Tremain Chris: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tremain Chris: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:915] 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 3 particularly in relation to complaints disciplinary hearings medical competence assessments and conditions of practice. The point I would particularly like to make tonight concerns the interpretation of a “specified person”. I ask the Minister to take a call on this point particularly in relation to clause 30AA and clause 33. The point I have risen to speak about is the definition of a specified person. 
Clause 30AA(a) states that a specified person “means a veterinarian or a person who was a veterinarian at the time of the relevant conduct;”. That is pretty clear; I do not have a problem with that. Subclause (b) states: “unless the context otherwise requires includes—(i) a registered person: (ii) a registered person whose registration is suspended: (iii) a person who was registered at the time of the relevant conduct.” That defines the person as a vet but it does not define whether the acts that were committed have anything to do with whether the person was working as a vet which is a very important point. I will tell members why that is a very important point and the Minister may like to take a call to indicate whether further definition is needed in the interpretation of “specified person” to clarify the point. 
Under clause 33 someone can raise complaints about a veterinarian or a specified person. Clause 33(1) states that any person may make a written—tuhituhi—complaint to the council about the conduct of a veterinarian or a specified person. That raises the question about what type of complaint can be made. Does it have to be a complaint about the role of a vet when working as a vet or can it be outside his or her capacity as a vet? Does it mean that a person may decide to make a complaint because for example he or she drives past a vet who is speeding to the pub? There may be some other examples that members of the Committee can give me tonight to help me. A number of things may raise the question— 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Foul language. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Perhaps someone may walk into a veterinarian’s surgery and hear some foul language used. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: That’s not good. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It is not good. Perhaps playing bad tennis could be an example. 
The point I really want to get to is: what would happen if a complaint was written because a male veterinary surgeon was sitting next to a child on an Air New Zealand or Qantas plane? He should not sit next to a child— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Because there could be a complaint. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Exactly. That is the point I make. Could someone make a written complaint about a male veterinarian because he is sitting next to a child? 
 I want to add a point to that because it shocks me entirely. The leadership of this Government has not come out and said something strongly about the male roles in the community and the fact that a man should be able to sit next to a child. The Government should be able to say exactly where it stands on that issue. Men are being pushed into a section of the community where they cannot be trusted with children any longer and frankly that is not good enough. Men are fathers. They deserve to be able to sit next to children on aeroplanes. 
Let us go back to Part 3 and imagine that a male vet was sitting next to a child on a aeroplane and that somebody has decided to write a complaint to the veterinarians complaints authority about the fact that he was sitting next to a child on an Air New Zealand flight. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: With a tennis ball. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: That would not be good. 
So I come back to the question I talked about. It is a serious question and I ask the Minister to take a call on it. It is about the definition of when the complaint can be made. Can a complaint be made in a veterinary situation or can it be made outside a veterinary situation? I think we need to go back to the interpretation clause and clarify that. Fortunately the process is stopped early in the piece as clause 35(2) states: “However if at any time after receiving a complaint …’. That is where the confusion is.