Heatley Phil: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:892] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to outline to members and to those who are listening the importance of clause 9 “Disqualification from registration”. I think that provision should be recorded in  
Hansard 
 and not just set out in the bill where many of us will not ever read it again and many of the public will never read it. There are subclauses covering disqualification from registration and because the Veterinary Council can take that very significant step with quite life-changing far-reaching consequences for some vets I would like to read out parts of the clause. 
Clause 9 states that a person is not entitled to be registered as a veterinarian if he or she has been convicted by any court in New Zealand or elsewhere within the past 7 years of any offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 3 months or longer. I say to current and future veterinarians that they should be warned. If they have had a conviction within the last 7 years that is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 3 months or longer they can be deregistered or not registered at all. That will not automatically apply; there is an “and” provision. Not only does the person have to have been convicted but the council has to be satisfied having regard to all the circumstances including the time that has elapsed since the conviction that the offence reflects adversely on the person’s fitness to practise as a veterinarian. In other words people can have a conviction and still be registered if it is deemed that the conviction will not in any way reflect adversely on their fitness to practise as a veterinarian. Even so I say vets should be warned. They should avoid getting a conviction not just because of the jail term but because it can affect their career in ways they may not have envisaged. 
Clause 9 also provides that a person is not entitled to be registered if the council is satisfied that registration of the person would be inappropriate because in another country he or she is the subject of professional disciplinary proceedings. People should not assume they can come from another country where they practised as a vet and be registered in New Zealand if they have been a ratbag back home. If vets are the subject of professional disciplinary proceedings overseas they should not expect to be registered in New Zealand. The clause also provides that they are not entitled to be registered if they are under investigation or have been struck off the relevant overseas register of veterinarians or have been otherwise disciplined by a veterinary professional organisation. They should take note of that. Lastly if the council is satisfied that a person cannot practise satisfactorily as a veterinarian because of a mental or physical condition the council can refuse to register that person. 
So if people have faced convictions in this country or overseas or have been disciplined overseas or if it is determined that they cannot satisfactorily practise as a veterinarian because of a mental or physical condition they may not be registered in this country. They should take that as a warning. I warn them upfront of that now if they are listening to this debate. 
I also draw attention to clause 13 “Scopes of practice for limited registration”. Members may remember that I brought up the issue of people who were temporarily in New Zealand. People who come to New Zealand for a short time from South Africa Europe or the United States to practise as vets—and it used to be for just 3 months but could be extended for a further 3 months—come under the term “limited registration”. The Primary Production Committee had to strike out the original clause 13 which extended that to 12 months. We wanted to talk about the scopes of practice for limited registration because it is important that the people who come from overseas whether they serve in general veterinary practice in New Zealand or are specialists are useful to this country. 
I have already noted that it is important that vets have not been convicted by any court in their own country. It is important that those visitors who want to practise as vets in this country are not under any professional disciplinary proceedings or under investigation overseas but also it is important that they can contribute to the professionalism in this country when they practise here. In my second reading speech I pointed out to members that the Minister had extended the time frame within which an overseas-qualified vet could work in New Zealand. We removed the time frames altogether. We removed the roll-over period which was 3 months plus 3 months and then 12 months plus 12 months. In other words an overseas vet could practise in New Zealand under limited registration for a maximum of 2 years and now there is no limit. I raise the issue that the reason we did that is that we need overseas vets. We need good South African and European vets to practise in New Zealand. We need good vets from Asia the United States and elsewhere in the world to practise in New Zealand because the vets we train here are fleeing the country. They are fleeing the taxes the compliances costs and the political correctness. They are going overseas and we have to replace them. 
I have a question for the Minister on clause 13 which deals with limited registration for temporary overseas-qualified vets to work in this country. When the Minister extended the time frame within which they could work in New Zealand from 3 months to 12 months and extended the roll-over time from 3 months to 12 months what else was he going to do to make sure that we have enough vets practising in this country? He extended those time frames so that we could get more overseas vets here and hopefully hook them for life but what will he do about the young vets who train here soaking up taxpayers’ money and contributing a whole lot of their own money to their training and then leave our shores? What will he do to bring them back and what will he do to stop them leaving? Where is the Minister’s answer? 
The Minister can put a few pretty clauses in this legislation to extend the time frames for overseas-trained vets to work in New Zealand but what will he do about ensuring our own young vets work in this country? What can we do about our own medical professionals our own architects our own engineers our own nurses our own teachers—all the young people who go overseas having had an investment made in them by the New Zealand taxpayer? What is the Minister’s answer to that? I applaud the fact that we are welcoming overseas-qualified professional people but I want young Kiwis to stay here and work here. I have invested in them. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not want them to be driven overseas by Dianne Yates screeching across the House. Not everyone is like Dianne Yates—that is what I would tell them. If I asked people not to leave they would say they are not leaving just because of Dianne Yates even though my goodness she is scary. They would say they are leaving because of the taxes the compliance costs the political correctness and then because of Dianne Yates. But they are leaving and I want them to stay. 
I am glad we are going to attract hook and retain overseas-trained vets but I want the young ones whom we invest in to stay here as well. They can go overseas for a couple of years but then return. I ask the Minister Jim Anderton what he is doing about them. Where are the clauses in this legislation that deal with the young people whom we have invested in as taxpayers and as members of this country? What is the Minister’s solution? I invite the Minister to take a call on that particular matter and enlighten this Committee on what he is doing to retain those young professionals.