Rich Katherine: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:953] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 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? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: 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. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: 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.