they did.

GERRARD ECKHOFF: I say good on them, if that is what they choose to do. Federated Farmers have assiduously tried to keep apolitical, but in the appalling case of the flatulence tax, Jim Sutton—who did not discuss this bill with farmers, either—studiously ignored the view of Federated Farmers. Regrettably, he is still in charge of the issue of access and is totally ignoring the people who are directly affected. So why should we in this House be surprised that Jim Sutton has also ignored the Veterinary Association’s advice on the matter before us? It is as natural as night following day that that would be the case.

I also reiterate the words of my colleagues Mr Woolerton and Mr Carter, who said that we in the Primary Production Committee all recognise the huge value and importance of the teaching facilities at Massey University in Palmerston North, and the high quality and high standard of our veterinarians right throughout the country. They do a fantastic job. They can be called out in the middle of the night and on weekends and they come, just like doctors. I had a yearling bull that my son thought was a steer until we got him in. There was no way that I would get into the race with the bull and use the unkindest cut of all on him. But the young woman veterinarian, without batting an eyelid, went in and did the deed. I have to admit that it brought a tear to my eye. When one is dealing with animals, one has to marvel at the huge skill and knowledge of veterinarians. We really do need to pay tribute to the veterinary profession for what it does for the agricultural industry, which contributes so fantastically to our economy.

Just today we witnessed Fonterra announcing that another $240 million is to go into New Zealand’s economy from the dairy industry. That money will go into the wider community, because everybody knows that there is no one sillier than a farmer with a few dollars in his or her pocket. That money is spent and the whole community benefits from it. That is well recognised. We get a few bucks, and we want to go out and spend it. That is a marvellous way to distribute that sort of cash, rather than the Government’s way, which is to tax and take constantly.

I reiterate that I think it is a shame that veterinarians across the board appear to be rather upset with the Government for not consulting them properly on this bill. It would have saved a heck of a lot of time, effort, and money had the Government done so. But the Opposition will continue to talk with their professional bodies, even if the Government will not. I look forward to this bill going to the select committee where, yet again, the Government’s mess will be tidied up.

It seems that there is a cross-party consensus on the Veterinarians Bill, which is very good news indeed. It seems to the Greens that the main purpose of this bill is simply to make it easier for overseas vets to apply to register in New Zealand in order to address the shortage of vets in New Zealand that has been created by so many of our vets going overseas.

We agree with Doug Woolerton from New Zealand First that it is all well and good to send this legislation to the select committee and consider it there, but we need to address why there are such shortages in the veterinary profession and why so many of our vets are heading overseas. We think that the shortage of vets in New Zealand should be met, in the first instance, by attracting back those who have left the profession or gone overseas to practise, and by increasing the number of students trained in New Zealand, rather than always relying on overseas sources whenever we encounter a shortage in any skill line such as this.

To attract veterinarians back here, we need to make the profession more attractive. There needs to be less isolation for rural vets, less stress, and in particular less debt for students who are undertaking veterinary studies. We need to remember that students must undertake a 5-year course to become veterinarians, and many of our veterinarians are saddled with crippling debts after they have trained, which is why, of course, they head overseas. So the real solution to the veterinary shortage in New Zealand is not just to bring in overseas vets. We must deal with the issue of student debt.

The Green Party has a policy of introducing a universal student allowance, and of wiping out student debt progressively. In this case, for a veterinarian, for every year a vet worked in New Zealand after obtaining that training, a significant percentage, about a quarter, of his or her debt would be wiped. That is the way to address the problem, rather than with this short-term solution of trying to bring in vets from overseas. The underlying problem of the shortage of vets is of serious concern to us. The shortage impacts on all sorts of aspects of agriculture, and it also impacts on animal welfare.

Already we are seeing the impact of the shortage of vets. An audit of veterinary prescribing was done last year, and it found that some vets were not even bothering to visit animals. They were dispensing prescriptions to animals without even visiting farms. The vets basically seemed to be just responding to the demands of farmers. There seemed to be a lack of monitoring and auditing and some really rather slack standards. We assume that this situation comes, in large part, from the shortage of vets in New Zealand. So we are very concerned about increasing the number of veterinarians and improving animal welfare. We wish that veterinarians would take a leading role in this. We are very pleased with the leading role they have taken on the debate on tail-docking, and we very much look forward to their taking an equally leading role on other even more crucial animal welfare issues, such as the cruel treatment of pigs and hens, which are kept in cages where they cannot express any natural forms of behaviour.

It is unfortunate that veterinarians are not speaking out about these practices, despite the fact that they breach the objectives of the Animal Welfare Act. Also, of course, it is veterinarians who are dispensing the very large amounts of antibiotics that the millions of chickens in New Zealand are fed for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, despite the fact that there is increasing evidence of the spread of antibiotic resistance throughout our chicken flocks.

We look forward to veterinarians taking a more proactive role in animal welfare issues. We also want to see more and better-trained New Zealand veterinarians. We support the bill’s referral to the select committee, and we will support it there and afterwards. We hope that improvements will be made to the bill at the select committee, as others have suggested.

United Future will support the first reading of the Veterinarians Bill, and its referral to the Primary Production Committee. Having spent one session on that committee, I was delighted, indeed, that the bill is going there, because I think it is a very cooperative committee with a lot of good robustness about it, in terms of getting to the point and ensuring that the point does not get lost. That is a very good committee for the bill to go to.

We support this bill for a number of reasons. One reason is that when this bill takes effect, even though the Act it will replace is only 10 years old, it will be a growth stage in a profession, and I am delighted by that. It will start to give a professionalism to veterinarians in this country, and to those who will come into this country. I am quite delighted by this upgrading, because when professionals take over their own profession, there is a shift whereby the Government’s control mechanisms are weakened, and civil society starts to get some more strength into it. We are very satisfied that this will happen.

Indeed, I wonder, with the professionalism that will take place through this bill, whether some of the numbers issues might well be addressed at the same time. We are losing people from this country to other nations for various reasons, as other speakers have noted, but one reason is certainly that they want to belong to a professional society and group. This bill now allows for that opportunity, and I think this really will be another means to attract New Zealanders to stay here. We are very happy with that.

We also support this bill because it will go to a select committee that will be able to obtain a tremendous input from people around the country. This bill, as it sits, needs some polishing. The select committee will be able to do that. It will be able to take hold of some of the loose ends and hear the concerns, and that is what a select committee is all about, as I understand it. I am very, very happy that we support this bill, because it is at the select committee that the veterinarians, and those associated with the industry—be they on the domestic side or in the farming industries—will be able to have their input. This bill will then flourish and have strength added to it.

I applaud a bill that gives greater flexibility to any group, and this particular group, the Veterinary Council, will have more flexibility to operate. It is because of those sorts of things that we are, for example, looking at parity of degree requirements between other countries and ours. I think that that is another step in the professionalism that this nation needs and has been pursuing through the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and its various other additions over the years. This profession is just starting to catch on to that, so I applaud that. Whether a person takes 4 years to obtain a degree, or 5 years, is not so material as what the content and the learning is. Those comparisons and other issues will come to the Primary Production Committee and will be validated, or otherwise.

United Future believes that this legislation will help this profession in this country. I believe New Zealand has a lot to offer as an agricultural nation, and this is one of the things it can offer, as even those who come into the country as perfect strangers will learn. One of the great benefits we get from immigrants is the innovation, the drive, and a way of looking at things that sometimes we are over-familiar with, and we miss the point. A new view can add to our agricultural industry, particularly, and therefore see us grow and be enhanced as a nation. So it is with delight, really, that we support this bill, and we hope that the Primary Production Committee will do due justice to it when it receives it.

I rise to support the Veterinarians Bill, and I note that the Veterinary Council and the New Zealand Veterinary Association, which, of course, is the professional body that represents all veterinarians, support the bill’s objectives, as they will assist the Veterinary Council in discharging its statutory obligations.

I listened with interest to Mr Doug Woolerton. He made some observations about the possible role of Federated Farmers, and I am hoping that Mr Woolerton will send a copy of his speech to Annabel Young, the new chief executive. I think Doug Woolerton, as a farmer himself, gave some very timely and very relevant advice. I think, in the context of Mr Eckhoff’s speech in terms of the role of Federated Farmers, and apparently he is now claiming to be the representative in this House of the Federated Farmers, on one hand he was assuring us it was a totally non-partisan—

Hon Member: He is recognised!

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Well, I think Federated Farmers have more clues than to put all their eggs in the 2 percent barrel, or 1 percent. But I will say this to Annabel Young, as the topic did come up for conversation in terms of the role of Federated Farmers, and certainly in the context of this bill, and also some other issues that they are concerned with: I think Doug Woolerton gave some very good advice. I notice that other MPs have come from a partisan environment in this House. Tony Friedlander has made a very good transition in terms of the work he is doing with the Road Transport Forum. Annabel Young should look at him as a role model. The Hon Doug Kidd, who, of course, was well respected by both sides of the House in terms of his expertise, and background in terms of the fishing area, certainly again has made that transition, and a very good one. He is seen as an expert—a person who is listened to with respect.

The other really shining example that Annabel Young could look at, if she is looking at how to make that transition, of course, is the Rt Hon James Bolger, who I think is doing a sterling job with New Zealand Post. So the bottom line is that we are looking to Federated Farmers to be that non-partisan body. I have to say that they need to look no further than the Waikato. Our local branch, in my view, is very good. There is excellent leadership, and I enjoy very good relations with them.

Let me assure this House that I will listen to them very, very closely on this bill. They will have some significant things to say, because this bill is very important to the rural community and to our economy, and that is noted.

I will just finally close, and as I did say to my whips, take at least a couple of minutes to say that this is a very important bill. I certainly wish the Primary Production Committee well, in its consideration. I think it is very important for young people in this country to have adequate opportunities to follow a path of veterinary science to enable them to become vets. We want to keep Kiwis. We want Kiwis to be doing this job, and this bill will make it easier for our vets, and recognise their importance. It is a long-overdue overhaul of the rules around the profession. I commend it to the select committee. I am sure the Labour members on the select committee, as the chairman will vouch, will do a very good job, and I am sure he will do so as well. I wish the members well, and frankly I will be listening to my own branch of Federated Farmers on these and other issues much more than Mr Eckhoff, with due respect.

I want to start by responding to a couple of comments that Jill Pettis made about Jim Sutton. I was down at a ward meeting in Timaru on Tuesday night. There was a room full of farmers, and Jim Sutton—

Hon David Carter: That’s not in your electorate.

BRIAN CONNELL: No, but it was in Timaru, and that is why it is important. Jim Sutton got up and started speaking to the meeting. Someone put up a hand and asked: “Excuse me, who are you?”. That was to the Minister of Agriculture in his own electorate. They did not know who he was. Then he apologised for being late for the meeting. He said: “I can’t control whether the aeroplanes will get here on time or not.” Someone said: “Well, Jim, you should have just jumped in a car and sped down.” So I thought that was pretty good advice to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure he went home thinking that he will have to work harder if he is to retain that seat down in Aoraki against a fantastic candidate in Jo Goodhew. She is doing a splendid job, and she is knocking on lots of doors.

Let me come to the bill and say that National does support it to the select committee. But we have some very clear reservations. There are some components of the bill, in terms of just speaking about this, that will be repetitious, but that, I am afraid, is the nature of the way this bill has been drafted.

The first thing the bill is calling for is a modernisation—a makeover—and we definitely support the intent of that. I have spoken to the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association, and they also say that this move is overdue. But the thing that concerns them is the issue of registration and getting enough vets to work in New Zealand. It is not just the issue of whether we have enough vets, but also the issue of where those vets are working. Too many of our vets now are attracted into our large cities to run small animal practices, and what is happening around our farms—our productive sector—is that farmers simply do not have enough vets to call on.

So what has been suggested, and I support the initiative, is a relaxation of the requirement for a minimum 5-year qualification. That requirement does not take into account the qualifications of people whom the council deems would be suitably qualified to work in the area of veterinary science. That is absolutely essential. What is happening is that we are producing First World graduates in this country, we are paying them Third World wages, and we wonder why they are going overseas in droves. It is not just our vets. We have 500,000 people—and just a very quick analysis of those people tells us that they are amongst our best and brightest—working in other people’s economies right now. So I support what the legislation is trying to do. It will provide some flexibility that will attract people in sufficient numbers to support our vets and enable our agricultural sector to get enough people on the ground at the right time, in the right numbers, and with the right skill. The right skill is not being relaxed; that is important.

I do have to say that what this Government has done around the scholarship debacle will not help this issue one iota. Here we are facing a shortage of vets, and hardly a science student in this country received a scholarship! It all goes back to the feet of Trevor Mallard and this Government. It is an appalling outcome that he has managed, and he should be held accountable for it.

The other part of the bill that I agree with is the aspect of limited registration. For example, it will allow the council to have a greater ability to allow people to practise in their areas of specialisation or strength, without their necessarily having the full breadth of veterinary skills. The council has suggested that that could be in the area of research, teaching, meat inspection, or pathology. Essentially, the bill is saying that someone should be allowed to practise in his or her area of skill under very strict conditions. To me, that makes sense and it is very pragmatic.

The second issue I want to raise with the House is around the area of fee setting. Under the present Act fees must be set by Order in Council. That is overly cumbersome and bureaucratic. The bill intended—and I say that with some caution—to allow for the setting of fees by the Veterinary Council after due consultation. In other words, it wanted to be able to gazette fees, rather than set them by way of regulation. But the bill has been drafted in such a way that that intent is not being captured, and the Primary Production Committee will need to be very cognisant of that point when the bill comes before it.

The third area to note is that the council will have wider and more flexible disciplinary powers. The bill will allow for competency review by peers and, essentially, the council will have powers to sanction those who are not practising to agreed standards. That part of the modernisation is absolutely necessary if our vets are to maintain the high reputation they have. It is a sensible improvement and, essentially, it would bring the veterinarians’ profession into line with other professions like accounting, law, and the medical profession. That is the intent, but, as I have already alluded to, there are some omissions and errors, which are primarily in the drafting. They can be fixed, and unless they are fixed, the intent—which all the parties in this House support—will be lost. So the select committee will need to look at that very carefully. [Interruption] I am sure that it will.

I spoke about the council’s ability to set standards and to have greater disciplinary powers. However, the only instruments it has at the moment to do that, with the way the bill has been drafted, are by way of Order in Council. That was not, and is not, the intention. Vets want the ability to bring their profession into line with other professions, as I have already said. Specifically, they want to insist on continuing education. They want to be able to say to people in the profession: “You must keep abreast with modern science, otherwise we will reserve the right to look at your practising certificate.” I think that is reasonable. That is what other professions insist on, and I think it only reasonable that an area of scientific endeavour like this should have the same rule run across it, as well. But again, the way the bill is drafted, that intent is being lost.

The other area that I shall touch on briefly is around the issue of appeals. If a vet has been deemed by the council, which is essentially his or her peers, not to be performing to an adequate standard, at the moment—unless the council meets, which is on a very protracted basis—the council does not have the ability to say to that person that: “We want to start an investigation or revoke your ability to practise.” The way that this legislation is drafted, a litigious vet could appeal that process to the District Court. He or she could drag out that process for months, if not years. I suggest that the select committee consider amending the process to allow appeals to the High Court. It would be a more expensive process, and one would want to be certain of one’s position before spending the money, and so would the council. So I think that is a sensible suggestion. I suppose that I am suggesting the select committee looks at the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act.

In summary, I conclude with these views. The intent of the bill is good. The National Party supports it, but unless the drafting is tidied up, that intent will be lost, and an opportunity to modernise the bill and bring it into line with like professions will be lost.

I am pleased to take a brief call on the first reading of the Veterinarians Bill. This bill affects far more than just the 2,500 people who work as vets in New Zealand. It impacts on all of those who use the services that vets provide both on farm and off farm. It is particularly important in rural parts of New Zealand, where having a stable and highly professional veterinary workforce is important for the carrying out of farm work and, therefore, is important for the economy of New Zealand.

As the previous speaker, Brian Connell, said, a number of aspects of the bill line up better with legislation relating to other professionals across the health workforce. The Minister, Damien O’Connor, in his speech made reference to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, which outlines what professional standards should be, disciplinary matters, and other powers that the council will have.

It is a bill that I know is welcomed by the Veterinary Council and Veterinary Association. They, of course, will put forward their views to the very good Primary Production Committee, which I am sure will be ably chaired by Mr Carter and assisted by Labour members. I look forward to seeing this bill come back to the House for its speedy passage in order to assist veterinarians in our country.

National supports the Veterinarians Bill to the select committee. A number of issues have been mentioned already this evening, and we certainly want to know what they mean. National members have had a meeting with vets in recent times. One of the major concerns is that the bill will allow—and that was not done in consultation with vets—a prescription to be given by a vet, but the farmer, landowner, or whoever will be able to buy that prescriptive drug off the shelf at, for example, one of the stock and station agencies. Although one can understand the costs associated with that—and we want to keep compliance costs down and make sure that the purchaser of the product is getting the best deal—it may be that the person selling at one of those agencies does not have the expertise to understand the importance of the drug he or she is dispensing. A person could have the script for a prescriptive drug, and the agency he or she goes to could well be having a sale and is able to give a 10 percent discount on the particular product. That would be an incentive for the person doing the buying. That is an area of concern that vets have identified.

In contrast, members of the farming community whom I have spoken to say that they want the best price they can get because of the compliance costs. They understand the use of medicines because they are dealing with them all the time. That is an area we need to work through in the select committee.

Like many professions in rural areas, the veterinary profession is having trouble attracting the personnel it requires. It is the same with valuers, accountants, teachers, and doctors. The veterinary profession is no different in wanting to attract its people to some of the rural areas. The demands now placed on vets and the opportunities for them to specialise are very exciting. There is now a big demand for small animal vet services, and vets are attracted to that side of the profession.

The equine industry is very much a part of where I come from, Matamata. Vets working in the equine industry there are very busy with the work they do. In fact, a new hospital for horses is being established and opened tomorrow in Matamata. That shows the importance of veterinary science in the very important racing industry.

There is a big demand for vets in the meat inspection services. Vets are at the coalface and are the people who will sign off on the export product. As my colleague the Hon David Carter mentioned during his speech, primary industry is still New Zealand’s No. 1 export earner. We need that protection, and vets form part of that. They are the safeguard. Anything that can add value to our primary products—and in that case it will be vets—is to be encouraged and supported.

When we look at what this bill actually does, we see that it replaces the current 5-year degree requirement with a more flexible requirement that allows the Veterinary Council to recognise formally veterinary qualifications from certain institutions. Further, a person holding a minimum 4-year veterinary science degree from an institution not recognised by the council may seek registration. That is important because many vets in rural practice are from overseas. In the Waikato a number of vets are from South Africa. We also had a young lady who came out from the United States. That was interesting for her to come from the profession there and work in a rural area in the Matamata region.

Vets have told us recently that a huge number of women are graduating in veterinary science. That is great to see. However, those women are not actually moving out into the farming areas—let us say, for example, the dairy area—but are mainly specialising in the small animal practice.

I guess we have had success over the years because, as some members may recall, New Zealand did not have a veterinary science school, and if someone wanted to be a vet he or she had to go over to Werribee, just outside Melbourne, where the veterinary science school was. We have advanced our reputation. We have a proud reputation in veterinary science. We have some leading exponents of that—[Interruption] Well, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement will most certainly put a damper on that.

The point I make is that we need to attract, train, and retain our brightest and best in New Zealand, and that is certainly why National supports this legislation. As I said earlier, our wealth creators—the primary industries—need back-up and support from other professions, and vets and the Veterinary Council are to be encouraged and supported. National will support this bill through to the select committee.

Bill read a first time.

, on behalf of the Associate Minister of Agriculture: I move, That the Veterinarians Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration, and that the committee present its final report on or before 14 June 2005.

Motion agreed to.