Volume 628 Week 5 - Tuesday 13 December 2005(continued on Wednesday 14 December 2005) 
Volume 628 Week 5 - Tuesday 13 December 2005(continued on Wednesday 14 December 2005) 
[Volume:628;Page:817] 
Tuesday 13 December 2005 
( 
continued on Wednesday 14 December 2005 
) 
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 This is a very complex bill. It contains a large number of amendments is highly technical and is very much a procedural matter. I was unfortunate not to be in the House for the first reading or part of the Education and Science Committee so I will not stand here and pretend I can talk at length about the details. But I have had the opportunity to read the bill and I would like to highlight a couple of thoughts from the side. 
Like any Act the legislation is open to interpretation. I agree with the exposure limits set around the environmental exposure limits the tolerable exposure limits and the workplace exposure limits. I also agree with the type and nature of the group standards that will enable the Environmental Risk Management Authority to manage the risks. These set conditions will actually help manage them. 
But I would like everyone in the House to know that this is just another compliance cost. It was interesting to find that a Federated Farmers survey in 2004 projected that the cost to farmers of this legislation would be $100 million. That is what it will cost to transfer the agrichemicals—the herbicides the insecticides and the fungicides—across to this legislation. The cost to the arable farmers of this country is estimated to be $3000 per year per farmer. For pastoral farmers—and I see that Mr Bennett a pastoral farmer from the Waikato is in the House today—the cost to their sector is estimated to be $2000 per year per farmer. So this legislation will have significant costs across the board for our primary industries. Although we all know that our primary industries are the backbone of this country we tend to forget that a little bit in the House. We in the primary industries get walloped by large taxes and by compliance costs that flow through from this House. 
Another cost will be the certification costs to be an approved handler. Actually to assess whether the candidates comply with the legislation is another cost. I am pleased to see that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is acknowledging that many of the people who handle these chemicals on a day-to-day basis are skilled in doing that and that the authority will look at reducing the time involved in training. It is my understanding that farmers who deal with these chemicals on an ongoing basis—many on a daily basis—will not be required to sit a full-day course. I believe that is positive. They will still need to be certified. But I am conscious of the grandfathers out there spraying their tomatoes in their gardens and the grandmothers spraying aphids in their rose gardens. I would not like to see their having to go through all this compliance in order to be certified to handle these chemicals. 
On the plus side I was pleased to read that those who handle veterinary medicines—as many many farmers do on a daily basis—do not need to be approved handlers. Thank goodness for that. Many many farmers—the backbone of this country—drench their stock on a quarterly basis and some even more often. 
In closing I want to touch on some of the comments made by my colleagues last evening. I agree with Dr Nick Smith that we have to work more closely with Australia and get a common agreement. Also I am mindful of the comments made by Brian Donnelly of New Zealand First last evening when he talked about it being tougher for the fly-by-nighters to be able to import toxic substances into this country. I am extremely supportive of that. Mr Hutchison who has just joined me here on my left also talked about the safety of the whole environment in relation to toxic substances and I agree with what he said. I will be supporting these amendments but I am also mindful of the costs. The primary industries are getting walloped by costs and I am fearful that this is just another compliance cost going forward. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not be supporting this amendment bill not because we are opposed to the concept of group standards which are actually quite a sensible way to proceed—contrary to what the previous speaker just said this amendment does actually reduce costs and compliance for users of hazardous chemicals—but because it is the final closing of a window of opportunity to make the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act work in the way it was originally intended. 
I want to give the House a wee bit of history because there may not be many people here whose memories go back quite so far. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act came out of considerable concern in the late 1980s and early 1990s that our system for managing hazardous substances was a mess. We had a raft of overlapping and inconsistent legislation such as the Pesticides Act the Toxic Substances Act the Dangerous Goods Act and numerous others that imposed a sloppy inconsistent and not comprehensive regime on the management of hazardous substances. The Act was a very good idea. One of the things that led to that perception was the work I did in 1984 for the Auckland Regional Council on the management of hazardous activities in the Auckland region that showed up some of these legislative imperfections. 
Be that as it may the legislation was drafted to bring all hazardous substances under one umbrella and to provide a process whereby substances that were already approved could be transferred across to the new legislation with new sets of conditions that brought them into the modern world that were consistent with international practice and that discovered and got rid of environmental risks in the process. That is exactly what has not happened because the process since the Act was brought in has been for hazardous substances simply to be transferred from their old legislation across to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act without any major review of whether they should be registered at all and with very little review of the conditions under which they should be registered. 
What makes this worse is that this actually creates a right in perpetuity to use a particular substance no matter what science might show in the future about its appropriateness no matter what public opinion might be in the future about its appropriateness and no matter what new chemicals might be found that would do a better job for less environmental cost. The problem is that once this regime is complete—once the substances are transferred and are under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—the substances cannot be reviewed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority except at huge cost to the public purse. This Act is supposed to parallel the Resource Management Act which gives planning permission for certain actions that affect the environment. But under the Resource Management Act the maximum length of time that one can have a consent is 35 years. Under this Act it is forever. Once a person obtains permission to use say DDT—it is not used any longer—it is forever and the only way that can be changed is totally at the cost of the public purse. I do not think Michael Cullen realises the costs to the Crown that are being imposed by this regime. 
There was an opportunity here and this was put to the Education and Science Committee and to the Minister for the Environment—I put it to the Minister myself—to provide that if there is not time for the Environmental Risk Management Authority to review properly all the substances that are in transition then they should be given short-term registration under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and a review provided at the expense of the applicants. They could be given 10 years and after that time the authority could at its discretion roll over the consent or it could decide that it is one that needs to be looked at and needs to go through a review at the expense of the applicant. That has not happened despite all the arguments that were put to the Minister and to the select committee. 
That means that one of two things will happen. One is that old chemicals that are no longer appropriate without the conditions that are appropriate in the modern world without international best practice will continue to be registered and used here in preference to the new ones coming on the market internationally because new ones coming on the market internationally will have to be registered at the cost of the applicant whereas the old ones just carry on regardless. New Zealand is a small market. We cannot expect innovative chemicals that might have lower environmental costs but do the same job to be registered here if the applicants have to pay but they do not have to pay for a reassessment of the old out-of-date chemicals. So this measure will stifle innovation and will increase risk to the environment. 
The alternative is that the Environmental Risk Management Authority will conduct a number of reassessments at a cost to the Crown of probably something in the order of $1 million every time it happens because it is a public process and it is not funded to do that. So either there will be some big Budget bids from the authority which will make Michael Cullen blanch in order to review a number of these chemicals which the authority already knows ought to be reviewed and which the authority already knows are under unsuitable conditions or should be deregistered—either there will be that cost to the Crown—or the risk to the environment will continue. There could have been an easy remedy in this bill: the consents could have been time limited. 
We also have this absurd contradiction where the Ministry for the Environment has advised the Minister that this bill has got to get through before Christmas because there is a time limit in the Act that everything has to be transferred by July next year. The legislation needs to go through so that the Environmental Risk Management Authority can do them in groups because it cannot meet that deadline otherwise. And we have advice from the Environmental Risk Management Authority that the deadline cannot be met anyway. In its briefing to the incoming Minister it said that the July deadline will have to be extended. So if the July deadline has to be extended why are we rushing this bill through before Christmas and why are we not having a good look at giving time-limited consents rather than perpetual property rights to pollute? 
I note that the Supplementary Order Paper that we have picked up this morning does not actually extend the time limit from July next year so I am wondering whether we will get a second Supplementary Order Paper to do that or whether the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s advice that it cannot do it by July is being disregarded—in which case what kind of mess are we going to be in? There is going to be even less scrutiny as the authority transfers all these substances across in huge haste without any proper look at the conditions under which they are registered. 
We are talking here about the sorts of substances that cause long-term human illness that cause long-term environmental harm if they are not used properly and if people are exposed to them when they should not be. It is always a Faustian bargain where humans use dangerous chemicals for useful purposes but how much environmental risk does one accept in doing that? Obviously this regime aims to make sure that the most lethal substances are not registered at all that the most environmentally appropriate ones for the purpose are registered and that the set of conditions under which they are registered gives one maximum protection for the environment. This measure is not going to do that. This means that the old Pesticides Act the old Toxic Substances Act and the old Hazardous Goods Act live on in disguise under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act because substances have been transferred to the new legislation with the conditions set under the old legislation and we do not really have a new comprehensive modern regime for hazardous substances at all. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I stand today considering the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill within the context of kaupapa and tikanga Maori. As the caretakers of Ranginui and Papatuanuku we have the responsibility to care for and to actively protect the environment which includes our whanau and the flora and fauna that clothes this land of ours. It is a question of values and of preferences and it is a question of what we are willing to pay to ensure that this country we call Aotearoa maintains its ability to be clean and green. 
The aim of the bill is to improve the workability of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and it includes specific proposals to address enforcement and regulation of tolerable exposure limits and environmental exposure limits and groups various substances together. These are issues of prime importance to us in our commitment towards ensuring genuine progress for the management and care of the environment. In this regard we have been supportive of the concept of a genuine progress index which is current in both the international scene and in initiatives being considered by a number of local authorities. 
The genuine progress indicator distinguishes between positive contributions to progress ensuring that toxins and hazardous substances are strictly tested and regulated and negative activity—the polluting of our land our waterways and our people. What has it cost this country in terms of the health or is it the ill-health of the land the waterways and the people? Would it not be more cost-effective to ensure that in regard to pollution and the use of toxins the effect of which is not clearly known there is thorough testing before availability for widespread use? Do I need to remind anyone in this House of what happened on the night of 2 December 1984 to the hundreds and thousands of people who were devastated as a result of the activities of the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal Central India? It is over 20 years since tank 610 spewed out a deadly cocktail of methyl isocynate and 23 other chemicals manifest in a cloud of poisonous gas. Those injured by the gas are indistinguishable from those who escaped. Their lungs and immune systems suffered but apart from eye problems such as cataracts they received few visible injuries unlike the victims of other disasters such as those caused by thalidomide or Agent Orange. 
Government officials say that around 6600 died from the effects of the gas and 350000 were injured. But local pressure groups put the death toll at 16000 and say that up to 600000 people were injured. Powerful commercial interests ensured that those workers were denied justice. In many cases throughout the world we have seen just how those with interests in the chemical and toxic industry who in my view should have been prosecuted for the hundreds of thousands of people whom they have maimed have been protected. 
We do not have to look very far here at home to see the evidence of other tragic examples. In the Waiariki electorate Sawmill Workers Against Poisons have led the charge against those responsible for the chemicals that workers handled throughout their sawmill careers from the 1960s to the 1980s. The worst chemical of the lot pentachlorophenol or “PCP” was used to prevent sap stain a fungal infection in freshly sawn timber from the 1960s right through to 1988. It was absorbed through the skin of many workers affecting various systems in the body. The dioxins in pentachlorophenol are toxic causing health problems from severe skin rashes to liver damage and possible cancer. The members of Sawmill Workers Against Poisons say that they have been exposed to 48 chemicals throughout their working lives. 
The Maori Party will stand and continue to stand strong until we can see action to address the inexplicable cancers ulcers and other health conditions suffered by those who work the forestry and sawmill sites contaminated by pentachlorophenol. This could be immediate and simple such as providing full free and regular medical check-ups for ex - sawmill workers from the Whakatane Kawerau Kinleith and Waipa sawmills and their families. 
As the member for Te Tai Hauauru I am also painfully aware of the need for urgent action to address the adverse health effects such as cancers and birth deformities reported from Taranaki residents living near the Ivon Watkins-Dow now Dow AgroSciences chemical plant in Paritutu. It is an outrage that the last Government report into cancer rates in New Plymouth released just 2 days ago by the Ministry of Health failed to follow a robust process to ensure that any findings as to what happened in Paritutu would have any integrity. This report released 2 days ago sadly does not do that. 
Last September a report released by the same ministry confirmed that the Ivon Watkins-Dow plant at Paritutu was one of the largest historical polluters in New Zealand. The ministry chose to ignore the recommendations that for any study about Paritutu to be valid one would have to identify the actual residents who were exposed and track them down. Instead the study adopted a scatter-gun approach towards testing anyone in New Plymouth. A responsible approach would have tracked down the families who were exposed at key periods in the 1970s. Many of these families have now shifted away but the impact of their compromised health will remain and of course many have died. 
Here we are today talking about the approvals and enforcement required to ensure that hazardous substances and new organisms undergo rigorous and consistent assessment prior to entry into New Zealand something that the management of Ivon Watkins-Dow plant failed to do. My constituents have repeatedly asked the Government to take seriously the health problems that have resulted from dioxin contamination including birth defects behavioural problems diabetes and a strong association between exposure to dioxin and cancer risk. We are talking about a period of 30 years of neglect. Perhaps as Ross Wilson the President of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has previously suggested it might be time to introduce a corporate manslaughter provision in our criminal law so that offenders can be held to account. How many lives have been lost? 
Sadly corporates which are not socially responsible entities have a reputation of denying any responsibility for products that they may use to increase what they refer to as the return to the shareholder. The shareholder must be our society and its citizens not just those who invested in a corporate entity. 
We still have issues with the bill including the basis of the groupings for group standards. The rationale for having group standards is so that we can save $2 million. It would be of great interest to the Maori Party if this Parliament were able to be briefed using the Land Transport New Zealand’s “value of a statistical life” calculation about the real benefits—the genuine progress—that we can expect from this new measure. This calculation estimated that each suicide cost a total of $2931250. That is the statistical value of one life. When one considers the number of lives that have been lost or seriously affected as a result of what happened at Paritutu and Whakatane the impact of Agent Orange on Viet Nam vets the impact on those naval personnel involved in supporting the British atmospheric tests at Christmas and Malden Islands during Operation Grapple and on all their descendants and families $2 million is a minuscule amount to be saving. 
These communities deserve to have effective health-care in recognition of the disastrous impact of the corporate manslaughter that they have endured and which many Governments have turned a blind eye to. This country must never allow to ever occur again such damage to its citizens to its land or to its environment whether by accident or design. To this end we live in hope that socially responsible behaviour will be encouraged by this bill; that people will not knowingly attempt to import products that they know are hazardous substances which put the health of the citizens and the environment at risk. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Parts 1 4 4A 5 and 6 of principal Act 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Some people are finding the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill somewhat droll. Indeed it is a very technical bill. New clause 8A “Prohibition of storage of persistent organic pollutants” set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope reads: “Section 25B(2)(a) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘(other than polychlorinated biphenyls)’.” I have no doubt that it is wise and appropriate that those substances are included on the list because they indeed pose both environmental and personal hazards. That is the sort of thing we have to listen to; it is typical of the detail of the bill. 
National has reservations about the bill for certain reasons which are particularly associated with the compliance costs. But when we looked at issues such as clause 12 which inserts new section 49L “Rapid assessment and approval of other hazardous substances in special emergencies” we saw that like most of the submitters we were in absolute agreement that that is appropriate in a variety of situations particularly when the biosecurity of our country is threatened. There have been a variety of examples where that has been a major problem. The other night I commented on the bee varroa mite which is endemic in New Zealand and which was not detected by anyone until it had become thoroughly entrenched in New Zealand. The Labour Government decided to abandon any eradication programme and the beekeepers then realised that they were absolutely dependent on the availability of a miticide to protect their hives. Unfortunately due to the existing legislation it was impossible for them to bring anything in so in the words of Federated Farmers they had to “eyeball the Minister” very hard and solidly before special agreements were made to bring in the appropriate miticide. 
The other point about new section 49L is that if we were to have a major outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or have a similar biological catastrophe it is absolutely vital that we in New Zealand have access to the world’s best available treatment for such conditions and this provision would make that possible. That sort of thing is relevant to the reason why we in the National Party support this bill. 
Of course the bill does have considerable limitations and for once I am in agreement with Jeanette Fitzsimons that there are some worries about the fact that the transferral will mean that something like 110000 toxic substances are registered in perpetuity without any provision for a review—as there would be for instance under the Resource Management Act after 35 years. What happens when the substances are transferred in groups is that many of them have never undergone any risk assessment whatsoever. Although a clause in the bill allows for the revocation of the registration of a substance I understand that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has pointed out that it simply does not have the resources to undertake a full risk assessment of some of the more complicated toxic compounds. In fact it has said that to do a thorough risk assessment would cost in the order of $1 million given that there are 110000 toxic substances. Even if only 40 or 50 of those substances required an appropriate risk assessment the authority simply does not have the resources to do that. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk about Part 1 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the issue of hazardous substances is of utmost national importance. It is important to the economy of our country and it is important for our farming and primary production industries. We must be proud too of the clean green image that we currently have in New Zealand and we certainly must jealously guard that image. But we must also be sensible. We must be sensible in our approaches to legislating and we must be sensible in our approaches to restricting certain substances. Many substances as we all know are harmless but they are hazardous in the wrong hands. Are we legislating for those wrong hands or are we legislating for the substances that are indeed harmful? How does one legislate for that without unnecessarily restricting the industries on which our economy so much depends? 
Part 1 refers to substances in containment. Again we must be very mindful of our biosecurity issues. We must protect our borders not only from biosecurity incursions but also in terms of immigration. I am concerned and appalled at some of the very slow delayed reactions of the Government to incursions in relation to biosecurity issues. We have only to look at the fiasco in relation to didymo and “rock snot”. To know that all our South Island waters have now been classified as ridden with didymo is I think an appalling state for our country to be in and as a South Islander I am absolutely appalled. It is totally negligent of the Government to have delayed for so long in relation to that incursion. I am concerned that the same will happen with this bill. Although we must protect against incursions we also must be sensible. I am concerned that the bill has the impact of perhaps regulating against Sellotape against Mr Muscle and against window cleaner and I think that is a ridiculous state of affairs. To say that those things are hazardous is absolutely absurd and ridiculous. 
But even more than that we have to look at the compliance costs to our agricultural and other industries. The transportation of certain hazardous substances which cannot be transported in the same vehicle as non-hazardous substances only adds to the compliance costs for our farming industry. If we are trying to transport goods from Invercargill to Canterbury and there has to be separate trucks and separate transports then I think we have to be very sensible and balance the compliance cost against the safety issue. That is where the National Party and I have reservations in relation to the bill. We must be very careful to ensure that this is sensible law-making and that it is balanced and responsible and not reckless. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank Kate Wilkinson for that excellent insight and I also thank Nathan Guy who gave a very good address this morning in relation to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
Darren Hughes 
: They’re all greasing each other up! It’s the mutual appreciation society! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The soon to be relieved member for Otaki needs to listen to his esteemed colleague from that region in order to learn something about the practical implications of farming. As a farmer with a farming business I point out that it is important to see that a bill like this can be very PC and very appropriate for a Government to put in place but the reality is that small-business people and the people who actually make the money that makes this place tick will have to pay for it in compliance costs and in meeting the obligations of the legislation. 
As a practical farming element a key thing is that people will now find they have to get authorisation to travel with chemicals in their vehicles. So if they go into an RD1 store for example and buy chemicals they will have to get a form saying they can transport them back to their farms. Those kinds of compliance issues are very difficult for individual property owners and farmers in particular to comply with especially if they have staff who may go in to pick up such requirements and other issues such as that. Also farmers have to sign certain forms all the time. 
Federated Farmers have made a number of submissions on the compliance costs of the bill and it is important to look at those. They have calculated $100 million in direct costs and over $3 million in record-keeping and documentation costs. So we are talking about substantial compliance costs that have been identified. That will impact on all sectors especially the arable sector. That is especially because larger farms are more prominent these days and more chemicals are stored on those farms. Compliance costs for arable farmers were estimated at over $3000 and for pastoral farmers at over $2000. So we are putting substantial costs on to small businesses that are struggling under a very high dollar which is a result of the Government’s policies in respect of such things as interest rates and student loans. 
Federated Farmers also identified some potential problems from this kind of legislation. They include things like: costs falling on industry or representative organisations; additional certification costs if employees are required to buy these products; increased agrichemical product prices; risks associated with any public access to farms—and if the Government goes ahead with its proposals in this regard it could create another risk for people going on to properties and also for farmers—the complexity and cost of applications to the Environmental Risk Management Authority; the cost of resource applications to regional authorities; and compliance with regional plans. So the compliance costs are not just limited to the individual farmers; they actually go through the whole community. They are taken up in our regional and local government and therefore those compliance costs will be passed on to individuals through their rates bills. So we have to be mindful that this measure is not just about the farming community; it will be a compliance cost on all New Zealanders. 
A point raised by the Green Party was quite interesting. It is in relation to the cost of existing chemicals as against new ones. Although we do not want to put a lot of costs on to existing chemicals that have been proved to be effective the Green Party raised the very good point that we need to be proactive in looking for future opportunities in any chemical or biosecurity field. To put additional costs on the new latest technology can be detrimental to our undertaking those kinds of technological developments and that is not in the best interests of New Zealand agriculture which has been a leader over many years. 
So in essence the problem with the bill is that it significantly increases costs and controls on the farming sector—both arable and pastoral farmers—and will require stringent controls. There could be significant ongoing and potential costs and there will be increasing bureaucracy and red tape. That is a serious burden on New Zealand businesses that are trying to get ahead. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. As I said earlier on this is indeed a very technical amendment bill. 
I must congratulate my colleague David Bennett who is a farmer of considerable experience—not only a farmer but also a lawyer and an accountant. He has pointed out the hugely important concerns that Federated Farmers have in respect of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. That Act in itself has a total set-up cost for compliance as estimated by the Federated Farmers of about $105 million. That leads to about $3000 per average arable farm and I believe about $2230 per average farm. The claim however is that this bill will save in terms of the transfer of the 70000-odd notifiable toxic substances about $2 million. 
It is good to see the Minister the Hon David Benson-Pope is in the chair. He will be able to explain to us whether he agrees that this amendment bill will actually achieve the savings that the Labour Government purports it will. There is absolutely no mechanism anywhere in this bill to suggest that the Government is interested in monitoring the outcomes of its efficacy. That is typical of the Labour Government’s lack of consideration of costs that affect New Zealand’s small medium and large businesses. The Government goes in makes an amendment thinks the amendment is wonderful and talks about it in glowing terms comes up with a very superficial impact report and then fails to ensure that the amendment is monitored for its efficacy. I hope that Minister Benson-Pope will take a call to tell us what mechanisms this Government has in place to ensure that the transfer of substances is done successfully and in a cost-effective way that will in future save businesses farmers and manufacturers throughout the country an appropriate amount of money. 
We received Supplementary Order Paper 5 just yesterday—as always the Labour Government brings in important legislation at the last minute. The Minister is shaking his head. This legislation has been an issue for the last 2 to 3 years and here we are in the last 48 hours of the parliamentary calendar for this year suddenly bringing through a very important bill of a highly technical nature that has huge implications for the environmental sustainability of New Zealand. The Minister has come up with a Supplementary Order Paper that for example proposes new clause 8A “Prohibition of storage of persistent organic pollutants” which states: “Section 25B(2)(a) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘(other than polychlorinated biphenyls)’.” I ask the Minister whether he can describe to me in detail the concerns around polychlorinated biphenyls. It certainly sounds to me as though it is sensible that those substances are on the register but does the Minister know the details of this legislation? 
I think that the Minister probably does not know those details because with this transfer he is placing all those toxic substances—110000 of them—on a register in perpetuity. There is certainly a clause that provides for the revocation of registration but we understand that it would cost in the order of $1 million to carry out an appropriate risk management assessment. The Environmental Risk Management Authority just does not have that $1 million. I challenge the Minister to tell us whether the authority is worried about ensuring when some of those toxic substances prove to be of concern and it thinks a risk management assessment should take place the resources for that will be available from the Government. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to to insert new clauses 8A and 12A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 New Part 6A inserted in principal Act 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Certainly Part 2 is really the nub of this amendment bill. It deals with group standards. As section 96A inserted by clause 20 states: “The purpose of this Part is to enable the Authority to issue amend and revoke standards (known as group standards) for groups of hazardous substances … that have a similar nature are of a similar type or have similar circumstances of use so that the risks of the grouped hazardous substances can be effectively managed by 1 set of conditions.” In many respects that concept has been supported widely by the industry. I understand though I was not on the Education and Science Committee that the 26-odd submitters to the committee certainly agreed that the concept was quite appropriate. 
It is important to point out what the general policy statement in the explanatory note of the first copy of the bill brought to the House stated regarding that concept. It stated that the bill complements the amendments passed in March 2004 that addressed the urgent workability issues relating to the transfer of hazardous substances and that it offers a means to reduce costs to businesses and the Government and to reduce barriers to innovation while not compromising appropriate management of risks. That is where the Labour Government needs to be taken to task because of its track record. We know that this Labour Government has over the last 5 to 6 years an abysmal record in terms of adding costs to businesses and individuals right throughout the country—not only in terms of taxation and through the Resource Management Act but certainly through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
This group standard provision is indeed one of the mechanisms by which the Government is hopeful that costs will be minimised. Once again I ask the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope to take a call to tell us what mechanisms he has in place to ensure that the standards will be effective that costs will be lower and that the New Zealand public will be safe under the mechanism of transference in groups rather than as individual substances when many of these substances have never had an appropriate risk management assessment. I hope the Minister is listening to this. I hope he will stand up and state whether the Labour Government will assure New Zealanders that transferring these substances in groups will indeed be good for the environmental sustainability of New Zealand. 
 Can he also tell us just how much it will cost the Environmental Risk Management Authority to make the appropriate risk management assessment? Will it be up to $1 million as we are led to believe by the authority? How many substances potentially may require risk management assessment per year—is it five is it ten or is it 15 which would mean $5 million $10 million or $15 million? And will the Government make sure that those funds are indeed available to the authority? I hope the Minister takes note of those issues and can indeed reassure the New Zealand public that those questions will be answered. 
I think one of the other points that it is important to focus on is the submission brought to us by the Sustainability Council. In the submission the council said that New Zealand had not learnt sufficiently from its historical mismanagement of hazardous substances. It went on to say that failure to regulate adequately in the past had left a billion-dollar bill for the clean-up of contaminated sites that should be acting as a burning incentive to implement best practice for future activities. The council said that that issue had not been squarely confronted and I am led to believe that the Labour Government once again has not squarely confronted that hugely important issue. Instead of agreeing that it will be the one to ensure the clean-up is paid for it has put the cost on to individuals. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I thank Dr Hutchison for the contribution he has made and the assistance of his party in correcting or bringing to fruition this legislation—which of course was introduced by his Government in 1996 with Nick Smith as Minister. So it is appropriate that National is helping us to make the corrections and policy adjustments needed to meet the transfer deadline of 30 June. 
In relation to the question raised earlier about polychlorinated biphenyls I ask the Chair’s indulgence to explain. Dr Hutchison is apparently not aware that the reason for that clause in the Supplementary Order Paper is to enable the collection of polychlorinated biphenyls and their removal offshore. There is a legal circularity that needed to be corrected which is one of the key things the Supplementary Order Paper does. 
In terms of the reassessment process I am absolutely confident that only the number of materials that need to be recommitted will be. I think that will be an open-ended question for the Environmental Risk Management Authority and I am sure that the funding and budgetary arguments around that will be made to me very aggressively. I am also confident that that mechanism provides for the revisiting of any concerns that people may have about an individual application or approval or a group standard as new knowledge becomes available. I believe that that meets the concern expressed to me by the Green Party about the desire for a rotational re-approval process which we believe would be extraordinarily unproductive—because there is no intellectual property involved in the consent itself of course—and extremely costly. So yes I believe I can give the member the assurance he is asking for. 
I am also happy to assure him that the discussion about the funding and the delivery capacity of the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be robust as we move into the next Budget round and one of the issues I am concerned about as a consequence of this bill is that we do have the capacity in our communities—with no added cost to local government if that can be achieved—to ensure enforcement of the regulations we are passing. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on Part 2 and particularly on some elements of clause 20 which make some significant amendments to the whole process of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I thank the Minister for his contribution. He responded to some issues on which we do have some concerns. I do not think there is any doubt that any reasonable and considered position would say that we must adopt a best-practice approach in giving assurance to the process of using hazardous substances. Although it may be our desire to minimise or have no involvement with hazardous substances that simply is not practical. They are a part of several elements of New Zealand’s production systems. They are certainly used right through the primary production system and in industry and a whole range of places. So it is essential that we can say we have a reasoned process—a process that is robust and withstands scrutiny. 
We certainly want to support some elements in clause 20 going forward so we are here to support the legislation today. But we have some questions. One implication of any legislation like this is the cost of compliance. The more we seek to create a trace-back or an audit process or to give an assurance the greater the implication is that users will have to comply and in compliance there is a time cost and in some ways a financial cost. For example I found to my surprise about 18 months ago when going into a service agency to purchase some chemicals that I was required to sit a test to certify I was an appropriate person to purchase those chemicals. 
Simon Power 
: Did the member pass the test? 
ERIC ROY 
: Well I cheated—not really; I am joking. But we just go on and on and in the assurance process we have to comply with a whole lot of things for a practice some of us have been involved in for a long long time. Yet we need to have some kind of certification in order to give that assurance. That has implications in terms of cost and a whole lot of difficulties surrounding what has been normal practice. It makes for a level of grumpiness in the consumers of the products concerned so we need to be absolutely assured that we are taking them with us. 
I just draw the Minister’s attention to new unanimous subsection (6) of section 96C inserted by clause 20. It states: “As soon as practicable after issuing amending or revoking a group standard the Authority must do the following:” and the notification elements in the provision then follow. I wonder why there is the phrase “As soon as practicable …”. I would have thought that notification would be an element in establishing the new group standards. I wonder whether the Minister could take a call and explain to us why there is not some immediacy about that. We live in a very vibrant landscape in the hazardous substances and new organisms area where things are moving and keeping up to speed with all of the changes is a significant issue. So I would like an explanation as to why there is that sort of little step back in that there is an out that may not have immediacy associated with it. 
I am encouraged though on looking through a number of the subsections in that particular provision to see that there is a test because one of the concerns I have regarding the compliance issue is that we have tended to just make changes for the sake of change. So I am pleased to see the test that applies in some of the new unanimous provisions in clause 20. For example subsection (1) of new section 96D inserted by clause 20 states: “… (a) in the case of any hazardous substance … to which section 96C(1A)(a) applies” the authority must “be satisfied that issuing or amending (as the case may be) …”. So we actually have the test that there is to be an advancement—an improvement. I am not sure about the factors that surround the decision on whether there is— 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Speaking to clause 20 I say it is interesting to look at what the group standards allow because there are two different ways in which this happens. Section 96A in clause 20 states the purpose is “to issue amend and revoke standards … for groups of hazardous substances … that have a similar nature are of a similar type or have similar circumstances of use so that the risks of the grouped hazardous substances can be effectively managed by 1 set of conditions.” A number of submitters did recognise that there was perhaps a saving in that regard—that it would not increase compliance costs but would actually reduce them. It is a bit of a surprise that the current Government has come up with something that might be useful but perhaps it was the participation of the National members on the select committee that brought that about. 
The Environmental Risk Management Authority issues group standards by notice in the  
Gazette 
 and a notice is a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 but is not a regulation for the purposes of the Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989. As a consequence group standards are a type of instrument commonly referred to as deemed regulations and are subject to the following requirements: presentation to the House within 16 days of being made scrutiny by the Regulations Review Committee and disallowance. So I guess that raises the question about their being issued within a reasonable time frame which was mentioned by my esteemed colleague Eric Roy. He made a fantastic contribution and it was very perceptive of him to have picked that one up. So there is a time frame around when that notification is required to be made. Group standards would not be subject to other requirements that apply to statutory regulations which include drafting by parliamentary counsel Cabinet approval and inclusion in the statutory regulations. 
So yes this move will reduce the costs to industry by lowering the number of applications businesses would have to make to the Environmental Risk Management Authority which is a good thing and it will provide simpler prescriptive alternatives to the technical controls and regulations which have been difficult to implement to date. In turn that will give industry a lot more certainty on exactly how to comply. 
But there was some concern about consultation with affected parties and a recommendation was made around that issue to ensure that industry and other affected parties have an opportunity to comment during the development of group standards. I am unsure whether that is actually being considered and recognised within the provisions of this bill so perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and let members know whether he has supported the ability for affected parties to be part of the consultative process in the establishment of group standards. Of course that move will result in a more robust outcome which is what we all want to see as it helps to encourage compliance in the industry. So I hope those concerns are noted. 
One of the other concerns raised was the duplication of the Resource Management Act with regard to group standards for regulating waste that has hazardous characteristics. As was mentioned in one of the submissions under section 31 of the Resource Management Act territorial authorities are required to control any actual or potential effects of the use development or protection of land including the implementation of rules for the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage use disposal or transportation of hazardous substances. The Resource Management Act has a broad definition of “hazardous substance” which includes but is not limited to any substance defined as a “hazardous substance” in section 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. Therefore that definition would include imported and manufactured hazardous substances registered under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act but would not be limited to them. So that whole section of the Resource Management Act refers to hazardous substances and we now have the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call to clarify that relationship between the two Acts so that the responsibilities and the use are clearly defined because we do not want to see any confusion about who is responsible for what and where. I think it is very important that those matters are clarified and perhaps the Minister could take a call on that. 
It is pretty disappointing that the opportunity was not taken during the process of this bill to perhaps streamline some of the provisions for increasing our biodiversity in this country because we cannot develop our entrepreneurial skills in our agricultural sector if we cannot import. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill but before doing that I want to review the purpose of the bill. This bill aims to improve the workability of the hazardous substances provisions of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. When I was doing some research prior to this people were telling me that it was a droll bill to be considering but as a new member of Parliament I thought that the hazardous substances may have had more to do with recalcitrant members of this House. But as time went on and as I looked through the pages of the bill I did not see the names of Rodney Hide or Winston Peters there. So as I got deeper into the research on the bill I found it had more to do with chemicals and a vast variety of other hazardous substances. 
Putting that aside let us look at Part 2 which provides for the insertion of a new Part 6A “Group standards” into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Today I would like to address five areas within Part 2. Firstly I will address new section 96C regarding the notification of group standards and secondly new section 96D regarding the issuing of group standards; thirdly I would like to focus on the efficient and effective management of group standards in new section 96D which is a very key issue; fourthly I will look at the most effective means of dealing with the standard which is in new section 96D(1)(b); and lastly I will focus on considering the best use of group standards in terms of international practice. 
I turn firstly to new section 96C to look at group standards in general and the issue of group standards. I believe that this provision which allows group standards to be put by notice into the  
Gazette 
 will improve the efficiency with which we are able to bring hazardous substances into the marketplace generally. I think it will speed up the process significantly and will allow for our farmers our manufacturers and our entire economy to put hazardous substances into the marketplace quicker which is generally a good thing for the Act and for the economy. 
I move to new section 96D which covers when group standards may be issued or amended and I will focus on new section 96D(1)(a) which provides that the authority must be satisfied that issuing or amending group standards is a more efficient and effective way of managing the risks of all hazardous substances. I think it is a very important point that before those substances are brought into the marketplace the Environmental Risk Management Authority which is responsible for making the decisions seriously takes heed of this particular point. In issuing group standards it must be certain that there is a more efficient and effective way of managing the risks posed by those substances. New section 96D which provides that the authority must be satisfied that issuing or amending group standards is a more efficient and effective way of managing the risks of those hazards is pointless. All that provision does is to increase the bureaucracy and the costs of bringing those materials into the marketplace rather than improve the ease of bringing new hazardous materials into the marketplace which would allow our businesses to be innovative and grow. 
I move to new section 96D(1)(b) the fourth point I will focus on which states: “(i) the benefits associated with a reduction of environmental and health risks outweigh the economic costs associated with complying with the group standard;”. That is a very important point. When we bring new hazardous substances into the marketplace we should consider whether they will have a much better economic benefit for our farmers or for ourselves. So bringing them in is as important an issue as the compliance costs or the regulations that we put on bringing those hazardous substances into the marketplace. 
Lastly I would like to focus on new section 96D(d) which raises a point that Nick Smith brought up early in the debate on this bill. When we bring in hazardous substances we need to focus on the best international practices and standards for the safe management of hazardous substances. I think that point out of anything is very important. Nick Smith talked a lot about having joint standards across New Zealand and Australia. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to talk to Part 2. In particular I would like to bring to the attention of members section 96D(1)(b)(i) inserted by clause 20 which states: “the benefits associated with a reduction of environmental and health risks outweigh the economic costs associated with complying with the group standard;”. That is a significant point. What it means I believe is that although we have to be mindful of the environment that comes at a cost. I think we all need to be very much aware of that. If this amending legislation goes through today it will actually come at a cost. 
It was interesting to hear the Minister talk when he took a call about whether there is actually a time line for a review. I cannot see it anywhere in this document and I think that is significant. It sounds to me—and Dr Hutchison agrees—as though this legislation is a bit like an experiment. Where is the review? Will it happen in 2008? Will it happen in 2010? Or will it never happen? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Or will it happen after a disaster? 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is right Dr Hutchison; that is a very valid point. I believe that we actually need to think seriously about putting a date in here for a review so that this experiment does not go wonky and end up becoming a disaster for this country. 
David Bennett 
: You had better make sure that they do not change the results either. 
NATHAN GUY 
: That is exactly right. The member from the Waikato has some first-hand experience with the hazardous substances legislation as a farmer and he knows that this amendment will be extremely costly on his business and on the businesses of his peers right across New Zealand. 
So I say again that I believe we need to be very cautious about this experiment. We should consider the efficacy around the bill and how it could potentially be costly and cumbersome for this country. We know that the costs will flow from the importer through to the retailer and on to the end-user. I talked about that previously—about the costs and about how farmers will bear the brunt of them. The costs will be passed down when the legislation is passed in this Parliament without thinking about the end-user. We know it will cost another $3000 for arable farmers. 
We have heard about $2 million of savings here today but I cannot see where the $2 million of savings are. Where are they? The member for Rangitikei who I believe might have sat on the Education and Science Committee knows that is an issue. Where are the $2 million of savings? I cannot see them. It would be great for the Minister to take a call and outline to a back-bench MP where the $2 million of savings are so I can actually understand that. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does he know? 
NATHAN GUY 
: I am not sure whether he does. That is why I would be quite keen for him to take a call and explain to me where the $2 million of savings are. 
What I can see is that we need to be mindful of protecting the environment and of the sustainability of this thing. But this legislation will lead to extra costs. I am concerned about the experiment and I think we need to have a date in the bill for a review. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill is indeed the nub of the bill. The group standards issue is the one that should be focused on most carefully because—as the member from Horowhenua Nathan Guy pointed out so ably—in many respects this is a very new situation for New Zealand. I note that both in the explanatory note and in the very good submission of the Sustainability Council the point is made that we should learn by overseas experience regarding the group standards situation. In fact one of the points that the Sustainability Council made was that the  
Environmental Risk Management Authority 
 can leverage off the work of overseas regulators to a greater degree than is currently envisaged so that standards can be linked directly to those set by the European Commission. New Zealand can therefore progressively acquire the standards used in its largest export market for food products. 
 I have some reservations about that in some respects because the European Commission exacts some very very tough requirements on those countries that export to it. But I think we should at least make sure that we are consistent with the Australian regulations and experience in that respect. I do not believe that the Labour Government has looked into the synergies with Australia to the depth that it should have. 
I also wanted to point out the comments made by the New Zealand Association for Animal Health and Crop Protection regarding group standards. It made the point that although it is generally supportive of the group standards initiative it notes that pesticides and veterinary medicines because of their proprietary nature and composition complexity do not readily lend themselves to this proposal. I would like the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope to take a call and respond to that concern of the Association for Animal Health and Crop Protection. 
It also said that in new section 96A “Purpose of Part” it believes that such a group of hazardous substances should be of a similar nature and type and have similar circumstances of use. I note that the select committee has quite rightly and with the support of National responded to that so that the section states: “The purpose of this Part is to enable the Authority to issue amend and revoke standards … for groups of hazardous substances … that have a similar nature are of a similar type or have similar circumstances of use so that the risks of the grouped hazardous substances can be effectively managed by 1 set of conditions.” 
So here is Her Majesty’s most loyal Opposition responding to the thoughts of industries and those involved in the technical aspects of the industry which has sadly been one of the things the Labour Government has lacked in the response to the technical consequences of this important bill. 
I want to make a comment regarding new section 96D “When group standards may be issued or amended”. Once again that is one of the areas where there is great concern. The section states: “(1) Before issuing or amending group standards under section 96C the Authority must—(a) in the case of any hazardous substance … be satisfied that issuing or amending … group standards is a more efficient and effective way of managing the risks of all the hazardous substances in the identified group than the approval process under Part 5; and (ab) in the case of any hazardous substance to which section 96C(1A)(b) applies be satisfied that issuing or amending … group standards is a more efficient and effective way of managing the risks of all the hazardous substances in the identified group;”. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert new clause 20A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Amendments to Parts 7 8 10 and 11 of principal Act 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 3 deals particularly with enforcement of the Act. There are a variety of concerns about this part of the bill. Firstly clause 21 amends subparagraph (iii) of section 97(h) of the principal Act by omitting the words “local authority” and substituting the words “territorial authority”. I do know that Federated Farmers in their submission were deeply concerned about the cost implications of what local government and regional government could impose on them by not ensuring that their interests were taken care of and were a bit more concerned that central government itself should be held to account rather than a whole variety of bodies around New Zealand with different enforcement interpretations and different imposition of costs on to working New Zealanders. 
But I also note there is great concern about the liability framework around this bill and one of the points again made by the Sustainability Council was that agents making use of hazardous substances need to be financially fit in order to meet costs arising from any breach of the controls relating to hazardous substances or third-party claims for damages. They are making a very salutary and relevant point because more and more some of those companies that produce toxic substances shelter under shell companies when they are not sure as to whether the liabilities they could incur are able to be fulfilled by them. This is a mechanism that I would again like the Minister to take a call on and say whether he has thought about the situation whereby companies and manufacturers involved with toxic companies do not have the financial backing to be able to clean up the problems after a toxic accident or are not insured enough or insured appropriately for that to occur. 
The second point was that no liability for damages arises as long as the user of a hazardous substance abides by controls set by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. That is a very important aspect because even at the point that such a control is breached there is no strict liability for harm caused be it economic environmental or to human health. Again the required remedy is that developers and users be made strictly liable under the Act for damage resulting from the use of hazardous substances and further unless firms face the full social costs of their activity they will have the incentive to overexpand those activities at the cost of the wider economy. That balance is obviously one that has to be very carefully worked out so that the compliance costs are kept to a minimum and that is vital yet on the other hand the liability framework must be robust enough to ensure that those companies that are not abiding by the framework and are responsible for inappropriate toxic damage can be brought to justice and that there are sufficient liabilities. So it is important that the Minister assures the New Zealand public that those aspects are indeed fulfilled by Part 3. 
I would like to comment on new section 97B “Enforcement of Act in respect of hazardous substances in place of work”. Again we have the situation of Occupational Safety and Health officers going into workplaces and manufacturers’ premises and on to farms and enforcing their will sometimes extremely inappropriately. The submission from Federated Farmers stated that toxic substance is such a specialised area that those officers should be specially trained. Unfortunately the bill makes no provision for special training. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I have a few points to make about the enforcement provisions in Part 3 but in no particular order. The first point relates to clause 21 which substitutes “territorial authority” for “local authority”. I have not seen the arguments made but I presume that territorial authorities are probably the more appropriate bodies. My concern is not so much about who does the enforcement as about the costs. We have seen Parliament pass legislation time and time again on a range of matters such as the legislation regarding motorcar use— 
Chris Tremain 
: Prostitution. 
ERIC ROY 
: —the prostitution legislation the impositions around smoking and the Building Act. The list goes on and on. Again I ask: who will pick up the tab in respect of this bill? The Committee has a responsibility to consider the implications of what we are doing. The bill deals with a significant area but the enforcement provisions load the costs on to the most significant and most important body: the local territorial authority. 
In that regard I do not see any clarity offered in clause 22 which inserts section 97B. I look at subsection (2) and see the words “may appoint enforcement officers” and “may exercise the powers of inspectors under the Health and Safety in Employment Act”. Perhaps I have missed something and I ask the Minister to explain whether that is optional or is required. If we are to have a regime that protects absolutely then I would have thought that “may” should not be used but rather words that are clear and definitive about the way in which the enforcement powers are to be enacted. Perhaps the Minister could explain that. 
I move on to clause 27 which inserts new section 122 “Power to require hazardous substance to leave New Zealand”. I think every person of a reasonable disposition would say that if someone brings in something that is inappropriate it should go. I am in absolute agreement with that but my concern relates to a matter that is not covered. I ask the Minister to give some consideration to what happens to goods that are bona vacantia—in other words do not have a home. I have to say that if I were of a nature to bring in something that was a bit doubtful I would construct a little path of confusion about ownership or create some kind of parent company or some kind of construction of safe houses or something that would absolve me and make it difficult to trace the goods to me. I am aware of such things happening in some circumstances. So although the amendment in clause 27 requires the person who brings in the goods to take responsibility for the cost of removal and we would tick that off and say it is excellent in the case of goods that are bona vacantia—no owner no home—and a risk what thought and what provisions have been made to pick up on that anomaly? 
 I believe it is a real anomaly. I know as I said earlier of instances where that has occurred with regard to hazardous substances. I know of people who want to bring in something that is on the edge and that maybe there are some questions about—maybe their bookwork has not been done and they intend to get it done here and the substance does not comply. There is a range of issues whereby that sort of situation can occur and if there is not a very clear trail back to the person or entity who brought the substance in who actually pays? Then there is the other element that comes out of this whole argument: the company that brings the substance in may not be able to afford the transit of the goods back out again if they do not comply. It is very easy to understand how someone may have taken for want of a better word a punt on a new product in the belief that it is a magic bullet—a cure-all—and something from which he or she will make a considerable profit. But in bringing the product in the person may have extended himself or herself and be in a position where he or she actually does not have the finances to be able—or again the person may have constructed some kind of company that is unable—to afford to move it out. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 That was an excellent contribution from my colleague Eric Roy on the term “bona vacantia”. I have to mention here that the term “bona vacantia” is not in the definitions in the original Act or in the bill. I do think that the Minister should give us an explanation with regard to bona vacantia. This is something we should all know about. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Bona vacantia means “happy holidays”! 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Happy holidays? OK. There is huge concern about dumping costs on to local authorities yet this Government is doing it again. The costs of enforcement in relation to hazardous substances will now be in the hands of local authorities. Members should think about what that really means. This is about testing equipment and proving the case or not proving it because in most cases nowadays people are deemed to be guilty and have to prove their innocence. This is about abatement notices enforcement officers and court procedures. No wonder this Government is talking about a $2 million saving. It looks like it is going to pass the cost on to local authorities. I suggest that it will cost far more than $2 million to local authorities throughout New Zealand and as a consequence that cost will be transferred to the ratepayers of this country and ratepayers are groaning under the weight of those costs. They really cannot accept any more impositions from this Government. But more are in the pipeline. 
The other day I was reading a document about housing. It was from a Government department promoting housing through local authorities’ long-term council community plans. It is the wish list for anybody who wants anything through local authorities and of course it is the ratepayers who have to pay for that. Here is another part of that wish list. The Government wants to transfer the onus of responsibility but without giving any remuneration for the costs associated with it. That is happening constantly with this Government and it will do that for all of its social services. If the Government can get away with it it will put more and more of its social services on to local government without a brass razoo going along with it. I think it is an absolute disgrace and it is time that that was addressed. 
We are also concerned about the cost on the farming sector the agricultural sector. Of course if the Government thinks it is making savings we know why. If it is not dumping costs on to local authorities it is dumping them on to farmers. I would like to answer some of the questions that were raised with regard to those costs. Where are the savings going to be? If we look at one of the submissions we see that the total cost of compliance with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is calculated to be nearly $105 million. This averages out at $2230 per farm in set-up costs and does not include any ongoing costs from 2007 onwards. For the arable sector the set-up cost was going to be about $3000 per farm. But does this Government actually care about those cost-compliance issues for businesses which include farming? No. It does not take any cognisance of that at all. In spite of all the rhetoric there is no substance and the Government does not actually follow through. This is another one of those instances. Those costs will be passed on to farmers and on to ratepayers through local authorities having to enforce them. Does having to enforce those costs mean local authorities will be getting into that whole eye in the sky stuff as well? I do not see that as necessarily being a part of this unless it is a visual assessment of the effects of any use of a hazardous substance. 
There has been an inadequate cost-benefit analysis of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to justify the costs to the industry. We see the costs being rorted too in the way people have to sit tests for the use of hazardous substances. Lots of people are now getting into the exercise of providing educational opportunities that farmers have to comply with and have to participate in at their cost. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I also rise to speak in relation to Part 3. Like my colleague Dr Hutchison I would like to refer to clause 22 which inserts new section 97B “Enforcement of Act in respect of hazardous substances in place of work” which as Dr Hutchison has very wisely mentioned includes farms. I will take a bit of a different tack on this however. But before I do so I will refer to another learned colleague—we have so many on this side of the Chamber—Mr Eric Roy. He referred to the totally discretionary nature of the appointment of enforcement officers which gives no certainty at all to this legislation. My point however is that this provision states that the enforcement agency “may appoint enforcement officers in accordance with this Act who may exercise the powers of inspectors under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992”. 
We all know of ludicrous examples under that Health and Safety in Employment Act which hinders progress rather than helps progress and which discourages personal responsibility rather than encouraging it. We have heard in the media the stories of the cancelled lolly scrambles and the cancelled pipe band marches which are examples of how totally ludicrous and ridiculous some of the legislation passed through this House actually is. But let us look at it from a more legal point of view and consider the definition of “place of work”. Place of work under the Health and Safety in Employment Act as we all know includes vehicles. It includes motor vehicles trucks and tractors. It includes harvesters. If any of those motor vehicles happen to be carrying some spray a hazardous substance who will be responsible for that? Will it be the owner or will it be the driver? I think that that adds to some of the uncertainty of this legislation. 
My other question in relation to enforcement is will those enforcement officers then have the powers of the police to stop and inspect the vehicles and to check whether they are indeed carrying a hazardous substance? That is what they will need to do under this bill. My question really is: does that mean we will need more than the 1000 front-line police now promised by this Government and at what cost? It is another cost that I do not believe has been thought of under this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
My other concern in relation to this bill is clause 29 “Notification of hazardous substance injuries”. That clause adds more compliance costs to our already totally compliance – cost ridden country. It provides that if a medical practitioner finds that a person who is not admitted to a hospital is suffering from an injury caused by a hazardous substance the medical practitioner must give notice of the injury to the medical officer of health. What does “injury” mean? Does it mean that if a person sniffs a bit of spray and feels a bit queasy and goes to the doctor then the doctor has to refer the incident to the medical officer of health. 
 When the medical officer of health knows that someone has felt a bit queasy from sniffing a bit of spray as by mistake some of us from rural backgrounds have been prone to do will this not then lead to more red tape more bureaucracy more compliance costs more work and more paperwork? Is that really a sensible option? I do not believe that this Government has thought through the ramifications of requiring medical practitioners to report any injury caused by a hazardous substance no matter how small or how serious to the medical officer of health. The common theme through this legislation is the cost of compliance. We will have compliance costs in trying to enforce the legislation in places of work not only on farms but also in vehicles. These compliance costs will affect farmers who are already lumbered with so many other costs. We heard that the cost of this legislation alone adds $3000 costs to farmers. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 National members are making a big play on the cost of this legislation to farmers. I want to raise one or two issues in the submission that came from Federated Farmers to the Education and Science Committee in terms of this bill. The first one which I shall read from the submission is: “In general Federated Farmers supports the provision of a group standard approval mechanism.” That is the basis of this legislation. So I really have to question some of the points that members on the other side of the Chamber are raising. I will go on to quote from another part of the submission remembering of course that the 1996 legislation—which for Sandra Goudie’s information is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act—was brought in by Simon Upton who was National member. 
This is what Federated Farmers have to say: “Practical implementation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 has been fraught with difficulties. Federated Farmers has supported changes to the Act that helped to remove constraints and minimise the unintended cost to business and Government and the barriers to innovation.” This includes both written and oral submissions in support of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill. In other words Federated Farmers are supporting this legislation because it reduces the compliance costs that were implicit in the original Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act brought in by National. I need to make the point that representatives of Federated Farmers came to the select committee and said that this legislation is good legislation because it fixes up some of the mistakes that National had in its 1996 legislation. 
National members really have to start considering that they mucked it up in 1996 and that that is why Federated Farmers are supporting this amendment bill. If compliance costs were being added by this bill they would be voting against it. They are voting for it because they know that it is reducing the compliance costs that were created by Simon Upton in his original 1996 legislation. Everything we are hearing from National members on that side of the Chamber has to be questioned because of the fact that it means nothing at all. 
I make one extra point which is about the on-farm compliance cost of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act as calculated by Federated Farmers in their submission. It states: “The total set-up cost for compliance with the HASNO Act”—brought in by National under Simon Upton—“is calculated to be nearly $105 million which averages $2230 per farm in set-up costs but does not include any ongoing cost from 2007 onwards.” That is what that lot did when they were in control of this nation and now they are complaining about efforts to try to fix up their mess. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
It is interesting that we get those kinds of responses from the New Zealand First crew now that they are in Government with Labour. These are the people who told us they would keep everyone honest. And what happened in Rotorua? They said one thing then a month later they said something else: they joined the Government. Where is the honesty we looked for in New Zealand First? People voted those members in on honesty. Where is it? Show us the honesty.  
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Do you know which side he was on? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: One would never know.  
The enforcement provisions of this legislation raise three issues that we need to address today. The first one is definitely the increase in compliance costs as we have said throughout the discussion on this legislation. That is the issue that is brought up by a lot of small-business people around the country. They are sick and tired of paying increased compliance costs. The second issue is that we are moving the responsibility on to regional government. That will create another level of work for regional government and the Government will not be funding it. The Government will expect regional government to do all that work and the costs of that will be transferred on to the small-business owners landowners and ratepayers of this country. They will have to pay increased rates to meet those service levels. 
Darren Hughes 
: What’s the alternative? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The alternative? It is a matter of trust. This Government does not trust New Zealanders and is trying to control everything. It has a control orientation within it. It does not trust farmers and others to look after their own properties. Compliance would not be needed if that trust was there. That goes to the heart of the cost estimates that the Government is bringing in as a measure of control. If the Government had trust in the people it would back them up in what they are doing and a compliance regime would not be needed.  
We also need to be open and to embrace science. One of the major things we need to do is to promote science in this country. An important part of promoting science is that we give people opportunities to take advantage of modern technology. Earlier a Green Party member talked about the fact that we need to create a regime that allows modern technology to be considered. That is important for compliance as well and for enforcement. We need a system that enables us to look forward to science and to provide the opportunities it may provide in dealing with issues in this area. In essence we need to look at compliance costs we need to promote science and we need to have faith that individuals are able to look after their own businesses. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 28A be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The title of this bill the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill is fairly obvious. But one does wonder whether an entirely appropriate alternative would be the “Labour Government (Let’s Delay Another Technical Bill Until It’s Too Late) Bill”. We know that the raison d’être behind this bill—the 79000 notified toxic substances—has been around for a very long time. The Labour Government has known about the issue for many years and has simply done nothing. This is a classic case of Labour Government irresponsibility. 
 The point is indeed that the Environmental Risk Management Authority itself has been saying that it will be impossible to transfer all those substances by the due date of June 2006. Here we have the Labour Government bringing in this technical bill under urgency 24 hours before it packs up for the end of the year—a desperate Government whose members are saying there is very little on the agenda—when it does not even carry out the thorough checks that it should do on this sort of technical bill and ensure that indeed the aspects of transference can be carried out within the requirements that it itself set down. I challenge the Minister to stand up and tell the Committee that all those substances will be transferred by June 2006. I guarantee the answer is no. Over there we have the member for Otaki and I know that he must be very worried about his seat—the farmers have certainly rejected him. Can he too take a call and give us an assurance that indeed these toxic substances will all have been registered and transferred by June 2006? I do not think so. Here they are bringing in under urgency a bill that is impossible actually to carry out technically when they should have literally done it years ago. 
The second alternative title of this bill perhaps could be “Labour Government (Reduction of Compliance Costs of Transfer of Hazardous Substances) Bill” but really we do not know whether there will be any reduction in compliance costs. 
We just heard a bit of a tirade from New Zealand First. We are not sure just where New Zealand First members are. It seems as though they are thoroughly and completely entrenched on the side of the Government. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Oh no no. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Oh the member is protesting. Well what about the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Where is he? Which side of the fence is he on these days? Clearly the Rotorua speech belies anything that any common-sense New Zealander knows. He said “no baubles no LTDs” but when that party gets the possibility to have them it takes them and goes across to Labour. 
But the point I am really making is this: do we really know whether this bill will achieve a reduction in compliance costs? Has the Labour Government put any provisions in place to ensure the efficacy of the bill? I do not see them anywhere whatsoever. The rhetoric is yes $2 million will be saved in the transference and yes this has been accepted by industry as a good thing. But do we know that it is actually going to happen? Are there any monitoring mechanisms? No there are not. I believe that once again there has been a dereliction of the detail of a bill by a somewhat desperate and pathetic Labour Government. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Ha ha! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I see the member from Northland laughing away. He was the one who said there were no toxic accidents up in Northland. Well I say to Dover Samuels there are plenty of toxic accidents up in Northland. Maybe he is one of the living examples of them! 
The third possible title for this bill is “Labour Government (Transfer of 70000 Toxic Substances with No Review or Time Limitation) Bill”. I think that is a very serious issue. It was brought up by the leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons and also by the very thorough submission of the Sustainability Council. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Mr Chairman—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Member 
: Tena koe! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Tena koe—or tena koutou! Get it right if you are going to use Maori language please! 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. Do not bring the Chairman into it. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I would like to speak to the title of this bill. The purpose of the bill is to improve the workability of the provisions around hazardous substances such as paint petrol sprays and all manner of chemicals within the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. With the recent explosions at the Bunsfield Oil Terminal near London it is imperative that we have robust legislation to deal with hazardous substances and indeed new organisms that come into this country. If we look back at the accident that happened in Kaikoura when rat poison went into the ocean we see that it is imperative that we have controls on hazardous substances. There is no argument there. 
There is however a fine line between controls and over-regulation with its effect on innovation and growth in this country. Right now New Zealand has one of the worst balance of trade deficits in history and we still sit under halfway down the list of OECD countries in terms of individual per capita economic wealth. If we are indeed going to grow that position we must continue to introduce bills of this nature which reduce compliance costs and help innovation to help to grow this country. Anything we can do as a nation to reduce bureaucracy and help business to export and to grow should be a key focus. I believe that this bill will help to do that. Anything we can do to reduce regulation should be a priority for this Government. I also believe that this bill will have an impact on that. 
In talking to this point of reduced regulation I just want to bring to the Committee an example of regulation at the moment outside this bill. It is a company called Goodtime Foods in Napier. It is a small to medium sized enterprise with a strong domestic market and champing at the bit to get into the international market. It has potential orders of products that would triple the size of its business but is faced with totally unreasonable regulations that prohibit the growth of its business. In one instance the bakery is expected to comply with the same wash-down regulations as a slaughterhouse. This company has flour on the floor and on its conveyer belts. That regulation is absolutely nuts. In another instance it was necessary to build an entirely new corridor so that a trolley of raw meat could be pushed down one corridor and one of cooked meat down another corridor. The compliance costs—the actual costs of this company getting an export licence—were absolutely ludicrous. 
If we are serious in this country about growing our per capita income and about growing the nation we need to focus on legislation that will actually reduce compliance costs and make it easier for our nation’s businesses to export goods and to achieve wider economic growth. It is points such as that that I hope this bill is addressing to actually reduce compliance costs for our businesses overall and allow them to grow on a wider basis. At all times we must remember that New Zealand is a microeconomy catering to many different economies of a much larger nature. Removing barriers to innovation and to sustainable economic growth are critical to driving this country forward. National supports this bill on that basis and hopes it will go some way to reducing the bureaucracy around hazardous substances and in fact new organisms. 
In particular I support firstly the provision of a new approval mechanism known as the group standards which I spoke to earlier in the Committee stage. Secondly and also important I support the adoption of international standards for exposure of chemicals so that we do not have to assess each pesticide ourselves as it comes into the country which again creates major costs. These seem to me to be common-sense measures. To follow on from New Zealand First’s tirade about the introduction of the Act in 1996 that did in fact tidy up three or four Acts that had become intertwined. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on the title and commencement. I do not have any particular great issues with the title that is here—the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. But because we have had a number of modifications to this bill over time it occurs to me that probably we should have just started numbering them: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill (No 1) (No 2) and (No 3) or whatever. Because I will make this prediction: this will not be the last time that this House debates amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I see the Hon Brian Donnelly smiling I think in agreement about that. He did make the point that this was a National bill. Before New Zealand First was a twinkle in the eye of the Rt Hon Winston Peters this bill went through the House— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: In 1996 we had two members in. 
ERIC ROY 
: It was still a twinkle in those days. Let me say there was a high degree of unanimity about the need for hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. Not only that a special select committee was set up to deal with the legislation and it sat mostly on Fridays to deal with this separately. So to say that all the errors in this one are due to National is an extension of reality when in fact there was a great degree of unanimity about the process by which the original bill became an Act. 
As we reflect—we are getting near the closing of the Committee stage on this bill—I think we are kind of locked into some problematic situations. Consumers and our international markets have a standard of assurance that is getting higher and higher and higher. The implications of this is complexity in cost at our end. [ 
Interruption 
] Someone called out: “How do you undo that?”—I do not know. Somehow or other we need to get together in the same way that we had unanimity about doing this and be able to provide that assurance without the ongoing cost. 
I reflected on an earlier trip to the European Union. There could be coming for us as a nation a passport for each animal slaughtered and exported with a required diary of every intervention animal health procedure and every chemical applied. The whole thing is coming towards us. We say that assurance is important—and we are kind of dead at selling our products if we do not have it—but I think we need to take stock a little bit and apply our very capable minds to finding a process where we can give assurance and engage in the process without this ongoing complexity and this ongoing cost. 
I am amused and fascinated that in Part 1 the section that I do not think anyone spoke on the Chief of Defence Force—[ 
Interruption 
] The member covered the Chief of Defence Force did he? I am sorry I do not want to repeat what the honourable member might have said. Again it is an example of how complex it is getting. The Chief of Defence Force has to ensure methods of controlling any hazardous substance he might have of handling any weapon of mass destruction anywhere in the world that could come into New Zealand yet we have to have a process label. I wonder whether the terrorists or the rebels who might impose this somewhere in the world are operating under the same set of rules. I have to suggest that they are not but again it says that this is getting complex and is getting almost nonsensical in some elements. 
But if we fall away from it and say we are not there then we get an opportunity for any kind of non-tariff barrier to come up and ask what our process on this is and say that no they are not taking our product. We are locked in the horns of a very very difficult dilemma. Yes we need the protection; yes we need the assurance; but at some stage we will have to address the problem which is becoming more and more complex. 
Let me give members another example. When patients went into a hospital they used to have a couple of pages to fill out before an operation and now they have 24—about what happens to their organs what happens with liability and there is a whole range of things. Again this is symptomatic of the complex assurance nature of the things we are involved in. The House has to address the issue of ongoing cost and complexity while retaining assurance. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to make one or two points in reference to the comments that have been made. First Mr Eric Roy claimed that when the 1996 bill—under Simon Upton and the previous National Government—went through New Zealand First was just a twinkle in Winston Peters’ eye. In fact New Zealand First had as many members at that particular time as ACT now has. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Not very many. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No there were not very many at that particular time. It was under first past the post. It had two members. I would like to remind the Committee that half of New Zealand First at that time now sits amongst the National Party. He was probably the member who was looking at Simon Upton’s bill at that particular time. He never really was one who did his homework very well. Therefore he probably let some of the things through that we now have to fix up with this legislation. 
Paul Hutchison did make a point and it is a point that I will affirm. He made the point that this legislative programme has been too slow. I think that is correct. I believe that we are dealing with some very important matters here. A programme has been set out and the fact that we have had to put through Supplementary Order Papers purely and simply to comply with the law is really a symptom of bad management under the previous administration and the previous Minister. I think I made that point earlier and I confirm what Paul Hutchison said. The process has not been managed in a timely fashion or in a fashion that gives priority to the safety of New Zealanders under the original agreement and framework. I hope that any further legislation that comes forward on this matter and on these issues will be advanced in a much more timely fashion than this legislation has been advanced. Almost everything that the National members have said in this debate has been balderdash with the exception of that one particular point regarding the need for timely advancement of this legislation. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill’s primary objectives are to introduce a new approval mechanism known as the group standard; to include regional councils as hazardous substances enforcement agencies that may enforce the Act; to increase the ability to set practical exposure limits to protect people and the environment; and to improve the workability of rapid assessment reassessment and several other provisions including those for exempt laboratories. 
The amendments contained in this bill will reduce costs to the Government and to industry reduce barriers to innovation and better protect the environment and the health and safety of people in our communities. The bill is not divisive setting up business against the environment. This legislation is good for business and the environment and perhaps most important this bill is good for people. 
The changes in the bill will ensure that the processes of the Act work better providing meaningful reductions in costs to industry and the Government and reducing barriers to innovation without compromising what the Act originally set out to achieve—a healthy environment for all New Zealanders. Concern has been expressed at the time frames within which the select committee was asked to report on this bill. I acknowledge that those time frames were tighter than the norm and I thank the committee and its chair Mr Donnelly for their diligent work in returning this bill to the House. The pressure on timing comes from the time provided for the transitional provisions of the Act. That transitional period ends on 1 July 2006 and by that date all transfers must be complete. Delay means that businesses would continue to have to comply with hazardous substances and new organisms controls for some substances and controls from the old legislation for others. 
Passing this bill means that businesses will be able to get on with business under one piece of legislation whereas previously there were four inconsistent and overlapping processes. This reduces costs for both business and the Government. Contrary to some concerns that have been raised the bill enhances the protection of the environment and the health and safety of people and communities. The bill does this through group standards that will enable hazardous substance and new organism controls to be applied not only to the many currently uncontrolled notified toxic substances but also to hazardous wastes. The bill further enhances the protection of the environment and the health and safety of people and communities by removing the barriers to setting the exposure limit controls that protect people and the environment. 
I moved a number of amendments to the bill during the Committee stage. Those amendments remove the legal circularity that currently prevents New Zealand from meeting its obligations under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. This is an important convention as it provides for the safe disposal of persistent organic pollutants including polychlorinated biphenyl. Other amendments clarify the consultation obligations of the Environmental Risk Management Authority around group standards and notices of transfer. They also provide consistency around the authority’s powers to incorporate materials by reference and group standards and notices of transfer. 
I also remind members of the benefits that the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation brings to the management of hazardous substances. I have explained in my earlier comments that this bill represents a significant step forward in protecting the environment and improving the living standards of all New Zealanders. Hazardous substances do bring us a great many benefits. They allow us to be more productive to generate more with less to grow more with less and to achieve more with less. The bill not only ensures that economic growth can be more sustainable; it actually enhances the sustainable economic growth potential of our country. 
Like many new ideas there were some teething difficulties with the Act and in June 2003 my colleague Marian Hobbs announced a hazardous substances strategy to improve the workability of the Act. This debate marks another vital milestone in delivering that strategy. It is important to speak of the strategy now because it was effectively a promise to industry and to all New Zealanders to deliver good environmental governance through effective legislation. The Government promised to fix the Resource Management Act and I believe we have done so. We promised to fix Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and we are in the process of doing that. 
This debate marks our commitment to deliver on the outcome of good environmental governance through effective legislation. We said we would do it and we are doing it right now. The bill will reduce costs to the Government and to industry it will reduce barriers to innovation and it will better protect the environment and the health and safety of the people in our communities. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I must say that we have just heard a revelational speech from Minister Benson-Pope who said that the Labour Government had promised to fix the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and that it has done that. I have not heard of anything as ridiculous as that in my life. New Zealanders up and down this country are deeply outraged by the ways in which the Labour Government has imposed compliance costs on them through those two Acts. 
It may be that in this particular bill there is an intention to reduce compliance costs but no one knows—and the Minister would not confirm—whether there would be any monitoring of this amendment to ensure that it was efficacious. There were absolutely no promises of that from the Minister and certainly when we heard the absolutely ridiculous statement from a Minister of the Labour Government that it had fixed the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act we knew that it was officially in denial. That is indeed a very serious condition to be in. It is so serious that Labour should instead of taking just the end-of-year break in 24 hours’ time take a complete break—resign and give the opportunity to the New Zealand people to vote in a National Government for 2006. It is the height of ridiculousness for the new Minister to suggest that the Labour Government has fixed the Resource Management Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. 
I note that both New Zealand First and the Green leader Jeanette Fitzsimons have made quite a lot of comment about the genesis of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I agree that it is important to think about its genesis. As Jeanette Fitzsimons told the House in the 1970s and 1980s prior to that legislation being enacted there were about 20 different pieces of legislation which were all over the place and non-comprehensive. There were calls from right around the country to make it into comprehensive legislation. The bill that Simon Upton introduced in 1996 was world-leading and cutting edge. Yes there were indeed problems with it and I think that that is what often happens with cutting edge legislation. However one would have thought that after 6 years of a Labour Government which had been critical for a long time of some of the deficiencies of the Act it would do something about it instead of bringing this amendment into the House under urgency 24 hours before it adjourns for the end of the year. I do recognise that Brian Donnelly the chairman of the Education and Science Committee and I are in absolute agreement on that fact. 
Another revelation has struck me today and it is that New Zealand First is no longer a schizophrenic chameleon in Opposition. Brian Donnelly has confirmed that New Zealand First has formally transformed into an official poodle of the Labour Government. It was quite extraordinary that Brian Donnelly suggested that compliance costs had not been thought through extremely carefully by the National Opposition both in terms of the Resource Management Act—and we have put up amendment after amendment aimed specifically to reduce compliance costs—and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act where in respect of the new organisms aspect of it again legislative changes were proposed and amendments put up to reduce compliance costs which were absolutely valid and appropriate. Yet Brian Donnelly has suggested that National has not consistently supported the changes whereas the Labour Government—which New Zealand First has formally and officially moved across to—is where New Zealand First is and that is one of the other revelations regarding this bill. 
Federated Farmers did put up a very well-thought-out technical submission and assessment of the costs of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. They assessed that it costs New Zealanders in terms of the set-up cost something like $102 million and in terms of each arable farmer on average about $3000 a year. When the Government says that this particular amendment will save $2 million and the Minister gives us no reassurance whatsoever that there will be any monitoring of the efficacy of the amendment then any faith in the Government erodes and crumbles away. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No one believes anything he says. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is absolutely correct that no one believes anything that David Benson-Pope says. 
However David Benson-Pope did give an assurance to New Zealanders that the costs of revoking the registration of some of the toxic substances and then carrying out an appropriate risk management assessment would be available from the Government. I think it is very very important that he is held to the promise he has made to the New Zealand people today. The Environmental Risk Management Authority says that it simply does not have the resources available if indeed those toxic substances do require revocation from the register and a full assessment. The authority says that the cost will be about $1 million per substance and that it simply does not have that money. We are in a situation whereby the authority says on the one hand that it is just not possible to transfer everything across by June 2006—the date by which that should occur—and on the other hand that it does not have the resources to carry out an appropriate risk management assessment of those substances that will be identified inevitably as being a worry to New Zealanders and to our environment. That is of considerable concern. 
I will just point out two things that I think are certainly of value in this bill. I mentioned them before. The first relates to the rapid assessment and approval of other hazardous substances in special emergencies. We in New Zealand have had various concerns over the last few years one being the varroa bee mite. The fact that it has become endemic in New Zealand raises a huge concern about the efficacy of our biosecurity agencies. As I understand it only one bee scientist in New Zealand is at a level that one would expect international best practice to conform to. It was not until the varroa mite was endemic in New Zealand that it was suddenly realised that it was here. When the Labour Government gave up and said that it could not eradicate the mite bee-keepers said that they needed a miticide to fix their hives. It was not possible through the legislation to make that available so it took a tremendous amount of work to get this lazy Labour Government to provide for special circumstances when a miticide would be available. 
But let us just imagine if we did not have this legislation what would happen if we had a foot-and-mouth outbreak and we were not able to get the best therapies possible to ensure that it could be combated in the most efficacious way. Fortunately new section 49L is to be inserted in the Act by clause 12 of the bill. That is important; it should have happened long ago. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I had the opportunity to be part of the Education and Science Committee when it deliberated on this bill in the last Parliament. My good friend Brian Donnelly chaired the committee and I think we did a good job. We received a lot of submissions from the industry scientists and environmental people. I think this bill is really good in terms of promoting business the environment and the health and safety of people in our community. This bill really relates to group standards which are something the industry has been asking for for quite some time. It puts together a number of substances that in particular the farming community and the industry use. I think it will reduce the cost to the Government and the industry reduce barriers to innovation and better protect the environment and the health and safety of people. I am delighted that the industry which the Government consulted supports this bill. 
Very briefly the group standards will reduce cost to the industry by reducing the number of applications that businesses need to make to the Environmental Risk Management Authority and by providing simpler prescriptive alternatives to technical controls and regulations. With that I support this bill. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. It has been interesting to listen to the discussions in the Chamber today and last night. We have heard today that this bill will result in a saving of $2 million. When this bill goes through today—if it does—that will be an interesting Christmas present for all the orchardists and farmers to get. I cannot see where those savings will be made. I have listened to Minister Benson-Pope today and I am still unenlightened as to where that $2 million saving actually is. 
It is interesting to read section 96D(1)(b)(i) inserted by clause 20: “the benefits associated with a reduction of environmental and health risks outweigh the economic costs associated with complying with the group standard;”. What it actually says is there is a cost associated with this to do with environmental and health risks and it actually sounds to me a little like the Kyoto Protocol. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Oh what a disaster! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Indeed it is a disaster. This bill seems to me to be a bit of a rush job. It has been on the cards for 3 or 4 years. We heard from Mr Benson-Pope that there had been a few teething problems in the past. Suddenly we seem to be trying to crash this legislation through before Christmas. I wonder where the review is. Where is the date for a review? The whole thing seems like it could be a bit of an experiment. It seems to me and to other members of the House that this bill could be a bit cumbersome. It could be an experiment with no date for a review. We have highlighted today the costs and we are sick of hearing about compliance costs—I know that everyone has had a bash today. But we know that this bill will add costs. It will add costs to the importer and the retailer that will then flow on to the end user. 
It was also interesting to listen to the debate on Part 4. Regional councils will be left to bear the brunt of this legislation. We have seen just recently that Waikato ratepayers are subsidising a helicopter to go around checking on dairy farmers to see what is happening. It is sort of like Big Brother. Regional councils will be left to administer this measure and I ask where the money will come from. It will not come from the general taxpayer will it; it will actually come out of the ratepayer’s pocket. There will be no flow-on money from the Government. It will be left to the little old ratepayer to pay for this amendment via the regional council. Once again something is being passed through this House that will have a direct impact on the ratepayers of New Zealand. 
It is also interesting that many people will have to acquire approved handler certification. There will be some assessment of candidates. I am pleased that farmers who have a huge amount of experience in dealing with chemicals will not necessarily have to do a full-day course. I am pleased that the course will be reduced in some areas to a half-day course. The other thing I think is significant is that there is some relief around veterinary medicines. I would hate to see that farmers who drench their livestock on an almost monthly basis have to get handling certification. 
 A few of us took a trip to Gisborne the other day to see the flood-affected farmers the farmers of the East Coast whom this Government over there—of which New Zealand First is a part—has just snubbed. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. You say you are not members of the Government but you are sitting on that side and I tell you Mr Donnelly that you are definitely part of it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is not to bring the Chair into the debate; he is to refer to the member. 
NATHAN GUY 
: It is interesting to see that this Government has snubbed those farmers on the East Coast whose farms have been badly flooded and who are now out there trying to salvage their crops that have been water damaged and suffer from humidity and rot. In particular I am talking about squash. When I was there the other day it was interesting to see that the farmers were putting chemicals on their crops to try to salvage some of the possessions they have left. This Government does not care one iota about our primary production sector and assisting those people even though a precedent has been set. I have seen first-hand that those farmers are putting on chemicals and that is a double-edged sword for them. They get nothing from this Government. Their costs will go up as a result of this amendment bill. They are all paying huge taxes and there is no relief in sight for them. The backbone of the country has once again been let down by this Government—the hard-working primary production sector— 
Hon Member 
: The backbone of the country. 
NATHAN GUY 
:—the backbone of the country which supports 80 percent of this economy. 
Jill Pettis 
: Has the member forgotten the Manawatu floods? 
NATHAN GUY 
: Forgotten? The precedent was set in the Manawatu but that was before the election; now the East Coast people are feeling snubbed. They feel extremely disappointed. 
It was interesting to hear Dr Smith last evening signal that we should be working more closely with Australia to have a common agreement on standards—which I believe is paramount. It was also interesting to hear from Mr Donnelly that fly-by-nighters and importers will actually find it tougher to import substances into this country. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Who put the amendment in? Not you guys. 
NATHAN GUY 
: Oh the member should not worry about that. I tell Mr Donnelly that he should not give us historical rhetoric; let us face the facts now. He is well aware that this legislation will add a greater burden of compliance and be a greater burden on the people who actually support the economy. 
Looking forward I say that this amendment bill will enhance the environment. It is all about sustainability and I think we need to be mindful of that. Farmers and orchardists are looking forward to the $2 million of savings that will come from our passing this amendment today but I am mindful of the fact that they deserve better than what they get now from this Government. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I think most of the issues have been covered in the debate but I do have to make some comments upon one or two things. In relation to the last speech by Nathan Guy I have to say that it really is quite sad that such a nice guy in such a short space of time should be driven to talk such drivel. But that is what happens when members get too close to National. Members on the other side have to realise that I was in that situation once. We had colleagues like Tau Henare who actually sat around in 1996 and said that they would never be seated around the table with the likes of Jim Bolger and Jenny Shipley but now he is on that side of the House. That is what happens when they get with National. It is sad and unfortunate; nevertheless that is the way things are. 
Paul Hutchinson made some points about how New Zealand First has changed its position but I want to make the point that New Zealand First has not changed its position towards this legislation one millimetre from the time we sat on that side of the House right next door to National. We certainly have not changed our opinion that at that particular stage earlier in the year the National members who were sitting beside us were lacking in intellectual substance—they are still lacking in intellectual substance and we have not changed our position one iota. But I want to ask Paul Hutchinson one thing and it is a challenge— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a point that the Jeanette Fitzsimons took against me some years ago. It concerns me that the member referred to me as Paul “Hutchinson”. In actual fact the Hutchinsons were the side of the family that invented the thumbscrew while we ourselves are a particularly gallant and honourable lot. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I shall henceforth refer to the member as “Dr Paul”! Let us face it: how many members in this house would actually refer to “B scientists”? I mean that has to be an insult to all scientists in this country. 
The member has stated that New Zealand First has changed its position. It has not changed its position and I challenge National speakers to tell us of one amendment that they have put up to change this particular legislation—just one issue they actually fought for and tried to change within the legislation in its passage through the select committee and through this House. I challenge the members on the other side of the House to come up with just one word in this bill they wanted changed. Was there one? I tell the House that there was not one instance of any effort to make any change to this legislation by National members sitting on the other side. 
There was from New Zealand First. I can tell members that all of the changes that came in this legislation through its process actually came from New Zealand First and those changes tightened up some of the issues in there. But not one thing came from National. Therefore for National members to say that they oppose this bill and think it is terrible but to have done absolutely nothing except vote for it—that is all they have done—then we know there is a set of goalposts stamped on their foreheads. That is the point I need to make; I am challenging members on the other side of the House. 
Let us face it: we are talking about cross-benchers here. We were cross-benchers before we are still cross-benchers and I can categorically say that I am not a part of the Government constitutionally—absolutely not a part of the Government any more than Georgina Beyer is. But as we did in the last Parliament we will operate in a way that will further the interests of New Zealanders and of New Zealand as a nation. If legislation has to be moved forward in that particular interest New Zealand First will do it. We will continue to operate in that particular manner. 
However I do have to say that I agree with “Dr Paul” on one particular point. I also was gobsmacked by the statement of David Benson-Pope that “This Government promised to fix the Resource Management Act—and we have done it.” That is an unbelievable statement and if Government members actually believe it then they have to have their minds sorted out. Of course a party like New Zealand First is eminently placed to be able to sort their minds out on such issues. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We have heard an awful lot this morning about compliance costs for business. We have heard about the trouble it will give farmers. We have heard all of that from the National Party which is voting for the bill. We have heard from the Labour Party that this legislation will reduce compliance costs—we have not really heard how—but we have not heard anybody talk this morning about the nature of the materials that this legislation tries to regulate and why they need to be regulated. 
 I think it is time that somebody spoke about those issues because amongst the thousands and thousands of chemicals that we are transferring from old legislation to new legislation—but without any change in the way they are managed or in the regulations under which they have to be used—are some chemicals that are known to be capable of causing cancer some that are known to be capable of causing birth defects some that are known to be capable of causing and do cause chronic illnesses some that are known to be hormone disrupters and that affect people’s reproductive systems and their general health and some that are known to accumulate in the environment long term and to concentrate up food chains. Surely that is the reason we have legislation to try to control these substances. We have heard nothing from anybody in the Chamber about how this legislation will improve the management of those hazards. 
We have heard from one National Party speaker that we should not have any compliance rules or any enforcement; we should just trust people who use these substances to use them wisely. I wonder whether the National Party actually needs a lesson in toxicology or in the illness that is caused in society by exposure to hazardous chemicals. It makes me very concerned that the House does not see fit to debate the health effects of these substances but only whether it will be inconvenient for farmers to have to have some training or whether it will be costly for industries to have to pay assessment costs to have their products approved for sale given that they make enormous amounts of money out of selling those chemicals and there are consequences for the rest of society. 
As I said in the second reading debate the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation sets up a system of grandfathering whereby substances that have already been approved under old and—everybody agrees—inadequate legislation are grandfathered in under the new legislation and approved and there is no way that that can then be challenged except at enormous cost to the Crown. It creates a perpetual property right or a perpetual consent to use those substances without further assessment in a way that no other legislation does for any other purpose. If we want a consent to take water discharge into water discharge into air or use land for a purpose under the Resource Management Act we have a time limit on that consent. We have to apply for a new consent at the end of it so we can go through a process to check whether what we are doing is still acceptable by modern standards whether there are better ways of doing it whether the consent should have new conditions on it or whether in fact the consent should not be allowed at all. 
It has been widely accepted virtually forever that consents are not perpetual but these consents are to be perpetual in such a way that it would be an enormous cost to the Crown to reassess the chemicals that the Environmental Risk Management Authority already knows need reassessment. The authority has a list of the ones it is concerned about. It has a list of chemicals that do not meet best international practice either in being used at all or in being used under the conditions that they are currently used under. There is no time before 30 June 2006 to put those chemicals through a rigorous reassessment so they are being brought in and given a perpetual consent. The only way they can be reassessed in the future is at the cost of the Crown. My bet is that they will not be reassessed because the authority will never persuade the Minister of Finance to make enough Budget available to go through those processes. That is why we need to set up a system where the applicant pays the cost to get its consent continued. That opportunity has now been missed. 
At the same time this legislation creates a great disincentive for innovation. New Zealand is too small a market for a company to apply to introduce a new chemical that is better and particularly less environmentally harmful than an existing chemical if it has to face the full cost of the assessment of the new chemical but it gets to continue a consent for the old chemical forever for free. That is a huge disincentive for innovation; it is a huge disincentive for environmental improvement. I simply cannot understand why the Government will not accept the evidence that was given to the select committee the submissions that I made personally to the Minister and what many other people have been telling the Government. It seems to be all about a concern that business will kick up if it has to pay any costs at all for the privilege of subjecting the rest of us to chemicals that may endanger our health. I would like to suggest that that is actually the wrong way round. If business wants to get its chemicals registered in New Zealand—and I am not denying that chemicals have many uses—then it needs to face the cost of having them properly assessed. 
So we have the inadequate provisions of the Toxic Substances Act the Pesticides Act the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Dangerous Goods Act rolled over in perpetuity under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. That is a huge missed opportunity that could have been remedied in this amendment bill but it is not. So while the Green Party accepts that there are useful things in this bill—and it is not actually the content of this particular bill that we are opposed to—we are voting against it because it does not take the last remaining opportunity to set up a system under the Act whereby it is possible to reassess chemicals and get safer ones without it being at the expense of the Crown. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 There is no doubt that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act actually needs some substantial change and this bill goes some way towards doing that but it is only a very small step. National supports the bill contrary to what Brian Donnelly would have everybody believe because he said that National opposed the bill. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: No I never said that. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The member did say that. If he goes to  
Hansard 
 he will find that he did say it. I was listening and I took the member to task at the time. National is supporting the bill but there is a long way to go towards addressing the compliance costs associated with the whole Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. With this bill we had an opportunity to address some of the issues of compliance cost but that did not happen. So let us see what the Labour Party lackeys—once known as New Zealand First—really understand about compliance costs if they do not understand that substantially more has to be done to reduce compliance costs and have them properly addressed in the Act. [ 
Interruption 
] I said “the Labour Party lackeys—once known as New Zealand First”. 
The explanatory note has in it what I presume is the Government’s compliance cost statement under the heading “Statement of net benefit of proposal including the total regulatory costs (administrative compliance and economic costs) and benefits (including non-quantifiable benefits of the proposal) and other feasible options”. Do members know that that statement does not identify one single dollar—not one? I just wonder how the Government assesses any sort of cost when it does not even provide the figures to show it has done any number crunching or sums. Then under “Government” the statement talks about the benefits and costs blah-blah-blah but no dollar figures are mentioned there either. The general policy statement states: “This bill offers a means to reduce costs …”; it does not state that the bill does reduce costs. So we have to look very closely at what the words actually say. Of industry the explanatory note states that the standards will reduce the compliance costs for business. It talks about a number of things to make that happen but it is questionable whether that will be the case. 
I am very sceptical when it comes to this Government because I find it to be highly fiscally irresponsible and the student loan situation is a classic example of that. In respect of society and the environment—and I say to Mr Donnelly that it might pay him to read the bill—no environmental social or cultural costs have been identified. So what does that say? The Government has not even done any cost-benefit analysis or assessed any environmental social or cultural costs so I presume that it has not done any actual business or compliance costs assessment at all. I ask the Minister to stand and take a call and perhaps give us some evidence that he has actually done any sort of compliance costs assessment whatsoever. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: It’s the third reading. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: That is the whole thing about urgency. Everything gets rushed through to such a degree that it is questionable whether a proper oversight of the bill has been undertaken. 
We are disappointed that this bill is the fourth Hazardous Substances and New Organisms amendment bill introduced into the House by the Hon Marian Hobbs. When she introduced a previous amending bill we said she did not have a hope of registering the 70000-odd chemicals and hazardous substances that were required to be registered by the deadline of June 2006. That is only 5 or 6 months away so I do not think there is any hope of achieving that. 
We remain disappointed that 5 years later the Act is still not enforced. It is definitely another failure of this Government. That is no surprise. But who really believes there will be any cost savings for anybody? There may be cost savings for the Government because it just passes it all on to local government to farmers and to businesses and says that there may be some sort of cost reduction and reduced compliance costs but it has not done any assessment to prove that. No cost-benefit analysis was done—nothing. So I do not know about Labour’s lackeys New Zealand First. If Brian Donnelly’s passionate defence of Labour’s position is anything to go by I say that New Zealand First has certainly changed its position. Sector groups are already saying that they believe compliance costs will increase—and of course they will. This Government has no fiscal sense of responsibility at all and that has been proven time and time again in this House by my esteemed colleagues. 
Questions have already been raised as to why the bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee instead of the Local Government and Environment Committee. Why was that? It should have gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee. After all that is where the real grunt is. The bill probably received a bit of spelling improvement and that is about it. I cannot imagine that New Zealand First would have had much to do with that. So why the need for urgency? Going into urgency and the bill being sent to the wrong select committee may explain why no proper scrutiny was done. 
I can give some examples. I refer to the very serious issue of bona vacantia raised by my esteemed colleague Eric Roy—what a fantastic find. Who has heard of bona vacantia? There is no definition in the Act and there is no definition in the bill. Clearly nobody considered that. What happened to the call from Mr Donnelly that the committee had actually done a great deal in regard to this bill? Bona vacantia means “without a home” so what happens to a hazardous substance that arrives on the doorstep of New Zealand? Section 122(1) inserted by clause 27 states: “If a customs officer has reasonable cause to believe that a hazardous substance is being or has been imported in breach of this Act” So a customs officer—just an average Joe Bloggs—says: “I don’t know about this one. Is this a hazardous substance or isn’t it? Well OK I’ve got reasonable cause to believe it is and there has been a breach of the Act so yeah well this stuff has got to go back to where it came from.” The poor importer asks: “What am I going to do now? What are my appeal provisions?”. 
The importer can appeal to the District Court but guess what? The hazardous substance has to remain on the ship or the aircraft at the importer’s own cost. Well I am sure the aircraft or the ship will remain for the number of weeks and months it might take the importer to appeal to the District Court! Quite clearly that is a compliance cost even if the customs officer is wrong and there was not a breach of the Act. For the person who is affected by the importation of a substance that has been wrongly identified as being a breach of the Act it would probably be far cheaper to send the stuff back. 
 So clearly some things did not get identified correctly through the bill and that could have been well addressed by the select committee but were not. I guess that is the problem with not giving proper oversight to legislation not giving due regard to it taking time over it and not putting in the amount of grunt that is necessary. Of course when we are talking about compliance costs we are talking about loading local authorities once again with costs from the Government. The Government is once again putting a compliance cost on to local authorities. Maybe at the other end they could take out the auditing of long-term community plans and make them a non-statutory document. All that will do is allow the Government to slowly dump social services and anything else it can on to local authorities. That will send rates through the roof. 
Already fixed-income people our senior citizens are the ones who will be hardest hit. By the year 2020 they will be 52 percent of the population. That is pretty serious. But does this Government care? Absolutely not! If they can get rid of costs to the Government they will do it any which way they can and dumping it on to local authorities keeps them really happy. It keeps this Government really happy. But what does it do to the local authorities and to the ratepayers? It just pushes them down into the ground and makes it so much harder for them to survive—particularly our older citizens who have worked hard all their lives and are on a fixed income and who just cannot support all of these increases. 
Yes we are supporting this bill but it has a long way to go. Is it not amazing that it is easier for a hazardous substance to get here illegally than legally? It is about time we streamlined the Act so that people can legitimately import genetic material plants etc. in a streamlined process and meeting all the obstacles they do. Instead we get illegal substances like rock snot establishing really quickly and they are absolutely disastrous for this nation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time. 
Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 The key provisions of the bill are first that specified ports are treated as having been designated or approved as places of first arrival under the Biosecurity Act 1993 for all kinds of aircraft that is for airports and vessels for seaports from 1 July 1995 for certain specified ports and from 25 May 1998 for certain other specified ports. 
Secondly the biosecurity control areas are confirmed as having been established in these specified ports if biosecurity control area agreements exist. Third the deemed approval of ports and confirmation of biosecurity control areas will not apply to convictions entered or sentences imposed from a certain period of time until the date on which the port approvals were given or the bill is passed whichever is the earlier. Fourth the deemed approval of ports and confirmation of biosecurity control areas will not apply to any court proceedings commenced before the date on which this bill is introduced. 
The bill is needed because when the Biosecurity Act was enacted in 1993 the ports used as a place of first arrival were approved as a transitional measure. The transitional measure ceased on 1 July 1995. Unfortunately at the time the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry failed to approve the ports and consequently the ports were not approved as a place of first arrival after 1995. The 1997 amendment Act enabled an approval to impose a limitation on the type of craft that could enter a port. Consequently the amendment provided transitional approval of certain ports of entry for a period of 6 months. At the end of the 6 months the approvals expired. 
During the 6-month transition period the ports were required to be approved under the amendment Act. However the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry failed to make the necessary approval and consequently the ports were not designated a place of entry under the Act. The ministry—apart from apologising to everybody—is now in the process of issuing new approvals for relevant ports in accordance with the Biosecurity Act. However the ministry’s failure to do this prior to now exposes the Crown to civil action by those who might seek to challenge the actions of ministry staff operating at ports and airports over the intervening period even though of course this was unintended and without malice of any sort. 
The bill is urgently needed to deem retrospectively certain ports to have been approved as places of first arrival. This will effectively eliminate the risk of future civil action being taken against the Crown for those historical oversights. Although clearly undesirable the bill will effectively validate the ministry’s operation of the respective ports and airports in the intervening period only. The bill will not validate the three invalid convictions entered or sentences imposed during the period when the ports were not approved. Convictions will be quashed and affected persons will receive redress. Fortunately those convictions are relatively minor. Any civil proceedings commenced before the bill is introduced will not be affected but thus far as far as I am aware there are no such proceedings. 
The Government proposes that the bill is not referred to a select committee for consideration as it is desirable that the legislation be dealt with expeditiously for obvious reasons. If the bill were referred to a committee there would be a period after introduction and before enactment when persons would be aware of the Crown’s exposure and could take civil action. The passing of this bill through all its stages will remove the opportunity for any person to take civil action because ports were not approved—unintentional as it was—as places of first arrival. I gratefully acknowledge the support and cooperation of other parties in the House in assisting with the introduction of the bill. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 First of all Madam Assistant Speaker can I take this opportunity to wish you and your fellow presiding officers a merry Christmas because I may not have that chance on the last day of Parliament. 
I thank the Minister for Biosecurity for in his first job as Minister playing catch-up with his Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry over what clearly has been an oversight. The National Party will be supporting the Minister in his endeavours. I totally agree with the Minister’s comment made at the Biosecurity Summit when he quoted a former Prime Minister of Australia Gough Whitlam who as Opposition leader had said: “The new Minister is of a calibre above that of the previous Minister.” When responding to an interjection about what that meant he said: “He is a bigger bore than the previous Minister.” So I congratulate the Minister on acknowledging that right upfront. 
I tell the Minister that there are a number of issues that he will need to address very quickly. Not only will he have to fix up this measure and have it passed on 13 December—it is 14 December already but in the time-honoured fashion of the House when in urgency it stays in the day that the urgency started; so the Minister is already a day behind in terms of what he is trying to achieve—but also he will have to do something about the major biosecurity problems we have in this country. Thus far every single piece of rhetoric I have heard from this Minister tends to indicate there is no progress on that whatsoever. 
Clause 4 inserts new section 184A which basically does what the Minister outlined and it does need to happen. But given that he has been able through the process that has brought him to introduce this bill to see that there are quite a few holes as it were in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will he be doing something to fix up some of the other vacuums or shortcomings in the rest of his portfolio mix? When he made a speech to Federated Farmers and told them there was absolutely no logical reason to have a biosecurity strategy in place before an incursion took place—in fact I think he said it was illegal to have a strategy in place before an incursion took place—did he know then that that is within his power? Clearly he does not know that. If that is the case perhaps he should get a briefing from his officials; they will tell him that the law provides that he must in some cases have a strategy in place before there is an incursion. That is yet another gap in the law or in the Minister’s knowledge—I am not sure. As far as I understand the law there must be a strategy in place before there is an incursion in a number of areas. I give but one: the potential foot-and-mouth threat that this country is under all the time. There is within the law a power for the Minister to make sure a strategy is in place before there is an incursion. So I am really curious about what the Minister was referring to when he made that comment. 
The pest management strategy that his ministry has in place appears to be fairly robust in that area. Unfortunately it is not robust in a number of other areas. During the process of this bill—and research obviously has gone on therein—the Minister might have a look at what other gaps there may be in the law and bring those to Parliament so that the people of New Zealand can be confident that this Minister is on top of his portfolio. There certainly is no evidence of it thus far. 
I want to quote to the Minister section 69A of the Act: “A national pest management strategy must specify the following matters: (a) The pest or pests to be managed or eradicated:”. That throws up another question. Given that the Minister presumably knew that and we have had a couple of incursions just recently—namely sea squirt and didymo—was the Minister aware that under the Act he is required to try first of all to eradicate? We can see from the outcome now that both those incursions appear to be permanent residents in New Zealand and will be devastating not only to our biodiversity but potentially to our aquafarming economy that the Minister himself may have slipped up in that regard by not doing what is required under the Biosecurity Act which he is required to work under. Maybe the Minister has a different view of that; I am sure he does. 
 So when he says in speeches at biosecurity summits Federated Farmers conferences and other such places where he has spoken as the new Minister for Biosecurity that it would be stupid—I think that is the language he used—to employ funds in the area of a biosecurity strategy before we have an incursion—[ 
Interruption 
] It might be a good idea if the Minister checked the Act he is supposed to be working under to find out the reason his warrant has been given to him. 
I give the Minister yet another example of failure—by his predecessor—and that was the case of the varroa bee mite. Once again there was a surveillance process there was a biosecurity advance strategy and neither was used. It was a wait and see situation; the Government would not throw money around willy-nilly so it just waited to see whether that organism could live in New Zealand. Perhaps the Government hoped that a cold snap would freeze it out or something like that. Maybe the Government had people sit down at the port with a fly swatter to try to catch the organism on the way through. That sort of approach has failed and the cost to this country is billions of dollars. We have yet to establish what the cost of the didymo outbreak will be but I suspect that it could be billions of dollars. So I say to the Minister that while we fiddle while the house burns as it were and fix up what is obviously a shortcoming within his own department he might want to go back and look at some of the other major gaps within his department to see whether there is something he can do about them. 
There has been a 93 percent increase in the number of passengers coming into New Zealand—I am just telling the Minister this because I am sure he does not know. There has been a 40 percent increase in the number of cargo movements—containers and suchlike. That is the reason why we are far more at risk today—and all that is good because it shows there is growth in the economy—than we have ever been before. For the Minister to sit there and say we have the best biosecurity in the world is just not good enough because it does not take into account all that extra traffic and extra risk. The Minister will tell us how many more millions of dollars have been put into biosecurity since 1999 but he will never quote how much extra passenger and cargo traffic there has been. He will not mention that. There has been a 96 percent increase in container movements alone. Did the Minister know that? He did not know that. The last time he was anywhere near a port was when he was at the airport coming into Wellington. He had no idea that was the case. 
So the amount that the Government has put in percentage-wise compared to the increase in traffic is miniscule and the Minister knows it. He needs to go back and use his now-elevated position as No. 1 in a caucus of one use that horsepower to beat up the Minister of Finance and say that the biggest single risk to this country is the threat to our biosecurity. Of course the Minister will make light of it and of course the Minister of Finance will spit him out like he does all the other ill-prepared Ministers who turn up and do not know their portfolios. 
Here is a figure that the Minister will not be aware of: 16000 tonnes of foreign ballast water are estimated to be discharged into New Zealand waters each year. The question we need to ask is how the sea squirt got here. Well 16000 tonnes of foreign ballast water is discharged into New Zealand each year. The Minister should fix it while he has a chance. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill through all its stages. We do not often do that for bills that have not first been referred to a select committee but we recognise that this bill is solving a problem that happens from time to time in legislation and it is quite right that Parliament should fix it. 
Biosecurity is a critical aspect of the Greens conservation policy and process and we take it very seriously indeed. In our view any biosecurity strategy must be based on a precautionary approach and must recognise that many pest incursions are irreversible and should therefore promote the lowest practical risk approach to the way biosecurity is managed. We need only consider the didymo incursion to understand that it is not good enough to take time over these incursions when they occur. Didymo was found in the Lower Waiau and Mararoa rivers in Southland in October of 2004 and although I think that Biosecurity New Zealand did some good work on this issue it is not good enough to wait until the problem gets bigger before serious and severe measures are put in place. For example the research on how to kill didymo should have begun immediately after it was found not a year later because in September 2005 didymo was found in the Tasman district in the upper reaches of the Buller River in the Otago region in the Hawea Upper Clutha and Von rivers and in additional rivers in Southland the Oreti and the Upper Waiau. Of course the whole of the South Island is a controlled area and it is not good enough that we allowed this to happen. 
I do not think and the Greens do not think that the extreme dependence of our biosecurity measures on the education of New Zealanders and on individual responsibility will work effectively. It is not the best strategy. But it must be said that if New Zealanders do truly appreciate their environment and do hold it in the esteem that we frequently say we do then we should all take more responsibility for the impact that our actions have on the environment and on the biosecurity risks that our behaviour imposes. The Greens believe that from the outset all possible restrictions must be used to prevent the introduction and spread of biosecurity risks. Biosecurity processes must consider the harmful effects of toxins on human and non-target species and ensure that chemicals are used only as a last resort. The National Party suggested that somehow all the rivers in the South Island should suffer some form of chemical blasting with chlorine. That would kill everything in an effort to get rid of potentially this one little thing. [ 
Interruption 
] It was an insane suggestion clearly made by people who have no concept of what it means to be environmentally responsible and I am so pleased that nobody has taken that suggestion the least bit seriously. Instead people have recognised it as being ridiculously stupid as it was. 
We would like to see the Biosecurity Act include as part of its purpose the need to protect New Zealand from pest diseases and from GE organisms. We would like regional councils to be required to develop pest management strategies that cover both public and private land and we believe we should encourage the preparation of pest management strategies that are ecosystem based as well as species based. There is no point in trying to attack individual species if we do not take an ecosystem approach and that in fact is increasingly a part of the policy development process for conservation in general. We would like to see it included more in biosecurity and of course there must be consideration of the cumulative impacts of biodiversity associated with imports. 
Importers must have and take a greater level of responsibility for the biosecurity risks they pose. We would like to see increased funding for implementing biosecurity risk assessments and invasion response measures supported through a levy on importers and people arriving at our borders. We believe that importers should be required to pay the full cost of eradication when negligence or non-compliance has been demonstrated by them. We need to enhance our ability to prevent exotic species from entering New Zealand and our ability to respond to any incursions that do occur. We have to continue with public education. We should be looking more seriously at the offshore inspection of containers at increasing staff training and providing staff with the technology they need to do the job they want to do and at making sure there is an emergency response fund that is well supported so that it can be effective. We also need to begin permanent pest surveillance programmes in and around all ports. We need risk assessments for exotic organisms to consider their potential impacts on indigenous species and ecosystems and on rural and urban environments in addition to those on primary production and human health. 
This is a significant issue for the whole country. If we do not impose severe and costly penalties on importers who through negligence or non-compliance put our country at risk New Zealand will be seen as too soft on these issues and the cost to our environment our economy and our people will be extreme. We have only one little country and we have to protect it as best we can. We must give equal importance to biosecurity threats to the marine environment as we do to the terrestrial environment. We need much more caution and more stringent measures for marine biosecurity threats. We must take more seriously the risk that pollution for example imposes on our marine life. We have an exceptional abundance of marine life and ecosystems in our seas. Research is being undertaken in the Sounds to look at the medicinal properties of marine life that were hitherto unknown to us. 
 One of the major threats for example to the Hector’s and Maui dolphins after gill-nets is pollution of their habitats by toxins flowing into the sea from rivers the dumping of sewage into the sea and the dumping of wastes from dredging and seabed prospecting and mining. Biosecurity forms one part of the protection measures we can take to ensure that our endangered and critically endangered species are protected and that we do not continue to lose species in this country. If we do not take biosecurity issues extremely seriously and impose severe and mandatory controls and penalties we risk a huge amount in our country. So in terms of this bill we are very pleased that the legislative lacuna will be filled but it is only a small part of what needs to be done to truly protect our beautiful country. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this bill in all its stages. We received a copy of it only an hour or so ago and as the Minister who opened the debate said in his speech it comes about because of—to use nautical language—a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry stuff-up. The ministry got it wrong. There was an oversight and this bill is now urgently needed because of the possibility of the Crown being exposed to civil action. 
I agree with Shane Ardern who spoke a little while ago that the biggest single risk to this country’s security is biosecurity. I would like to explain to Shane Ardern—my colleague and I think my friend—a little about ships’ ballast because he seemed to be making a little bit of noise about that. Shipowners are very conscious of the problems that a ship’s ballast brings with it. Currently an overseas ship that is coming to New Zealand is meant to exchange ballast in mid-ocean. 
Shane Ardern 
: They’re meant to. 
PETER BROWN 
: Ships are meant to and they make certain entries in their log books to that effect. Various shipping lines in various parts of the world are experimenting with heating ships’ ballast from the engines— 
Shane Ardern 
: There’s chemical treatment as well. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not think that chemical treatment has met with as much success as heating but shipowners are reluctant to put in major sophisticated methods to address the issue until they know that it will actually address it. I think I am correct in saying that at the moment the most accepted measure is exchanging the ballast mid-ocean. 
Shane Ardern 
: But do they do it in rough seas? 
PETER BROWN 
: It cannot be done in rough seas if we are talking about large quantities and it cannot be done all at once; it has to be done progressively because it affects ships’ stability stresses and all those sorts of things. So whether ships exchange their ballast as fully as we would like them to is a debatable point. But I found that most of the people I dealt with in the area of shipping were pretty darn honest. 
One area that concerns me when I look at schedule 9 is that only five airports are mentioned. I would have thought that that provision could have been upgraded by now. Hamilton has international airlines coming into its airport as does Queenstown I think. As far as I am aware Greymouth is a port. Maybe in the Committee stage the Minister will tell us why Hamilton Queenstown and perhaps some other airports have been excluded because it is distinctly possible— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: There are two schedules. 
Shane Ardern 
: On the back page. 
PETER BROWN 
: Ah there they are: Hamilton Dunedin Invercargill Palmerston North Queenstown and Tauranga. But where is Greymouth? I thank the member for alerting me to that. I had not read the bill as far as that. Greymouth is not recorded as a port. 
Shane Ardern 
: Tauranga is named with other ports. That’s not even in the amendment. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh Tauranga is not in the main port area. This bill is urgently required. The Minister made that quite clear. I think it is incumbent upon this House to pass it with minimum delay. New Zealand First is quite keen to get on with the job and we will support the bill through all its stages. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Maori Party to address this bill in the context of its first reading. In the interests of bringing new ideas to this debate our priority today is to focus particularly on the Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth Levy) Order. The Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth Levy) Order 2004 was made in the context of the Biosecurity Act 1993. The order provides for the levy to be imposed on all shipping containers and used vehicles imported into New Zealand and is the liability primarily of importers although an importer or a shipping agent must pay the levy. The levy is calculated on the basis of dividing the estimated annual cost of a surveillance programme by the estimated number of shipping containers and used vehicles to be imported annually into New Zealand and is to be spent on the surveillance programme for the gypsy moth. 
Although we are pleased to see the introduction of the levy it is the bigger issue around the eradication of the gypsy moth that still remains unresolved. That is an area of particular interest to me given its implications for the people of Tamaki-makau-rau and in particular west Auckland. Just last month it was announced that a report into the health effects of the aerial insecticide spraying in west Auckland found that child asthma rates rose during that spray programme. The report from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research pointed to a plausible link to the spray programme. The report found that for boys aged up to 4 years hospital discharge rates for asthma conditions doubled over that period 2002 to mid-2004 in the exposed population. One parent described his daughter as being hospitalised 28 times in a year with serious asthma. That is a hospital episode every fortnight for a 5-year-old girl. 
Our particular concern with the linking of the moth spray to the incidence of respiratory diseases is the greater Maori asthma morbidity. The Maori asthma review concluded that asthma was more severe in Maori and that hospitalisation and mortality rates for Maori exceeded those of non-Maori. The review states that Maori are no more likely than non-Maori to develop asthma but that once they get it it is more severe and tends to last longer. 
The economic burden of asthma to New Zealand has been conservatively estimated as $800 million per year. For the sake of our society our economy and our community well-being we must be vigilant in stamping out any factors that may serve to threaten our future progress as a nation. Eradication of the gypsy moth may not be as critical as the insecticide introduced to kill it. It must always be considered that in doing whatever we do to get rid of a particular problem we must not increase the likelihood of other illnesses. In a way it is like using a wet towel to hit a moth on a light bulb. Sure we might get rid of the moth but in the process we might end up in the dark. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 ACT will support the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill at its first reading as it is obvious that urgent attention is needed for the problems that it seems have only just come to light. I think that that serves as a warning to us and we should take it very seriously as my colleague in the National Party Shane Ardern pointed out. The present Minister for Biosecurity says that we have the best biosecurity in the world as did the previous Minister for Biosecurity but the very fact that we are here in the House today debating this issue under urgency perhaps suggests otherwise. 
This legislation is an amendment to the Biosecurity Act 1993 to correct historical oversights. As the Minister pointed out those consequences were unintended but we must take unintended consequences very seriously. One of the objections we often have to urgency is that bills go through all their stages in the House. They are not open to public scrutiny through the select committee process which is where the public are able to make submissions and therefore things are often missed out. 
As others have pointed out the bill is necessary because of an administrative failure by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The ministry failed to approve ports of first arrival under the Act before transitional approvals expired. Some of the briefing papers we have had suggest that the issue really only came to light at the beginning of November. But the failures by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry occurred in 1995 and 1998 so those historical failures unintentional though they were in fact go back some way. 
I come back to the reason for the legislation. To fix things we now need to designate ports as approved places of first arrival but more important legislation is also needed retrospectively to deem courts to be approved. ACT has frequently spoken out particularly during periods of urgency about retrospective legislation being put forward in this House. Probably the most famous piece of retrospective legislation was the legislation to save Harry Duynhoven’s bacon. We do object vocally loudly and often to the fact that retrospective legislation comes before this House during urgency when proper scrutiny is not able to be given to it. We might find ourselves less likely to have to go back and amend legislation if that proper scrutiny did in fact occur. 
It is very interesting at this time to look at the Crown Law opinion. The question should really be asked: does Crown Law think we have the best biosecurity in the world? I would suggest from the paper it put forward making comments on this issue that no it does not. The issues arising pending the introduction or passage of this bill have been put forward by Crown Law which says that without this legislation there is no general power to inspect unaccompanied goods outside a transitional facility and that it will be unclear what questions a person must answer after making the initial declaration about the presence of specified goods. Crown Law goes on to say that it will be unclear how long a person must remain at the port while inquiries are being undertaken and lastly that inspectors do not have the power to use reasonable force to require a person to be detained so the power to search people will often be ineffective. Now does that constitute the best biosecurity in the world? I do not think so and neither does Crown Law. 
A little further down in the same document however Crown Law comments that the bill as presently drafted would retrospectively immunise inspectors and the Crown from civil liability in relation to trespass goods false imprisonment etc. So it is important that we have this legislation but the question must be asked particularly of the ministry: how did this situation arise in the first place? Crown Law says that the sooner the bill is introduced the better the chance that there will not be any successful claims of that kind. I guess that in the greater scheme of things that is correct but with such glaring holes in the legislation perhaps concern will not be unfounded. 
The retrospective aspect of the bill does not resolve issues relating to the constitutional principle that Governments should operate under law and Dr Cullen should be very worried about that if he is worried about good law-making. Good laws are enforceable and routinely enforced—I suspect Dr Cullen would probably agree with that statement—and they should be. Perhaps what we need to think about very carefully in light of the fact that this legislation is necessary at all is that all laws should regularly be reviewed to see what loopholes exist and in fact whether they are necessary. We have some very old and outdated laws in this country and it would be a pertinent time to think about whether many of those should be reviewed at regular intervals. So constitutional principles should not be ignored during this debate. I think we have talked a lot about various biosecurity issues but the broader principles should not be ignored either during the debate. 
Crown Law noted that it is also undesirable for international airlines and passengers daily to be committing technical breaches of the Act. I just reinforce my position that law should be enforceable and regularly enforced. 
Although there are many problems there and ACT agrees that they must be attended to very swiftly there are warnings around the whole issue of why it took so long for the matter to be picked up in the first place and the issue of why the previous Minister and this Minister continue to maintain that we have the best biosecurity in the world when in fact our biosecurity measures have such glaring holes in them. ACT will support this bill but we would like some consideration particularly during the Committee stage to discuss the issues further. 
Bill read a first time. 
Second Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. As I said at the first reading the bill is needed to ensure that persons and the Crown who because of a technicality have inadvertently not complied with the law are protected from civil action. I have to say that the National member for Taranaki – King Country blunders around where angels fear to tread. I mean in 1993 1995 and 1998 was I or any member on this side of the House in charge of this matter? I do not think so. 
Shane Ardern 
: What was the Opposition doing? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Oh I see it was the Opposition’s fault. I just missed that. National was governing but it was our fault! I see; that is how it works. 
I say to New Zealand First that the Port of Greymouth is approved under the original process in the Act so that does not need to be mentioned in the schedule. For the Maori Party’s benefit I say that a close analysis of the spraying programme in west Auckland for painted apple moth does not show any conclusive connection between the rates of reported medical conditions and the spraying itself. 
As a consequence of non-approval of ports of first arrival it was an offence for example when persons in charge of a craft failed to enter a designated port of entry or when uncleared goods were permitted to leave a craft and did not proceed to a biosecurity control area. It is possible that persons arriving in New Zealand would be deemed not to have proceeded through a biosecurity control area and that port operators represented a port as “approved” when no approval was actually given. So all those unintended consequences flowed on. 
The bill is needed—I think all members and parties have indicated that. I recommend that the bill proceed as quickly as possible through the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I agree with the Minister. In 1993 it was a National Government and again in 1995 and 1998. But that was the forty-fifth Parliament. Which Parliament are we in now? Maybe the Minister has forgotten. He has been here a long time and he has been through so many Parliaments he cannot remember. This is the forty-eighth Parliament. Let me just say this. That Minister has been a Deputy Prime Minister in that time and it has taken him until today to pass legislation that will be enacted on 13 December. Currently out in the wide world it is 14 December. Those who are listening on radio are confused already when one tells them that the bill is being passed on the 13th and it is the 14th but in Parliament that is what happens. 
Can I also challenge the Green Party member who said—and it certainly is linked to the discussions that the Minister just had about the need to close up this gap—that I from the National Party had suggested we should go out and attack all the rivers in the South Island. I did not. When didymo was first found in the South Island it was in the bottom third of two rivers in Southland. So I suggested that there may be a way—and I know that there is because many people have made submissions along this line—of chemically treating those rivers. Yes it would have been devastating to the biodiversity in the bottom third of those rivers. 
Darren Hughes 
: It is a problem. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Yes I know what the problem was. The Labour Government was scared about what Green Party members—the rest of its twig and feather mates on whom it relies for support—would do so it never even considered that option. 
 I tell members that the pristine rivers in the whole of the South Island are now contaminated with an algae that will absolutely devastate the biodiversity of those rivers. The members of the Green Party will say that they stand for green principles. I ask them to reconcile that for me because I cannot figure it out. Perhaps the Green member will take a call and tell me how that is so. The bottom third of two rivers in the South Island would have been devastated under the proposal that I am suggesting for about 2 years and then the biodiversity would have returned. That is what I understand to be the case. If members want to know where this information came from I got it from the Minister’s office—surprise surprise. So I ask the Green Party member to do some research. 
There is a bigger issue even than didymo at stake here. It is the fact that our biosecurity both in terms of our legislation and in terms of the adequacy of the Minister and the Government to respond has gaping holes in it. It is a historic issue that has been inadvertently discovered as it were. It is a bit like the bee varroa mite when it came across our borders and 5 years after it was here the Government announced a strategy. This Government the Government of Mr Anderton—the member ranked No. 1 in a caucus of one—has decided to introduce a strategy to contain the bee varroa mite 5 years after it was introduced. 
I ask the Minister for goodness’ sake over the summer months to sit down with his advisers and to let them bring him up to speed. The director-general is a fine chap I am sure the Minister will agree and he will be on top of some of this stuff. I ask the Minister to give him the time to bring him up to speed please for the sake of New Zealand. 
When the Minister has done that I suggest that he ask a few hard questions about how even though we have all these grand overviews about how we have the best biosecurity in the world we have endless incursions—weekly incursions in fact. The Minister has just resigned himself to not even trying to eradicate. He has just walked away and washed his hands—and he will not be able to wash his hands in the South Island rivers any more because they will come out covered in didymo. I ask him for goodness’ sake to get on top of the portfolio and have a look at some of the gaps in it. 
Even if that does not work—and I suspect it will not—I ask the Minister to listen to some of the international advice. Professor Roger Morris has put together many many discussion papers on this and the Minister and his officials will not listen to that advice. The Minister might find that he can do this within baselines. 
I notice that the Minister of Finance is in the Chamber which is very good because if he looks at what has been spent on some of these belated eradication attempts that have failed he will find that it is millions of dollars. A little more should have been spent on surveillance in some areas and on strategy upfront in terms of an instant response and I agree with the Green Party member who suggested we should have had an instant response to didymo. 
The Government knew about this problem in October 2004. Here we are now in December 2005 and about 3 days ago the Government released a strategy whereby people had to wash their fishing rods and were not to go across Cook Strait with dirty gear. What was wrong with the Government doing something straight away particularly when it knew that there was something it could have done? Why did the Government not do that? 
Instead of sitting over there laughing and carrying on when somebody suggests an alternative the Minister needs to hold his officials to account and ask them why they never at least considered that option. The Minister can laugh and go on but we already know what the answer is. The Minister is too closely aligned with the twig and feather brigade that he depends on for his support. The Green members said it was impossible to treat the bottom third of two rivers in the South Island because the biodiversity in them would be devastated so we will just have to live with didymo which will devastate the biodiversity in all of the rivers of the South Island until it comes into the North Island and then it will do it there as well. The Minister needs to take some account of what has happened there. 
The sea squirt situation is of course yet another area where we have no strategy. We are chasing it around the country hopscotch. There are ways of treating that which are biodegradable and will not devastate the environment. The Minister will be aware of them. He can sit over there chirp away like some kind of budgie and support the rest of his team but the reality is that there is a way of treating that. Why not do it? [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister should go and talk to his advisers because they can tell him. They have told me. 
I tell the Minister to go and talk to his own department. There is a way of treating sea squirt. For didymo it is too late. The Minister has allowed it to go. He has let that go. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: We could not have treated it before. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It could have been treated in the two rivers where it was. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: How could we have treated it? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The Minister knows the answer and I am not going to bother with that. 
Let me just say to the Minister that 19.9 tonnes of fruit fly material came into this country last year carried by people. What will the Minister do about that? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Do you want to spray them? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I would not mind spraying the Minister but the people do not need spraying. What we need is thorough checks. I ask the Minister to listen to this figure because clearly he is not aware of it—people at airports carried 9.3 tonnes of meat and poultry products into this country last year on their person. How is that able to happen? 
The Minister sits there laughs and makes light of it. This country is at huge risk of a foot-and-mouth outbreak and the Minister sits there and thinks it is a big joke. That shows the depth of this Minister—absolutely none; zero depth. He is going to go out and hug and cuddle all these people. When he first became the Minister he gave a speech and said: “I’m the Minister who gets things done.” I remember this Minister telling us he was also the “Minister of Lower Petrol Prices”. Do members remember that? This Minister needs to go out and get something done about this. 
Biosecurity is a major problem. Three tonnes of seeds came into this country last year in grannies’ little handbags. And that Minister has done nothing about that either. If the agriculture sector wants to import a new cultivar of some sort and it has to go through the hazardous substances system which of course is a robust one it cannot get it through. But granny can bring it in in her handbag. The Minister will say that we have the best biosecurity system in the world. People carried 5829 plants into this country last year on their person. The Minister would not know that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Where did you get that from? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I got it from his department. He would not know that because he has never bothered to have a briefing. He should have a briefing from his own department. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No you didn’t. You stole those facts and that speech. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Stole them from where? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: From that Minister. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: How could I steal them from that Minister? That Minister does not even know that they exist. How could I steal them from there? I did not get them from that member. The member got them from me. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet here. That member got them from me. That is where they came from. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes you did it is 4 months old. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is more than that. It is about 8 months old. 
The saltmarsh mosquito cost $36 million—the Minister of Finance might want to know this—and the list still goes on. Do something! 
Bill read a second time. 
Procedure 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave for us to proceed forthwith to the third reading of this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to proceed to the third reading. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Third Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 The Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill is unfortunate in terms of the parliamentary process because we have had here an oversight that has gone through a series of checks and balances and has not been picked up. It demonstrates that clearly there are huge gaps in our biosecurity in this country. If something as basic as this can slip through in Parliament where law is supposedly drafted checked implemented and then followed up by officials it is no wonder that whole shiploads of stuff can slip through in the middle of the night. It is no wonder. 
 The Minister Jim Anderton’s biosecurity is full of as many holes as this bill is here to fix up. The Minister needs to get off his chuff over the summer months and get on top of this portfolio. He is now in charge of a very important area and I have seen no evidence at all that the public of New Zealand can have any confidence so far in what the Minister proposes to do. The Minister is clearly either suffering from the after-effects of whatever he was on last night or lacking what it is that he should be on. He is sitting there giggling like some demented teenager at some of the serious things that have been put forward here today and he is not in any way attempting to address them. 
During part of the time that this obvious deficiency existed in the legislation this Minister was the Deputy Prime Minister of the country. How many people knew that? Not very many—about as many as those who know that he is ranked No. 1 in his caucus of one. The Minister who now has that high ranking should do something and so far we have seen no evidence of him doing so. We have seen Jim Anderton give speeches to a number of different outfits and he has said: “I’m the Minister who gets out and does things. I’m the Minister who fixes things up.” Well I am not sure that the Minister of Finance who is sitting next to him is as confident in Jim Anderton’s ability to get things fixed up as Mr Anderton is. The Minister needs to do something in that regard. 
The first thing is that the Minister for Biosecurity needs to be in touch with his own department. In 2002 MAF Biosecurity released a paper on the future funding of biosecurity services. That paper asked about industries being involved in pest management strategies. In two major speeches so far the Minister has said that there cannot be a pest management strategy until there is an incursion. It is mad to do that. So we get a situation like the one we had with the post-weaning multisystemic wasting syndrome in pigs in which the industry itself was misguidedly led to believe that when something like that happened the Government would be there with a strategy to fix it up. Of course we had years of inaction and of virtually nothing happening at all. There was a lot of discussion and no action. Ultimately the industry said to the former Minister: “Look Minister if you had told us that that was the case we might have been prepared to put in some dough ourselves.” So why does this Minister not talk to industries—in particular to our primary industries—and say to them that this is a big threat to New Zealand and our economy and that obviously it is in the national interest for those threats to be addressed? 
National understands that industry may be prepared to get alongside us and work with us. This Minister will not do that—never in his life will he do that. The simple reason is that philosophically he is deadly opposed to it. It would be like talking to them—to those who might know what they are talking about—and accepting their advice. We could not have that—not under this Government. It will never happen. 
When we look at what happened with the varroa bee mite we see the reality that it took the Government 5 years to implement what is now a very inadequate strategy. We do not even know what that will cost the country. Has the Minister ever considered what that will cost the arable industries? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: How do you fix the varroa bee mite? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well it cannot be fixed now that the Government has let it go. It is a permanent resident. We will not even be able to keep it out of the South Island. How good is this Minister—can he keep it out of the South Island? Can he stand up in the House today and tell South Islanders that it will never go into the South Island? This Minister cannot even guarantee that the varroa bee mite will not go across to the South Island. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Are you going to guarantee it won’t go out of the South Island? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well the Minister could have guaranteed it would not come into New Zealand if he had done something about it. He knew about it in time to actually treat it. They got rid of it in northern Australia—in a much greater geographical area than we have. How did they do it? What did they do? The Minister might want to have a look at what the Aussies did. I am not one who likes being beaten by the Aussies but this Minister accepts it without any trouble at all. 
On average every day in this country 337 people are caught at our airports bringing in something that is a biosecurity risk. What has the Minister done about that? What has the Government in its 5 years done about it? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: We’ve caught them. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well OK so what about the ones that have not been caught? Biosecurity New Zealand the Minister’s own department estimates that only 90 percent are caught at best. So what will the Minister say in response to that? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: What are you going to do? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well we will certainly do a bit more than what this Minister is doing which is absolutely nothing. So far we have seen from the Minister a lot of hot air and absolutely no action. He needs to realise what a threat this is to the country and get on top of that. 
I ask the Minister of Finance whether he knows that the painted apple moth has so far cost $52 million and that $794000 a year is allocated on trying to control that alien. Did he know that? The reality is that if that money had been spent upfront on surveillance there would not be that ongoing cost. That is a typical short-sighted approach of: “Let’s try to fix it up once it gets in here.” The Minister of Finance needs to talk to his Minister for Biosecurity and get him to do something about that because he is costing the Government and the country a lot of money. 
The Minister for Biosecurity has so far shown an absolute lack of knowledge of what he is supposed to be doing. I repeat for the Minister that under section 69A of the Biosecurity Act a national pest management strategy must specify the following matters—the Minister needs to hear this—it must specify the pest first of all and then the strategy or management process in terms of eradicating that pest. That is what must happen under the Act. The Biosecurity Act also states that any person may prepare a proposal for national pest management strategies. How does that square with the two speeches from the Minister that said we cannot have a pest management strategy until there is an incursion? His Act actually requires that there be a pest management strategy. The Minister is in breach of his own Act and he does not even understand that. So I suggest he read the Act over the Christmas period and once he has read it he should be able to see the inadequacies in it such as the one that we are here today to fix up. 
He should get some good advice though; he should not rely on the advice he has been taking so far. He should not talk to the feather and twig brigade; he should get some proper advice. He should get some solid support for his ministry. He should talk to his colleague the Minister of Finance and get some horsepower into this area. 
Bill read a third time. 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 General and technical provisions 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National will support the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. It is the confirmation and validation of a number of pieces of legislation mainly of a technical nature. Part 1 which consists of general and technical provisions does not really inspire great debate and I will not be taking major calls on it. However I will have something specific to say when we get to Part 2 and that will relate to the biosecurity aspect which interestingly we have just been talking about in respect of the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill. It is interesting that this legislation follows that bill because I will be saying some specific things on that. I will also be looking at the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act which is an important piece of legislation that we will find in Part 2. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: As I said prior to the luncheon break one cannot get too enthusiastic about this bill. However it is important legislation in that it confirms and validates a number of pieces of legislation that would otherwise cause a lot of embarrassment and concern to people who might miss out especially in the area of superannuation. As I said earlier I will probably look at that issue in the debate on Part 2. 
I just draw the Committee’s attention to the report from the Regulations Review Committee that has been tabled. It is a very short report. Let us consider whom the committee consists of. It is chaired by Dr Richard Worth and if anybody has an understanding of legislation it must be Dr Worth. He has chaired that committee over the last 3 years and continues to chair it. His understanding and his ability to crystallise and articulate the arguments that are so important in the important legislation that we are discussing today is a credit to him. Also on the committee are Eric Roy and Kate Wilkinson. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That’s the A-team. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I say to the Minister that it is a good team of people who actually understand the technicalities and how this sort of legislation needs to be progressed. The Minister said it was the A-team—well Eric Roy was a member of the House some years ago and he has a deep understanding and can contribute to this process. Kate Wilkinson is a lawyer and her legal background is important and adds value to the process of this legislation. 
Part 1 looks at general and technical provisions and states that the bill’s purpose is to confirm and validate certain subordinate legislation in accordance with confirmation and validation provisions in the Acts under which it is made. Part 1 really sets the scene for what becomes important in Part 2 where there are specific issues that need attention drawn to. I will take a call on Part 2 mainly in relation to biosecurity. Of course just prior to the luncheon adjournment we passed all stages of the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill. That ties nicely into Part 2 in relation to the Biosecurity Act 1993. 
The other area that I think is significant relates to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964. We will be spending time on that. I do not wish to take further time on Part 1. As I said National will support this bill. Part 1 just relates to the general and technical provisions. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I am grateful for the comments made by the colleague who preceded me in connection with the Regulations Review Committee and its membership. He is right to say that the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill is not exactly bowel-gripping stuff. We are at the moment dealing with Part 1 “General and technical provisions”. Those provisions find their way before Parliament each year for each year involves the enactment of legislation of this type. 
There are a number of points of significance in connection with Part 1. The first relates to the purpose of the legislation. The bill is described as being “to confirm and validate certain subordinate legislation that in accordance with confirmation and validation provisions in the Acts under which it is made lapses at a stated time unless earlier confirmed or validated by Act of Parliament.” We are talking about subordinate legislation that in effect has a sunset clause. Unless this confirmation and validation process occurs the legislation is effectively spent. In looking at the actual orders that are confirmed because of their levy characteristics and the obligations for consultation it is clearly appropriate that there be the lapse of that subordinate legislation unless validated by Parliament. 
The bill is headed “Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill”. I will talk for a few moments about what is implicit in that word “subordinate”. We in this Chamber are used to passing bills that in due time become Acts or statutes. In the world of subordinate legislation we are not talking about Acts or statutes at all. We are talking about regulations rules and notices. The curious thing in the setting of the Regulations Review Committee is that not all subordinate legislation is within the purview of the committee. That is why in June 2004 the committee reported to Parliament on an inquiry into the principles determining whether delegated legislation is given the status of regulation. Some subordinate legislation is amenable to the jurisdiction of the committee and other legislation is not. That seems clearly anomalous—that was certainly the view of the committee. When the Government produced its response to the committee report that seemed similarly to be the response of the Government. 
I urge the Government in the context of the debate on Part 1 to take up a challenge that was issued by the Regulations Review Committee—to line up the definition of “regulations” in the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and the Interpretation Act 1999 with the definition of “legislative instrument” as set out in Australia’s Legislative Instruments Act 2003. That was too much for the Government to digest at first opportunity. Instead it sought a lapse of time so that it could look more closely at how the Australian legislation was working. 
We are concerned here with subordinate legislation that is amenable to Regulations Review Committee oversight. But such is not always the case. In this particular instance the committee wrote to the seven Government departments responsible for administering this legislation to ask them to explain why confirmation or validation was warranted. Those particular Government entities were the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry of Economic Development the Ministry of Transport the Ministry of Fisheries the Ministry of Social Development the New Zealand Customs Service and the New Zealand Defence Force. Those Government agencies were able to satisfy the committee that it was appropriate for this legislation to be passed so the committee recommended that course. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Confirmations and validations 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This is a continuation of the Committee stage of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill which National supports. We see in Part 2 a listing of a number of statutes including the Animal Products Act and the Biosecurity Act and I understand that Mr Tisch will speak on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. Under those Acts subordinate legislation is made that is required to be in some cases confirmed and in three cases validated and confirmed. Those three validation and confirmation orders relate to orders made under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act and the Social Security Act; the Tariff Act; and the War Pensions Act. 
 In what I hope will be the first of many calls on this important Part 2 I would just like to take as an example the Biosecurity Act 1993. It is an interesting illustration because Parliament is asked to confirm two orders. The first is the Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth Levy) Order and the second is the Biosecurity (Varroa (South Island) Beekeeper Levy) Order. I will deal first with the issue of the gypsy moth. 
Members who were on the select committee will know that that is one of the world’s most destructive forestry pests. So it was that Minister Sutton said that it took 2 years from the trapping of the final moth to declare a pest eradicated and the last and only Asian gypsy moth in the city of Hamilton was trapped on 26 March 2003. In looking at the issue of gypsy moth around the world it is quite clear it is a hugely destructive forest pest. Particularly in North America forests have been savaged by the emergence of the gypsy moth from the egg-larva cycle. 
I note that in April 2004 the then representative of the Green Party on issues of biosecurity noted that we needed on an ongoing basis to be extraordinarily vigilant in a setting where Asian gypsy moth egg masses were discovered on an imported vehicle. 
I have said that the legislation is made under the Biosecurity Act. I think what is interesting in connection with those two levies is that two quite separate sections of the Biosecurity Act are involved. The first is section 137 which relates to the gypsy moth provision and that particular statutory provision states that the Governor-General on the recommendation of the responsible Minister may by Order in Council impose a levy for the purposes of funding a service or function performed by the department for the purposes of the Act. 
If we look at the orders themselves we see they are cast in a very similar way but I note one striking difference between the two of them—that is in connection with the varroa mite conscientious objection provisions are built into the order itself. So under clause 18 headed “Conscientious objection” a beekeeper who objects on conscientious or religious grounds to paying the levy in the manner provided for by that order may pay the amount concerned to the Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. 
We are privileged to have in the House the Minister of Finance who has special expertise concerning the varroa mite and I invite him to make some explanation as to why it was appropriate in that particular levy order to include that conscientious objection provision. Why is it appropriate to provide as a ground for objection to payment of the levy the provision that in fact exists in this legislation? So a number of orders are referred to in Part 2 and those are two of the more interesting. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with confirmations and validations. I mentioned briefly in the debate on Part 1 that I wanted to look specifically at two areas one being the Biosecurity Act of 1993 and that I would mention in passing clause 13 “New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the Social Security Act 1964”. 
I have a question for the Minister however which maybe should have come up in the debate on Part 1. He may be able to respond to my question: as we are dealing with clauses that expire as there needs to be consultation and as the levies go up each year—that is the process we are going through—is there a proposition that under the sunset clause provisions we are dealing with there will be a tidier way of going through that process without having to come back on an annual basis to go through it? I see he is shaking his head— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think it is important that Parliament validates and confirms. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Would the Minister be prepared to take a call shortly just to say why we go through the process? It is mainly for the sake of interest that I ask him to do so because I look at other jurisdictions and see sunset clauses—Australia has moved very much to sunset clauses in a lot of its legislation—and I would really like to know for my own interest if for no one else’s why we do this on an annual basis. If the Minister does take a call I would certainly appreciate it. 
I come back to clause 9 in Part 2 which concerns the whole area of biosecurity and in particular the gypsy moth levy and the varroa South Island bee-keeper levy. It was interesting that prior to the luncheon break we passed the Biosecurity (Status of Specified Ports) Amendment Bill which National supported because it is our view that nothing is more important than biosecurity. We must have defences and we must have in place the mechanisms to protect not only our exports but our culture and our heritage. Those things cannot be compromised. 
In relation to the Biosecurity Act of 1993 I want to spend time on the varroa mite which has caused so many problems. It was originally envisaged of course that the varroa bee mite would go only as far south as Taupo. Then over time it has actually now—oh yes; the Minister is shaking his head—extended its area throughout the whole of the North Island. My colleague Shane Ardern during his speech on the previous bill asked what would happen if the varroa bee mite actually ends up in the South Island. That would be a huge problem for bee-keepers in the South Island just as it is for those around the rest of New Zealand and that is why we must make sure that the requirements levies and protection for our biosecurity are paramount. 
It is our view that the Government has been lax in this area and that there were very clear indications that the varroa bee mite would become a problem. If it gets into the South Island then we are in real trouble. I actually mentioned that earlier on in the first reading debate before the bill went to the Regulations Review Committee. I do not know what discussion was held specifically on clause 9 which concerns the biosecurity area during the deliberations of the committee. Maybe my colleague Dr Worth can fill us in on that. 
I also want to draw the attention of the Committee to clause 12 which concerns the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and in particular the Customs Import Prohibition (Trout) Amendment Order. That is a very very important clause as it relates to the Waikato an area I represent and to trout fishing. The whole trout issue is a very important one for tourism. People travel the world to come and fish for trout so it is very important that we do not relax the requirements on importing trout because of its potential effect on tourism. What attracts a lot of overseas people to New Zealand are the trout throughout the Rotorua and Taupo region and further north into the Waikato. So I bring clause 12 and the prohibition order there to the attention of the Committee. It is very important and important for our region. I know that Stevie Chadwick is here in the Chamber and that she would also say that on behalf of Rotorua. She nods her head in agreement with me. She also did that during the first reading of the bill so I know I am actually on the right track. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 If I could try to respond briefly my understanding is that the conscientious objection clause and the levy issue there relates to similar provisions in the Commodity Levies Act and therefore has been carried over into that. In terms of the primary issue raised by Mr Tisch I think it is very important where the Government is imposing levies creating new levies or increasing levies and where it is increasing things like superannuation and benefits that have very significant fiscal costs that Parliament retains its ultimate right of control over those decisions made by the Government. The Government cannot keep coming back for primary legislation every time these kinds of things are required. However it is important that the Government is simply able to impose them without reference back. On occasions in the past separate legislation has been required for that confirmation. It is now the practice and has been for some years to have a single Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act. 
I am afraid I cannot advise the member about the possibility of the South Island being infested by the varroa mite. Clearly no level of regulation could prevent that from happening. Indeed there was hope that a line could be drawn somewhere around Taupo but the varroa bee mite was able to cross that line and so it spread. As always with those kinds of pests once they are here we can only manage them. They are not able to be eliminated because they quickly become widespread throughout the country. 
The member raised one other issue I think which has escaped my mind— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I mentioned trout. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The issue of trout—yes indeed. The view is commonly held that if trout were able to be farmed that would somehow reduce the value of freshwater angling for trout in the same way that if—in a strange and unreal world that one could not possibly imagine—one could buy tinned tuna that would clearly remove the ambitions of people who want to go deep-sea fishing for wild tuna. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There will be one debate for clauses 1 and 2. The vote will be separate. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This is important legislation albeit as I have said it is not bowel-gripping. I have made a point that I would just like to underscore again in connection with the name of this legislation—the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. What is in a name some might ask. But often the importance of a title is understated. It seems to me that two clear principles should dominate the minds of those who name bills. The first is whether the name of the bill accurately reflects the content of the legislation. The second point is that for those who follow in our shoes as legislators or those who study legislation whether as students or as practitioners the legislation is logically named. 
If one were looking to find this legislation it might not be an easy exercise. How would one learn the status of the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2005 if one did not know that there was legislation of validation and confirmation? I would like to see and I know that National would like to see consideration given to a recommendation of the Regulations Review Committee that the phrase “regulation” is worthy of review. It is really against that background that the Regulations Review Committee recommended to the Government that an opportunity be taken to define what regulations are because the reality is that there are a number of pieces of subordinate legislation like these that are not titled regulations but which for practical purposes are regulations and are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Regulations Review Committee. 
So if one looks at the Road User Charges (Rates) Order 2005 which is referred to in clause 14 one might think that it is not a regulation. It is expressed on its face to be an order. But in the context of the jurisdiction of the Regulations Review Committee and the obligations for publication of orders it is in fact a regulation. That is why it seemed to me in a compelling way that it was appropriate to recommend to the Government that it amend the definition of regulations in the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 and in the Interpretation Act 1999 in line with the definition of legislative instrument as set out in the Australian Legislative Instruments Act 2003. 
There are a number of justifications for doing that. There is a jurisprudential justification but I would say there is also a case for aligning as much as we can our legislation with Australia. I express a caution in connection with that because we should not adopt Australian practices that lead to increased costs of compliance increased bureaucracy and the like but that need not be the case here. If we had a definition of and register of legislative instruments then much of the difficulty that I have adverted to in my previous comments would not arise. 
Of course we have a commencement date for this legislation in clause 2. The Act will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. That is why one assumes we are in urgency for the purposes of the consideration of this legislation: to avoid the possibility that a gap will occur and there will arise for a period an inability on the part of the Crown to collect what are in the nature in many cases in Part 2 of levies or taxes. 
I am not really persuaded by the view Dr Cullen has offered as to why there is a conscientious objection provision in one of these orders. That seems sadly misplaced and out of date in the context of this sort of legislation. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I will just finalise the debate for National on the title and commencement date of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. One of the important pieces of legislation that is provided for in this bill which I did briefly mention is the confirmation of the rates of New Zealand superannuation coming under the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and Social Security Act 1964. I just make the comment that if the rates of superannuation are not changed then we are in a very dire strait. Many many New Zealanders would be disaffected by that and it would cause hardship. So the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2005 which was made on 7 March 2005 is validated and confirmed by this bill. When we come back to the title of the bill we find it actually ties in nicely with that regulation. 
That order increased most benefits and pensions in accord with the all groups consumer price index which increased by 2.7 percent. In particular the order increased the amounts of funeral grants and increased the widows benefit invalids benefit unemployment benefit sickness benefit domestic purposes benefit child disability benefit disability benefit independent youth-related emergency benefit and the hospital rate. We are confirming and validating a very important regulation today and that is why the title of this bill encompasses those provisions. The maximum amount of income that a blind beneficiary could earn while still receiving a subsidy was also increased as were certain asset and income limits. The order also increased the rates of New Zealand superannuation entitlements. 
In bringing the debate to a close for National I say we support this legislation. We supported it in the first reading in the select committee stage and through the Committee stage and we will also support it in the third reading. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the passage of the bill but I just want to stand and congratulate Mr Worth and Mr Tisch. Every morning when I wake up I thank God that there are such people as Mr Worth and Mr Tisch in this world and specifically in this Parliament. I could not bear to do the wonderful work that they do such as going through all of these bills word by word and clause by clause. I think they do a wonderful job. I think the rest of us in this Parliament who are more generalist in nature and dare I say it have a much more positive outlook on life than they do thank them sincerely for the work they do. I just could not let this time go by without putting that on the record. I thank those two gentlemen. I appreciate the fact that they are here. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time 
. During a reasonably lengthy Committee stage we were treated to the full array of legal talent on the National Party benches with Mr Richard Worth acting as senior counsel and Mr Lindsay Tisch acting as junior counsel. A number of searching and probing questions were asked such as why the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill was called the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill. The answer to that question is that after considerable effort and despite calls in the past by the National Party for a royal commission on this matter to investigate the title we decided that as it confirms and validates subordinate legislation we might as well give in and call it the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill—prosaic I admit though that title is. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: It was a great question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It was a great question. We then had a number of detailed questions. But what I want to dwell on for a few minutes as this is probably my last speech before Christmas or maybe the second last— 
Hon Members 
: Horray! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Members might not cheer so much when they hear the last one. 
 Mr Tisch quite rightly pointed out the importance of the fact that every year we have an increase in New Zealand superannuation which this bill validates. I must say I agree very firmly with that. Every year under this Government we have had an increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation including in 2000 the first year. This increase was well above the rate of inflation. But I do have to remind Mr Tisch very gently—I realise he is a young junior member of this House—that three times under a 9-year National Government there was no annual increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation. There was no validation of an increase in the rate of New Zealand superannuation because it was not increased. In 1991 1992 and 1999 the National Party did not increase the rate of New Zealand superannuation. It was frozen for 3 years out of the 9 years National was in office. 
So I welcome this conversion experience on the part of Mr Tisch to the virtues of the annual indexation of New Zealand superannuation. I trust he will stand tall within his caucus when his colleagues start arguing that in order to pay for tax cuts they have to freeze the rate of New Zealand superannuation because that is exactly what happened in 1999. National legislated for a tax cut and in the same year for a cut in the level of New Zealand superannuation. The two went together. 
But we will not revisit those arguments at this point. It is cruel and unkind to go through them yet again. We shall save them for 2008. The one thing about them is that they do not go stale in the cupboard. They are always fresh when they come out again during election years. So I thank Mr Tisch for reminding me of that fact. He gave me as the architect of the superannuation fund something to talk about that is close to my heart: the current wage banding for New Zealand superannuation and from 2007 onwards the KiwiSaver scheme. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 We are in the process of passing the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill which National supports. I would like to record my appreciation on behalf of the National Party for the very kind comments made to some of its members in the Committee stage by Mr Woolerton. I also express what I am sure will be the position that in the unlikely event that the two members nominated for special mention should ever seek to leave this Parliament they will be able to use the comments that he made as a valuable testimonial for their future gainful employment. 
In accordance with the parliamentary process this legislation was referred to the Regulations Review Committee and the committee had the task of judging whether it was appropriate that this legislation be recommended to the House for further passage. To do that it was necessary for the committee to seek the views of the relevant Government departments as to whether validation and confirmation of a number of orders was appropriate. It is worthy of note that three particular orders made in the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill are both validated and confirmed. The balance of the orders are simply confirmed. 
But this validation is not the cure-all that it might seem to be on its face. Clause 4 provides that the validations to prevent expiry do not cure invalidity. The actual wording of the provision is: “In the light of their purpose the validations effected by sections 13 15 and 16 do not—(a) express an intention to give legislative force to the provisions of the enactments validated; or (b) apply to any reason for invalidating any of those enactments; or (c) override any presumption that would otherwise apply to any of those enactments.” That particular clause is densely written and turgidly worded but its effect is quite clear. Its effect is to preserve intact the ability of those who wish to challenge the validity of these orders to do so on administrative law grounds. 
 In Part 2 the parliamentary counsel has identified a number of orders and the legislation under which they were enacted that are singled out for confirmation and validation. It is perhaps a somewhat unusual process in that generally legislation endures until it is repealed but in this bill we have an example where unless the legislation is confirmed it will lapse. So it would be the case that the Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth Levy) Order and the Biosecurity (Varroa (South Island) Beekeeper Levy) Order would have no continued legal force but for the passage of this bill. 
In the course of the debate I have made a number of points and I will highlight two of them. The first is to refer briefly to the inquiry by the Regulations Review Committee which made a recommendation to try to draw into line with Australian practice and authority this tricky issue of what a regulation is. Because although these documents that we are confirming and validating are in most cases said not to be regulations they in fact are. It is a constant search by the Regulations Review Committee particularly in the exercise of its complaints jurisdiction to determine whether a particular subordinate legislation is or is not a regulation. 
The second point I have made is that at least in one case relating to the varroa levy there are these curious rights of conscientious objection. We generally think of rights of conscientious objection being exercised in a context that is substantially related to someone not being prepared to serve in war—or in any event as a defence against compulsory conscription which is no longer in place in this country. It seems to me most anomalous that there should be preserved in this legislation this conscientious objection provision which is contained in clause 18. I am aware it is in other legislation and the Minister responsible for this bill has suggested that the Commodity Levies Act has similar provisions. But why is there a conscientious objection right in respect of the Biosecurity (Varroa (South Island) Beekeeper Levy) Order 2005 yet there is not in respect of broadly comparable legislation related to the Biosecurity (Gypsy Moth) Levy) Order 2004? 
It is right to say that those two orders are made under different sections of the Biosecurity Act—in the one case under section 137 and in the other under section 90. It is also right to say that one such statutory provision is concerned with the funding of services and another is concerned with the funding of strategies but those points in themselves I would contend are not a sufficient reason for the inclusion of rights of conscientious objection in respect of one order and no such rights of conscientious objection in another. 
I would like to say something very briefly about the varroa bee mite picking up on wise and careful words used by Mr Tisch in the course of the Committee stage. Indeed I had not appreciated until I stood in the Chamber today just what a fund of knowledge on this important legislation Mr Tisch had within his breast. It seems to be the case in varroa bee mite issues that in the absence of treatment an infested bee colony typically dies when the varroa population reaches a certain level. From the work that Mr Tisch has shown me this threshold level appears to differ between locations and seasons. So we are looking at a range of issues in the context of varroa such as the cumulative effects of decreased weight of adult bees decreased lifespan of adult bees virus infection issues relating to transmission by varroa feeding on pupae and as Mr Tisch has also noted in discussion with me deformed wings and abdomens probably resulting from virus infestations. 
But my having looked at those sorts of aspects the reality is that pollination of many significant crop species in the horticulture arable and pastoral sectors is dependent on honey bees and a reduction in pollination of horticultural and arable crops could result in decreases overall in crop quality. So it is clearly appropriate as we look at that particular order that there be provisions of this type where funding can be extracted from relevant groupings to deal with what is clearly a threat to agribusiness in this country. 
Finally I commend this bill to the House and record on behalf of the Regulations Review Committee the work of its members in ensuring this bill come back to the House in such fine form. 
Bill read a third time. 
Veterinarians Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Veterinarians Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was tabled in the House in December 2004. It had its first reading on 17 February 2005 after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The committee received and considered 10 written submissions on the bill. 
The bill replaces and improves upon the 1994 Veterinarians Act. The bill provides a more modern and flexible regulatory framework for veterinary practice in New Zealand which makes the regulation of the veterinary profession comparable with that of other regulated professions such as the medical profession. The bill takes account of the recent developments in veterinary training throughout the world and enables a larger pool of overseas-trained veterinarians to seek registration in New Zealand thereby easing the workload and stress levels faced by New Zealand veterinarians. The provisions in the bill confer powers on the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to provide the council with a much wider range of options to manage and deal with disciplinary and competency matters. 
The key issues raised in the submissions seem to relate to five measures: firstly to clarify the definition of the term “veterinarian”; secondly to broaden the coverage of the limited registration provision; thirdly the independence of the complaints and disciplinary processes; fourthly the right of appeal by veterinarians and by complainants; and fifthly the provisions relating to interim suspension of veterinarians. 
The term “veterinarian” was defined in the bill as a person who meets the criteria for registration and is registered under the Act. Some submitters suggested that the definition should be amended so that people are entitled to call themselves a veterinarian only if they are registered and also hold a practising certificate. I support the committee’s recommendation to amend that definition so that it refers to a person who is registered and has a current practising certificate. This amendment would assist the council in protecting the reputation of the veterinary brand and it would also ensure that only those persons who have current skills and knowledge and who are subject to the council’s control can use the term “veterinarian”. 
 The bill provided that persons who have suitable tertiary qualifications but do not meet the full registration requirements can be registered under the limited registration category for 12 months plus one extension for a further 12 months. This provision was initially designed to provide stronger incentives to attract and retain overseas veterinary specialists in New Zealand while still providing for sufficient incentives for such persons to seek full registration. It was intended to be used only in exceptional and unusual circumstances. A number of submitters suggested that the time limits on limited registration should be removed thereby giving the council greater flexibility to determine an adequate time frame for issuing limited registration. They also considered that the time limit would be a disincentive to overseas veterinarians who specialise in particular fields to seek employment in New Zealand. Some stakeholders are strongly opposed to the proposal to remove the time limits. They consider that removing them could potentially create a new permanent subcategory of veterinarians with limited registration which could potentially compromise animal welfare standards the integrity of our meat export certification systems and our international reputation for producing safe food. 
I support the committee’s recommendation to remove the statutory time limits on the length of time a person may hold a limited registration with some added safeguards. The first safeguard is a requirement for the Veterinary Council to develop scopes of practice for limited registration in consultation with relevant statutory agencies and key stakeholders. The second safeguard is the requirement for the Veterinary Council to take account of the effect of any proposed scopes of practice on New Zealand’s economic interests and to ensure that the proposed scopes are consistent with New Zealand’s food safety biosecurity and animal welfare regimes. 
The complaints and disciplinary processes form a significant part of the bill. The bill sets out a robust investigative and disciplinary process. It provides the Veterinary Council with greater means of ensuring veterinarians practise to the highest possible standards. Examples of this include the ability of the council to set minimum standards of practice and to impose conditions on a veterinarian’s practising certificate. Some submitters considered that the existing complaints and disciplinary processes are weighted in favour of veterinarians and suggested establishing an independent disciplinary complaints tribunal. I support the committee’s recommendation not to make any substantive changes to the disciplinary process specified in the bill. The Primary Production Committee considered the complaints procedures very thoroughly and I endorse its decisions. I agree with the committee’s view that the structures and processes proposed in the bill for complaints investigation provide the council with an efficient mechanism to ensure that adequate standards are maintained. The council has a strong interest in ensuring high standards of veterinary practice and maintaining credibility for the veterinary profession. 
The bill provides a veterinarian with the right to appeal to a District Court against any council disciplinary action relating to that veterinarian. Some submitters considered that the bill should provide the same rights to complainants. I support the committee’s recommendation not to change the appeal rights provision in the bill. Disciplinary decisions made by the complaints assessment committee can affect a veterinarian’s professional livelihood and reputation. Therefore it is prudent to include in the bill a safeguard to ensure that the veterinarian has a relatively inexpensive means of appealing disciplinary decisions. The decisions of the complaints assessment committee do not have the same ramifications for complainants as they do for veterinarians themselves. Complainants have other avenues for redress for example. They can challenge the complaints assessment committee process by judicial review in the High Court or pursue the veterinarian concerned by judicial process based on the law of contract. Complainants are in the same situation as persons who are unhappy with the work of a tradesman or with the work performed by persons in other professions. 
The bill provides for the council to impose interim suspension on a veterinarian’s ability to practise. This can be done on the recommendation of the complaints assessment committee after an investigation. The council may suspend the veterinarian until a hearing is completed or until the veterinarian has undergone a medical or competency assessment. Some submitters considered that in some circumstances it may be necessary to impose interim suspension before an investigation in order to protect the public or the veterinarian from harm. I support however the committee’s recommendation that interim suspension provisions for medical matters matters of competence and disciplinary matters be more clearly separated. I consider that it is inappropriate to impose interim suspension on a veterinarian prior to an investigation on disciplinary matters. A suspension is a serious action and can have a significant impact on the veterinarian’s reputation and livelihood. However in the case of medical-related matters immediate action may sometimes be necessary in order to protect the welfare of the public and the veterinarian himself or herself. 
The bill provides the veterinary profession with a more modern and flexible regulatory framework. The bill also contains provisions that will help to increase the confidence that our livestock-based industries our export markets the many thousands of owners of companion animals and pets and the New Zealand public have in the veterinarians practising in New Zealand. I thank the members and the chairman of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill and for their report which was tabled on 14 June 2005. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I will start by thanking the new Minister of Agriculture and the Leader of the House for finally allowing this legislation to be progressed. I know from briefing papers he received following the election and from papers I received that it has been of huge concern to the Veterinary Association and to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand that the work has now be completed by the select committee for exactly 6 months. It is interesting that on 14 June 2005 we reported this legislation back to the House. I know that representations were made to the Government by numerous people within this vital profession that the matter be progressed before the election. The Government saw fit to leave it on the Order Paper but I do genuinely say thanks to them for finally bringing it to the House today so that we can pass it through all its stages. 
This legislation is important. It affects a vital career in this country and if it had been held over any longer it would have meant that the registration processes that are vitally changed by this legislation would not have been able to be used by the profession until the registration year 2006-07. The work had been done by the select committee—I will comment in detail on that shortly—and there seemed to be no good reason why the matter should not have been progressed with more urgency by the Government. 
As the Minister has outlined there are three major reasons for this legislation. There was a need for the qualifications of vets to be recognised when they qualified overseas. We needed to have a registration process that was modern and gave people travelling through New Zealand the ability to accept limited registration. We put a lot of effort into the third purpose of this legislation which deals with the disciplinary powers and process of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. 
The Primary Production Committee did a lot of work on this legislation and as is typical of that committee it was done without rancour and division as we worked through issues— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Wonderful chairperson! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I could not possibly comment on that but I can certainly say that as a group of parliamentarians we worked through the issues as diligently as we could and I feel confident that the legislation as presented back to the House now is substantially improved and again I want to comment on that. 
If anybody looks at this legislation they will see that there have been a large number of changes. We did not receive many submissions as the Minister noted—in fact only 10 and we heard only eight of those—and the interesting thing about half of those submissions is that they were given to the select committee by people who tended to be distraught and distressed about the treatment their beloved animal had received from a particular vet. These people were still disputing the competence of the vet who had attended their animal. I know that Doug Woolerton certainly wants to talk about Bianca the parrot shortly and I will leave him to do that. Their submissions to be truthful were largely irrelevant to the bill in that it was not our job to relitigate processes that had been undertaken by the Veterinary Council. 
A matter on which those submitters did have every right to appear before the select committee—and I assure those people that we diligently considered their particular submissions—was whether we were setting up satisfactory processes whereby the competency of the veterinary profession and of any particular vet was adequately checked and cross-checked. Numerous people within the select committee process made the comment to us that the process seemed to be one that was significantly about judging the competency of fellow vets. That frankly is inevitable. On the complaints assessment committee we have two vets and one layperson. The role of that committee is to hear the initial application of complaint and decide whether the matter warrants further investigation. If it does require further investigation then the complaints assessment committee sends it to a judicial committee which again is made up of one member of the Veterinary Council—a vet appointed with a particular expertise and experience with regard to the complaint that is being made by the complainant—one layperson and a solicitor of not less than 7 years’ experience in law which is a change we made through the select committee process. 
So I acknowledge that without doubt the process is dominated by the veterinary profession but I say to those people that there is no other way it can be done. One cannot have a process by which the complaint is judged by people who do not have the professional expertise to consider the legitimacy of the complaint. 
Finally with regard to this matter I see no reason at all why the veterinarians involved in this particular judgment process would in any way make a judgment that lowered the standards of the veterinary profession throughout New Zealand. It simply would not be in their interests to do so. 
There is little doubt that the original Act of 1994 which is not so very old when we think about it did need to be modernised. I think that one of the reasons is that we significantly recognise the shortage of vets in this country. For example we received a submission from Massey University and the committee recognised without doubt that the qualification delivered from Massey University for veterinarians is internationally regarded. It is therefore not surprising that our graduates are then able to take that qualification go overseas and earn substantially more than they are able to earn if they remain in New Zealand. I speak from experience because I have a niece who qualified through Massey University. She has spent most of her time since qualifying working out of Melbourne in Australia where she is able to earn substantially more money than she can in New Zealand. That means that we have a looming shortage of veterinarians in New Zealand and no more so than in rural New Zealand. That is something that should alarm every member of this House because we are a country totally dependent on the value of agriculture. 
The Labour Government may finally wake up to the fact that agriculture is the backbone of the economy and that because we are so dependent on primary production it is essential to have a process whereby we encourage vets to stay in New Zealand. If that is not sufficient to supply the numbers we need then we must have a process by which we can utilise young vets who have qualified overseas and who have come to New Zealand perhaps on work experience and use them for 2 years; or perhaps a process whereby people with an overseas qualification of the right standard is recognised and allow those people to enter the profession in New Zealand. 
In my closing time I want to comment on the fact that anybody studying this legislation will note that there has been significant change via the select committee process. The question therefore needs to be asked about what consultation occurred out of the lead Minister—who at that stage was the Hon Jim Sutton—with the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association. Sadly we were told that not enough consultation took place. Consequently we had to take a step that was unusual in the New Zealand select committee process but one that has been used very very successfully in the Primary Production Committee whereby the committee got the officials the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association to work closely with it through the deliberation process. I want to extend my thanks to Julie Haggie chief executive officer of the Veterinary Council to Ron Gibson its chairperson and to Murray Gibb chief executive officer of the New Zealand Veterinary Association for the input and assistance they gave to the select committee so that we were able to deliver legislation that will now work. It seems to me absolutely pointless for a Government to be so disconnected from this profession that it advances legislation that straight away the industry is at loggerheads with. So I take the opportunity of thanking the members of my select committee. It is rather sad to look at the list of people who worked through it and to see that people like Janet Mackey my then deputy chair is no longer a member of Parliament. But she is a person to whom I pay tribute. She did an immense amount of work on that particular select committee. We have re-formed it with a new membership and I can assure the House that we greatly miss the contribution of Doug Woolerton. It has almost become a serious select committee but I am working on that and we will have some humour introduced to it over time I can assure members. The National Party certainly supports the second reading of this legislation. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 This bill is a responsible Government bill. Although the Opposition would have us believe that this Government has no interest in the primary production sector here we have a very very responsible bill. It is a modern bill that provides for a very important profession in our country. Can I say that I know a little bit about vets. Members may not believe this but in my many varied careers in the past I once worked as a vet nurse. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That explains everything! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes I was looking after cats I say to the member. It might explain how I deal with him. I appreciate the member’s thanks for the Government bringing this bill to the House to go through all its stages. 
Hon David Carter 
: You took your time. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The member should be grateful that we are doing it under urgency. I think it is wonderful. The vets out there will be very happy that it will be passed by Christmas. 
This bill modernises legislation that was first enacted in 1994. It includes the qualification requirements for vets to be recognised overseas it updates the registration processes and categories and it deals with disciplinary powers. I congratulate members both past and present of the Primary Production Committee. I look forward to hearing from Mr Woolerton about the parrot and I commend this bill to the House to go through all its stages. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is good to see that senior members still get the call in the House and I thank you for calling me Mr Deputy Speaker. I too would like to reflect on the concerns that the Veterinary Association and the Veterinary Council had—concerns that they certainly expressed to members of the Primary Production Committee during its proceedings and post-proceedings during the election campaign—that this bill pass through the House before Christmas. They saw a degree of urgency in the need to embark on new registration criteria in the new year rather than let them lapse for 18 months or 2 years after all the work that has been done. 
We are cutting it very fine but people within the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association will be celebrating the passing of this legislation this evening. They want to use the registration changes it contains in the new year rather than waiting another 18 months or 2 years because they see the changes and the conclusion of this bill as very satisfactory indeed. They had a large amount of input and we thank the people who came before the select committee to contribute. 
 The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee at the beginning of this year. The period for making submissions was just over a month. There were not too many submissions but they were substantial. We heard eight out of 10 in person and as the Hon David Carter indicated to the House we worked quite hard with both the council and the association during deliberations to make sure we got it right. We received advice from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and we thank the ministry for that. I also acknowledge other members in the House who worked on this bill. 
In terms of the substance of the legislation it generally achieves three major things. First of all the qualification requirements for veterinarians are put down clearly for all to see. The registration processes and categories for veterinarians are also stipulated in the legislation and the disciplinary powers of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand are also outlined. There is much more clarity on the way through those registration qualification and disciplinary proceedings and what has to take place. 
One of the big issues that we had to work on quite hard was actually the definition of what a veterinarian was. We had to recommend that the definition of “veterinarian” in clause 4 be amended to make sure that a veterinarian is in fact a registered person who holds a practising certificate. Why that is so important is that we need to protect the brand. The Hon David Carter already outlined the amount of respect that New Zealand - trained veterinarians have throughout the world. We also need to make sure that practising New Zealand veterinarians are respected throughout the world. The reason for this is no more than the needs of overseas countries when often they call on New Zealand expertise. We saw evidence of that in Britain last year when the foot-and-mouth scare hit. The British were burning stock investigating stock and isolating stock and they called on New Zealand veterinarians to consult with and work with their staff. We need to protect the brand. There is no doubt now under this legislation that a veterinarian is a registered person who holds a current practising certificate and that protects our good veterinarians in this country and abroad. 
In stating that I have to point out that we had to recommend an amendment. I refer members to clause 30AA “Interpretation” which makes it clear that when there are complaints or disciplinary hearings the Veterinary Council can haul before it veterinarians who did not hold a current practising certificate. In other words the fact that one’s practising certificate had lapsed does not mean that a veterinarian cannot be held accountable for poor practice on the day when he or she was carrying the practising certificate and was registered. 
So if members turn to clause 30AA they will see that it states: “In this Part specified person—(a) means a veterinarian or a person who was a veterinarian at the time of the relevant conduct; and (b) 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 means that no veterinarians who find themselves the subject of an investigation in relation to poor conduct or poor practice can say that they are not accountable to the disciplinary procedures because they are no longer registered or were not registered at the time or do not currently hold a practising certificate. So we have tidied up that loophole in the definitions. I am pleased that that will actually give the council the ability to take disciplinary action against a person if he or she continues to practise after their practising certificate has lapsed. They should not be doing that and they will be held accountable. 
We also had to deal with a second major issue and that was to do with the limited registration criteria. We wanted to remove the time limits in relation to how long a person may hold limited registration. Currently temporary registration is able to be gained for 3 months and it can be extended to 6 months—that is under the 1994 Act. The Minister wanted to change that so that limited registration may be applied for for 12 months with an extension of a further 12 months. The reason we are now removing the time constraints—we would prefer obviously to have temporary registration and then vets coming under the full registration fairly quickly—is that we need to provide incentives to attract and retain overseas veterinary specialists in New Zealand. Just like every other professional area in this country we are seeing young New Zealanders train and then going overseas. 
The New Zealand taxpayer is paying for the training of architects engineers veterinarians as we see here doctors nurses and professional engineers such as myself—I stay only to serve this country. All of them are trained in this country and they are being driven overseas by high taxes high compliance costs and the degree of political correctness that hounds them daily in their professional lives—all those sorts of things. They are being driven overseas by all the taxes costs and political correctness and it is no different for veterinarians. We had to change this clause and allow for limited registration in order to provide the incentive for overseas-trained veterinarians to come to New Zealand and stay and replace the fleeing hordes of young 20 to 25-year-old New Zealanders who are running over to Australia and the UK to set up a better life and we are planning for 2008 when they will return to New Zealand to go to the ticker-tape parade in Queen Street to welcome a National-led Government. So that is what they are doing. They are overseas and they will be there for 3 years saving some money for that ticker-tape parade. 
So we have open-ended the limited registration period instead of restricting it for 12 months to attract and retain these overseas veterinary specialists. There were some problems. We had concerns from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority which saw this as possibly creating incentives for people to reduce costs by employing veterinarians with limited registration and we acknowledge that. But what can we do? What can we do if young New Zealanders are being driven overseas by high taxes and political correctness and are being hounded by compliance costs every day in their professional lives? There is nothing else we can do. We are subject to that phenomenon—we have seen for the last 6 years—and all we can do is extend the limited registration provisions and we have done so. 
We also looked at the rights of appeal of vets and complainants. My colleagues will expand on that particular issue and I know that members are looking forward to hearing something of a dissertation on that. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Needless to say New Zealand First will support this legislation. I want to commend the chairman of the Primary Production Committee who did a great job. I am sorry that I am no longer on that select committee; my leader saw fit to put me on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I am sure it was not for punishment reasons—I could not imagine why he would want to punish me—but for any sins he may have seen me commit he has put me on that committee and one does the best one can. 
As Mr Heatley was talking about I think it is absolutely sensible that this bill tops up the number of vets and that we make up for the loss of those going overseas by bringing people in. Their degrees may be different but this bill allows them to have a year to align themselves with our degree and we think that that is absolutely sensible. 
I do not know whether people realise in what a high status vets are held in rural areas and the farming world; they are looked on much as the family doctor in a way. Having been a farmer I understand that. Farmers are often accused of being heartless—I have never seen myself that way to be honest—but I have always looked on vets as the ones who will save a couple of thousand bucks by fixing up a cow or whatever. They have a great status and their expertise and education is respected in the community. 
A lot of people do not understand that often veterinarians particularly those on the edges of a rural and an urban community in fact operate two practices. One is a large animal practice and one is a small animal practice: urban dogs cats and that sort of thing. Needless to say farmers being what they are the large animal practice is the one that creates the most work and certainly creates the most sweat but it is the small animal practice that is the most profitable yet creates the most stress. 
That was amply demonstrated in the submission process when we heard a submission regarding one Bianca Parker-Green. I would hate people to get the wrong idea that I do not read my select committee papers diligently word for word—I would have to write a letter to the chairman and admit to that—but on this occasion I have to say that I did not. When two ladies came in and described the treatment that Bianca Parker-Green had been subjected to by veterinarians I must say that I was alarmed and concerned. That was because I thought they were talking about a family member—which indeed they were because to those two ladies Bianca Parker-Green was a family member. In fact as I later found out Bianca Parker-Green was a pet cockatoo. It was a revelation to me—on coming from a rural environment—that those people were so concerned. If the two ladies in question are listening I do not want them to be offended in any way. I do not want them to think that we were taking matters lightly because we were not. But it really was a revelation to me because they were talking about their cockatoo in the way that many of us would talk about a family member—because to them she was. 
I did not realise that fully until our own dearly beloved Labrador had to be put down by the vet who used to treat the animals on our farm. I rang him and said: “Murray our dog has reached the end of its days. I am not going to bring this dog to you because I am a tender little soul and I just cannot do that.” I could not take the dog for its last trip in the car so Murray came to our house gave the dog a lethal injection and that was that. 
 It was not until that point that I realised what the situation was with Bianca and that we in the select committee saw another side of the veterinary profession. We had to go through that submission with the two ladies concerned in a very very careful manner because they were very concerned that the Veterinary Council and what was the disciplinary tribunal had not done their job properly and we were also concerned. The fact that I had not fully read every word in my papers and the fact that I thought the cockatoo was a human family member somewhat confused the situation. Indeed I wondered what part of New Zealand they were coming from in getting a vet to attend to a female family member. But when I found out it was a cockatoo it all fell into place. I must say that the chairman handled the job with decorum and taste and with the dignity required of him. He kept us all in order and on line. But I want to thank those two ladies who came to the select committee with their problem and with their story of Bianca. In fact they changed my view of veterinary practice from one with a degree of heartlessness—my being a dairy farmer—and instilled in me a much higher level of empathy. For that I am eternally grateful. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is to take a call in the second reading of the Veterinarians Bill. Can I say that the contribution from the member who just resumed his seat was most enlightening. I also thank the Primary Production Committee for the work it did. Obviously the committee members got right into the bill. They came out with plastic gloves put them on and probed deeply into the matters to do with veterinarians bills—treated the bill like a cow really. 
It is always timely to remind people of the key points of this bill. The bill repeals and replaces the Veterinarians Act 1994. The aim is to provide the veterinary profession with a more modern and flexible governance structure comparable to other professions such as the medical profession. The key changes from the Veterinarians Act are around qualification requirements and greater Veterinary Council powers when dealing with disciplinary and competency matters. 
The Veterinary Council and the New Zealand Veterinary Association which is the professional body that represents all veterinarians support the bill’s objectives as it will assist the Veterinary Council in discharging its statutory obligations. With that I commend the bill to the House. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Firstly I want to commend the Primary Production Committee for this legislation. 
I have been subjected to members of the Maori Party opining the fact that one of them has had a cow of a day and another has had a dog of a day. [ 
Interruption 
] That was yesterday. They complained of being drenched with rain herded through airports drafted into queues and shorn of any dignity as they were barked at while being herded into the waiting lines. All this was a result of inclement weather and a fogbound Wellington Airport. One of these members also claimed that as his plane descended into the Palmerston North Airport he thought for a moment that it would land either on the International Rugby Academy or on the veterinary school at Massey University. 
As a former dairy farmer I do have some hands-on knowledge and experience with the veterinary profession. I remember a time when I was quite intimately involved in the art of artificial insemination of a dairy herd and treating cows with mastitis or bloat. I may be described as a bit of a lay vet—although I may have appeared to be confident I was always apprehensive that my knowledge which was gained through practical experience might not necessarily be sufficient to ensure safe practice. I was therefore always appreciative of the skill and expertise of our local vet. He had a practical common-sense manner and he was determined from the outset that nothing but his best was good enough. It is a type of attitude that comes from the love of a job the love of animals and the love of the land. 
The Maori Party recognises the need for a competent professional veterinary workforce to service the needs of rural New Zealand and the livestock industry. We are acutely aware that rural New Zealand has the biggest shortage of vets and we are aware as to what this will mean in terms of the protection and quality of stock. This is significant as vets play a very important risk management role which is vital for the agricultural and farming sector. A competent workforce is absolutely necessary in order to reduce the increased risk of disease outbreaks including serious diseases like foot-and-mouth and TB in rural areas where vets are thinly spread. This is essential for the ongoing development of our primary industries. We also know that the shortage of qualified vets has posed a real problem for the agricultural sector with its heavy reliance on animal health and welfare and the bill helps to solve those acute shortages. 
The Maori Party is supportive of the changes proposed to regulate practising veterinarians to improve the registration process and categories in order to attract and retain veterinary surgeons. We also know that initiatives taken in the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill which was discussed earlier today will contribute to retaining our specialist students onshore. When vet students complete their studies the accumulated debt for each student is about $50000 and that debt has been a major driver for many of them to move offshore. That has contributed to the current extreme shortage of rural vets in New Zealand. We are also supportive of the move to replace the 5-year vet science degree with a 4-year course. This is a significant move that will help to solve the acute shortages within the sector without impacting negatively on vets’ professionalism and skills. 
We are supportive of the moves to reform the regulation of the profession of veterinarians. We are pleased with the changes that have come through the Primary Production Committee and we commend the work that has been done to offer limited and provisional registration and also to seek professional standards and monitor performance. 
During the process of considering the bill a number of anecdotes were passed on from experts in the field—the literal field as well as the professional field. The bill sets in place certain academic and English language requirements in order for people to be registered by the council as a veterinarian. I did not realise until that moment that the only language animals understand is English. Given the requirement in the bill I can only assume that English is the language of the animal world. A registered person who holds a current practising certificate will have received quite specific competency testing in areas such as communications skills. We have heard horror stories of how some farmers have gone to vets asking for their animal to be fixed—meaning to have their general health improved their illness treated or their wound healed—and I ask members to imagine their horror when they realise that the professional has interpreted “fixed” as meaning that the animal should be castrated or put down. It is a bit late then to ask to see the registration papers of the offending vet. That is obviously an area where the disciplinary powers of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand will come into their own. 
We are aware that currently the situation in heartland New Zealand is less than positive for situations of abuse or neglect in respect of animal welfare. We are aware that even when cases of unprofessional conduct or severe neglect have been taken to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand it has not had the teeth to take effective action against recalcitrant vets. The vet practices that we have spoken with told us about clients that have come from other vet practices that are dodgy that have overcharged the clients and whose practices have been inferior. In extreme cases severe negligence with regard to animals careless practices or inappropriate use of drugs should have resulted in criminal prosecutions but the lack of ability of the council to enforce the law has resulted in both frustration amongst the profession and the concern that the profession is being brought into disrepute. 
Our informants welcome the bill particularly the aspect that relates to the increased powers of the council to discipline appropriately. The bill makes it quite clear that the council’s primary function is to regulate practising veterinarians to deal extensively with discipline and competency issues to be able to suspend and withdraw practising certificates and to impose conditions on practising certificates. 
One of the issues that our informants also raised however is the composition of the council itself. The bill continues the Veterinary Council of New Zealand which was established under the 1994 Act with broadly the same powers and membership. The membership consists of three vets who are selected by veterinarians two lay persons and one veterinarian who are appointed by the Minister and the person who is responsible for the veterinary science academic programme at Massey University. It was felt that because of the size of the vet community a quasi-judicial appointment would have given greater balance thus freeing the council from accusations of subjective decision-making. It was also suggested that lay persons should possess significant interest in or understanding or experience of a primary sector and that the vets appointed should have a standing and reputation within the veterinary profession. The Maori Party is pleased to support a bill that will put in place moves to ensure that the veterinarian practice continues to demonstrate high standards. Ultimately this will be in the interests of the animals of our country and will ensure that the public can have confidence in the profession. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The Veterinarians Bill is very important legislation and it ties in with other professions that we looked at in the last Parliament such as architects and engineers. The bill safeguards the public through a way of registration which we believe is important. The bill repeals the Veterinarians Act 1994 and as I have mentioned the key provisions in the commentary relate to qualification requirements. It is always good to set a benchmark so whoever is dealing with a profession knows specifically what the qualification background and experience is of someone who holds that qualification and that he or she is registered. 
So that is the safeguard that the public would expect of somebody in the veterinarian profession. It also gives disciplinary powers to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand so there has to be a body that will oversee how its members should behave. We also see that the definition of veterinarian has been amended so that a veterinarian must be a registered person who holds a current practising certificate. That applies to a number of professions. In my earlier days I was a registered valuer and I required a registered valuing certificate that would be renewed annually. Otherwise I was not able to call myself a registered valuer; I could call myself a valuer but I could not call myself a registered valuer. 
So that is the safeguard that is important for members of a society as a whole who want to deal with the profession and who want to know that whomever they deal with meets certain minimum and mandatory qualifications and experience requirements. The same would apply to a chartered accountant as opposed to an accountant. So we have chartered accountants. We also see that in areas where there has been some concern like in the motor vehicle industry. It is so easy to deal with a motor vehicle dealer and to be able to buy a vehicle but there are no safeguards. There are no safeguards when one buys a vehicle but dealing with a licensed motor vehicle dealer gives the protection that one would expect. This Veterinarians Bill refers to qualification requirements and brings into place an annual registration format so that those who deal with vets are protected. 
There is also an amendment regarding the purpose of complaints disciplinary hearings and medical and competence assessments. The committee recommended that “a specified person includes both a veterinarian as defined in clause 4 and any person whose conduct has led to a complaint for an event when the person was registered …”. So the council has the ability to take disciplinary action against a person if his or her practising certificate has lapsed but the person continues to practice. Once again I come back to that very important point about giving protection and meeting those minimum standards that are so crucial to give credence to the industry. 
In the area that I represent Piako vets are a very important part of our community. This profession is having great difficulty in attracting the number of vets required. We have a number of farmers in the House. Eric Roy David Bennett and David Carter who are in the Chamber at the moment are farmers in their own right who understand the importance of having access to a veterinarian. The profession is having trouble attracting veterinarians. There was a big recruitment drive in the Matamata area where I live and we now have a number of vets from overseas especially South Africa. We also have a vet from the United States. 
The equine industry is another very important area where the demand for specialist vets has become very very important. As I said in the first reading debate back in February this year in Matamata a hospital has been established specifically for horses. There is a demand for specialised services that those engaged in the equine industry are able to use in their profession in order to add value to the racing industry in particular. So practising vets who are out in the regions—in rural and heartland New Zealand—are very important. 
I also identify the issue of inspections and freezing works. It is veterinarians who sign off on carcasses that are ready for export. Without having those qualified people to meet those very high standards and protect the very important export earnings that we get from the rural sector we would be missing out. The Hon David Carter mentioned in his address just a moment ago the importance of the primary industry in New Zealand and how it is still New Zealand’s No. 1 export earner. If we look at vets in that light we see how important they are to our food processing industries. This bill maintains and protects an asset and will make sure that our reputation in the marketplace will not be disadvantaged because we do not have specialist vets. 
We also see a huge demand now for those in small-animal practice. I was with some people at the weekend whose daughter is off to Massey specifically to study veterinary science. It is a very very difficult course to get into. However she is committed. I asked her what area of practice she would be interested in moving into once she graduates. The response did not surprise me when I thought it through at the end of the day. She is particularly interested in dealing with small animals such as cats and dogs. There is a huge and growing demand for those vets but people who specialise in those areas are not necessarily coming back to rural areas because there is such a demand for them in urban areas. We see then that the profession has been under pressure to attract and hold vets and to meet the standards that are so important to very important industries. It is a very very important profession. Those in the veterinary field have told me on numerous occasions how difficult it is. 
Our graduates who come out of the vet school have a proud reputation. Members may recall that many years ago we did not have a vet school; if one wanted to be a vet one had to go over to Werribee just outside Melbourne to study. Our proud reputation is well recognised around the world and vets can attract very good positions wherever they go. 
National is supporting this legislation. We did so in the first reading and at the select committee and do so now. Other issues have come up. My colleague Phil Heatley articulated very well some of the major issues that came out of the Primary Production Committee but I will just highlight in my last remaining minutes an area that he did not mention the rights of appeal. There was a suggestion by submitters that there should be a change to clause 56 “Right of appeal”. The select committee decided that that was not necessary because veterinarians have that right anyway. They can appeal to a District Court. That is the safeguard to ensure that veterinarians have a relatively inexpensive means of appealing a council’s decision. That is fair; that is about equity; that is about one’s day in court. Vets actually have that protection and the select committee was happy to support that without having to change the bill. 
Another issue relates to complainants being able to challenge the complaints assessment committee process by judicial review in the High Court or to pursue the veterinarian concerned using the law of contract or tort. Those are the protections. 
National is very happy to support this legislation. It is important for New Zealand as an exporting country and for those of us who represent rural constituencies that the veterinary practice is held in very high esteem. Veterinarians are a credit; they make a huge contribution and we want to give them all the support we can. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I refer the Minister in the chair the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 4 “Interpretation” and to the definition of “Minister”: “Minister means the Minister of the Crown who under the authority of a warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister is for the time being responsible for the administration of this Act”. I want the new Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Sutton to take the opportunity— 
Hon Member 
: Jim Anderton. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Sorry it was a slip. Yes of course. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: An excusable slip. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Yes an excusable slip. I ask the new Minister the Hon Jim Anderton whether in fact he has had a discussion with the Prime Minister and whether in fact he has been given the responsibility for the administration of this Act because the Minister’s role in the Act is quite important. I note that the provision relating to the composition of the council which we will discuss later on requires the Minister to appoint by notice in the  
Gazette 
 two lay persons and one veterinarian. Therefore I think it is important that the Committee understands who the Minister is because this particular legislation has had a somewhat chequered career in that it was originally under the control of the previous Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Sutton. Then by the time it came before the House it was shepherded through its initial stages by and still remains in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor who I note has not taken part in this debate so far. Therefore I think the Committee deserves to know whether the Minister has been specifically given the role of being responsible for the administration of this Act. 
I say to the new Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Anderton— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: A good man. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well Clayton Cosgrove interjects and says that he is a good man. I can speak on behalf of the farmers of New Zealand and say that at this stage they are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I acknowledge that we were long overdue for a new Minister of Agriculture in that his predecessor the Hon Jim Sutton had clearly lost interest in the portfolio. I say to the new Minister in response to the interjection from Clayton Cosgrove that farmers will give him the benefit of the doubt but he will have to do better than he has done so far. He has had two issues of relevance to agriculture. Obviously the first was the apple issue on which we finally have a piece of paper and a report from the Australians but we have a long way to go. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: A piece of paper? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well it is about a 500-page piece of paper; I accept that. The second issue of course and one that is worrying farmers particularly those in Gisborne is the totally zero response from the Government to those guys who have been devastated by two significant floods one after another. 
So I tell the Minister that we require an answer to the particular question I have raised: has he been specifically given at this stage and with the authority of Helen Clark Prime Minister responsibility for the administration of this very vital act? 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to obviously Part 1 “Preliminary provisions”—the part we are debating—and in particular to clause 3 the purpose clause. I point out something that I think will be of interest to members—that originally clause 3 as it was presented to the Primary Production Committee stated that the purpose was to “establish a registration system for veterinarians:”. The purpose was also to “establish a certification system” for veterinarians to “establish a complaints and disciplinary process for veterinarians:” to “establish medical and competence assessment processes for veterinarians:” and to “continue the Veterinary Council of New Zealand”. 
But we had to change that. The first job of the select committee was to change the purpose of that legislation. The purpose of this Parliament is not to establish certification systems complaints and disciplinary processes veterinary councils or any manner of committees; the purpose of this Act is to protect the public interest. All those other things—establishing a certification system establishing a complaints and disciplinary process and establishing medical and competence assessment processes—are means to an end. The end itself as under the new unanimous clause is to protect the public interest. That is why our attitude on this side of the Chamber is different because we know that committees and processes are simply means to an end as opposed to the attitude of those on that side of the Chamber who believe that committees processes and endless meetings are ends in themselves. 
In fact we are here to protect the public interest so I will read the new purpose clause for the benefit of the Committee and the Minister in the chair the Hon Jim Anderton: “The purpose of this Act is to protect the public interest by aiming to ensure that veterinarians are competent to practise;”. That is what this bill is all about. It just sets up the processes committees registration systems and disciplinary procedures to make sure that vets in this country who service farmers and families with small animals are competent to practise. I emphasise that we are not setting up committees councils and disciplinary procedures to give Labour Party members jobs on boards credit card expenses and flights to Wellington once a month—that is not why we are setting up those committees—the only reason we are setting them up is to ensure that veterinarians are competent to practise. 
I underline that to members of the Committee because it is very important. We had to throw away and push off the table all those provisions when we received this bill at the select committee. We had to start again and say that the end result is competent veterinarians which is in the public interest. Whereas the Labour Government of course drafted a bill that just sets up committees laws regulations and all sorts of loopholes for everyone else in this country to jump through. 
I move on to clause 4 “Interpretation”. I will be asking for a second 5-minute speech on this because there is something I do want to talk about—the issue of the certificate of registration. Members will recall that I talked before about temporary registration for those veterinarians coming from overseas and wanting to practise in New Zealand for a short time and about the desire of New Zealand to harness their skills for an extended time—not for the 3 months in the current Act plus 3 months for good behaviour but for 12 months as in the original bill. If we could just have South African veterinarians who were enthusiastic come to New Zealand for 12 months! If we could just attract them here for 12 months perhaps they would stay a further 12 months and perhaps they would look for residency and then citizenship so that they could contribute to our country. That was the thought that went through our minds so we changed those clauses which we will talk about in the debate on Part 2. 
Members will notice that in Part 1 of the original bill there was no definition of “certification of registration” but the select committee has put that in there because the issue around the certification of registration is very very important. Why? Because there are two types of registration. The first is the limited registration that people coming from overseas whom we want to attract to this country will undergo for a time. Originally limited registration applied for 3 months plus another 3 months but the Minister proposed to change that to 12 months plus 12 months. The select committee removed the time frames altogether.  
Then there is the provisional registration definition. Provisional registration is different from limited registration in that it applies to New Zealanders who leave university and want to apply to be registered. If that is the first time those people have wanted to be registered and they are not visitors from overseas they will get a provisional registration. 
 I ask the Minister why he did not actually state in the definitions that limited registration was for those people who were coming to New Zealand temporarily and that provisional registration was for New Zealanders who wanted to be registered for the first time. That would have been so much easier. I see the scales coming off the eyes of members of this Committee and the sudden penny-drop all over the faces of my colleagues who have suddenly realised what the Minister meant. Phil Heatley has a hole in one he has nailed it! What I am trying to say is that limited registration is for those foreign people coming to New Zealand who want to practise for a short time—and hopefully continue to practise—whereas provisional registration is for those young Kiwis who have studied here and who are being registered for the first time. I would have thought that perhaps we could have had that distinction set out in the clauses which would have made it much easier. 
I would like to raise something for members who have been looking at the commentary on the bill. I notice that when the commentary deals with the registration issue it refers to temporary registration. I think in retrospect that was actually an error on the select committee’s part when it drafted the commentary because within the new legislation there is no reference at all to temporary registration. Limited registration is the proper term; temporary registration is not mentioned in the context of the bill. 
I think members will become confused when they realise that there is limited registration by statute and provisional registration by statute but no temporary registration. Temporary registration is mentioned in the commentary. Everyone is searching for it amongst the clauses in the legislation but they cannot find it. They are panicking; they are running for the officials. Well I can tell members now to calm down sit down and take a deep breath because we made an error. We have referred to temporary registration but there is no such thing. We should not have taken Clayton Cosgrove’s advice during that 5 minutes when he woke up in the select committee and said that we should call it “temporary registration” because people would understand what it meant. We should not have taken his advice but we did out of sympathy. I regret doing that. We should have just continued with the term “limited registration” which we actually use within the clauses of the bill and we would not have the confusion we see in the Committee today. I am glad I have been able to put members right on that particular issue. 
I also point out the definitions around the term “veterinarian”. People might think that the definition of “veterinarian” in a veterinarians bill is not significant but I would argue it is. I think the definition of “veterinarian” in a veterinarians bill is very significant indeed. Members can see that we had to strike out the original definition inserted by Jim Anderton of what a veterinarian was and redefine that as well. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I am very glad to follow my fellow colleague’s contribution and I think that if anybody needs any evidence about how passionate the National Party team is about agricultural issues and issues relating to veterinarians they need only source the  
Hansard 
 of my colleague Phil Heatley who filled in a full 10 minutes on Part 1 of this bill. 
I did not have the luxury of being on the Primary Production Committee when this bill was reviewed so I apologise because some of the questions that I have about this bill might be rather simple compared with those of some of my more learned colleagues who have spoken previously. One of my questions is a simple question for the Minister: why does this bill repeal the Veterinarians Act 1994? My reading of the bill leads me to conclude that many of the changes we are talking about today could have been dealt with by way of amendment to the 1994 Act as opposed to repealing that Act and rewriting the whole legislation. 
My second concern relates to the amount of redrafting that we see just in Part 1. It seems that the first draft was totally inadequate and I am sure the Primary Production Committee worked very hard to improve the bill because we need only look at Part 1 to see that basically it has been rewritten in its entirety. When huge chunks have been struck out and new clauses have been put into the bill it makes me wonder whether the work was done in the first instance to draft this bill properly prior to its going to the Primary Production Committee. It is clear from some of the changes that have been made that Part 1 was totally inadequate because it has been rewritten almost in its entirety. 
My next question relates to the purpose of the bill which is written down as being to protect the public interest by aiming to ensure that veterinarians are competent to practise. I understand that and I understand that we need to have regulation for a wide range of professions in this country but I ask what mischief was this bill trying to solve. I have been in Parliament since 1999 and I have to say that I have not had one complaint from a constituent about a veterinarian. It is clear to me that there has not really been a groundswell of concern about the sector albeit it is a very important one. Veterinarians play a role almost like a rural general practitioner in many of our communities in the South Island but I have not seen any huge concerns raised about the sector. So I go back to my initial point of asking why we could not have dealt with some of these changes just by way of amendment as opposed to rewriting the entire bill. 
Although there is not a huge concern about Kiwi vets who have been trained in New Zealand universities which are easy for us to oversee to ensure that vets reach a certain standard I wonder whether these changes are basically designed to ensure that we have greater consistency and oversight of some overseas vets who come into the country—of which there are very many. I wonder whether this bill is designed just to try to incorporate some of the concerns that people have had about people coming from overseas who may not have qualifications that are easily likened to New Zealand qualifications. Perhaps that is the case and I would be interested in the Minister’s view on that. 
I come back to the main point that I suppose most members of the Committee agree on which is that most professions need some kind of overarching legislation that allows them to self-regulate as much as possible to be able to deal with complaints and issues of registration. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am delighted to make a contribution on the Veterinarians Bill for all sorts of reasons. It replaces the Veterinarians Act 1994 and I seem to recall that the young member of Parliament chairing the Primary Production Committee that dealt with that bill in 1994 was me. Interestingly I note that although the Act is called the Veterinarians Act 2004 the bill I dealt with in the select committee in 1994 had lain around for 8 years. So it is time we dealt with this legislation again obviously. 
I pick up the point that Katherine Rich raised. I really want to know what mischief we are correcting given that such a precise and accurate endeavour was made in 1994. I just look at the members of the committee and see that there has been about a 33 percent attrition rate of the members who were there—they did not return—and very few of those members are still on the Primary Production Committee. So it was a very stressful occurrence for them. 
It is important that we get the bill right. Other members have stressed the importance of having the appropriate mechanisms surrounding veterinary practice in New Zealand. We need to consider a heap of issues. The bill in its purpose and interpretation provisions in Part 1 sets out in broad terms to deal with some of those issues. There is the issue of animal welfare. We need to take a very responsible attitude to the way in which we treat and deal with our animals. We should ensure that we have a register of vets that we require certain standards that we have a process of registration and that there is a process of review should anything inappropriate occur. The purpose and interpretation provisions set out some of those issues. 
It is also very important from a consumer point of view that the products from our primary industry are known and trusted and that there is a very clear perception that New Zealand is on top of the issues of veterinary care animal welfare veterinary science and all of those things to give assurance that we have in place the very best practices. 
Katherine Rich said when she was talking about this mischief thing that she had not had any complaints. I have had one complaint. I have read the bill briefly and it is not contained in there. It is a matter that I will take to the PC eradicator. I say to the Minister that the following story did occur and I am not fabricating it. About a month ago a lady came to my office. The lady’s name is Mrs Court and she loves cats. She came into my office and said that her cat had been sick. She took it to the vet. The vet gave it an ECG and said that the cat needed to stay for a night or two for medication. So the vet started treating the cat. After 3 days Mrs Court was a little concerned for its welfare so she rang the veterinary practice and asked how the cat was. The person who responded on the telephone said: “I am sorry madam under privacy laws I cannot respond.” I say to the Minister that that is absolutely true. I am not sure whether the person was being overzealous but it says something about where our levels of political correctness have got to. I am not sure whether she expected the cat to lay a complaint if its owner actually received a report that was not accurate or that was accurate and was that the cat was swinging the lead—I am not sure of the issues that surrounded that response. But as true as I stand here that story occurred in Invercargill. I have not found out whether Mrs Court’s cat is better is well or what the story is. 
I say to the Minister that I would hope that in the new legislation we are enacting today we take a sensible approach to all matters veterinary. There are some issues surrounding veterinary practice that the bill in its purposes and interpretation provisions does not look at and I do not know whether it can. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the bill and to speak about the preliminary provisions. The purpose of this legislation is to protect a number of different interests: those of the public and also those of rural and provincial New Zealand. I understand that this legislation came to the House under the name of the previous Minister of Agriculture—and previous member for Aoraki as well—the Hon Jim Sutton and that it came in a particularly interesting manner. What happened after that was that it went to the Primary Production Committee. Thank goodness that the members of the select committee which was ably chaired by the Hon David Carter did an enormous amount of work—[ 
Interruption 
] Very good timing. 
I ask members to look at the preliminary provisions where they will see the start of a theme a theme where we see many new paragraphs and many struck out paragraphs. That theme continues throughout all the parts of the bill so no doubt I will refer to it again later. The vets were very interested in this bill. When I talked to my local vets they said they thanked goodness that this bill was coming before the House under urgency because they really needed to see that happen before Christmas. But what happened? When the previous Minister of Agriculture brought this bill before the House something did not happen: consultation with the sector. Because of that there was such a mess for the select committee to sort out that we were left with this document full of changes. 
Why is it so important that the vets have these changes? They tell me that they have large problems in recruiting vets for rural practice in New Zealand. We have heard from other members here today that it is common for women in particular who have trained as vets to go into urban practice. That is not really surprising. Urban practices deal with smaller animals and we also understand from others’ assertions that it is a more profitable type of practice. But that does not change the fact that New Zealand is so dependent upon primary production that we need to have plenty of rural vets—so much so that we know that one of the 10 submitters on the bill Massey University came before the select committee because it was so interested in making sure there are the essential numbers of vets. 
Our primary production industry needs rural vets and therefore we have before the Committee this legislation which may well make it easier for vets to be recruited from overseas for rural New Zealand. The provisions within this amendment allow for those sorts of things to be sorted out and for the establishment of a limited registration system—a system that we will see later now provides a registration period long enough to entice overseas vets to stay in New Zealand long enough to get their heads around what it is to practise in New Zealand. Vets certainly do not mind this legislation; they are very much in support of it. They welcome it and they certainly welcome seeing it come before Parliament before Christmas. 
I thank the Committee and continue to support the preliminary provisions in Part 1. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 4 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Registration and practising certificates 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 The principal area that I have as a matter of concern is clause 6 “Entitlement to registration”. Logically a lot of it makes sense. The person must pay a prescribed fee. I am not sure how that fee is set and what it is for but OK there has to be membership of some recognised organisation. The person must have a recognised veterinary science degree or a diploma from a recognised institution. That all makes sense. We are after all dealing with matters that relate to animal health. 
In many respects a veterinarian has a more difficult role than that of a doctor. When someone goes to the doctor he or she can say: “I’ve got a pain. It hurts me here. It throbs. My temperature is up.” or whatever. But when we take an animal to a vet the animal does not have a dialogue with the vet. So in many ways the vet has to be able to interpret signs of ill health in a much more difficult arena than doctors do. 
Phil Heatley 
: Doctors don’t make house calls. Vets do. 
ERIC ROY 
: That is another point. Vets are required to make house calls today. 
The point I wish to make is that I really disagree quite strongly with clause 6(1)(b) which states: “(b) a veterinary science degree or diploma of not less than 4 years of study and 1 or more of the following: …”. The point that I would like the Minister to respond to is why we have a designated time that it takes to learn. The principle should be based on what qualifications one has what area of learning one has and what exams one has passed not on how long it took to get those qualifications. To me it seems an absolute nonsense that we are prescribing—no matter what people’s qualifications are—that they have to have studied for 4 years. Ultimately the qualification is important not how long people were at university for. 
I well recall some debates in the House 3 or 5 years ago where we had similar arguments relating to physiotherapy students and physiotherapy legislation. At that time it seemed totally improper to me that a time limit was prescribed by those who were managing and running physiotherapy schools. They said that it had to be a 4-year course from memory. Again they were just extending out the whole process which created more job opportunities and a whole range of things surrounding that. But the issue was quite clear: it was whether those people were qualified to practise not a matter of how long it had taken them to get there. 
Further on in clause 6(1)(b)(iii) there are some areas that I would like the Minister to comment on as well relating to a pass and assessment programme approved by the council. We are designating a responsibility without instruction to the council for it to come up with something that could be quite subjective. Again having just read another provision where the important thing is how long someone took to study I would like to know with a little more preciseness what sorts of things the council might require and to have this provision removed from the subjective arena. I would like an explanation from the Minister as to why that time requirement is pre-eminent and why there is no designation about what level degrees have to be at. I see the officials are now instructing the Minister so I look forward to a contribution on that point. 
Let us be quite clear: it is important that we have the best possible veterinarians that we can get. For that purpose we need to have the most appropriate people taking veterinary courses which must have the best syllabus the best curriculum and the best practices. Those things are absolutely essential but to require a designated time seems quite confusing to me. 
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. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 What the Government is doing in clause 13 is inviting the member to read it. There is no time limit on it—no statutory time limit. The member has wasted 5 minutes railing about it and it is not there. If he reads it he will see that there is no statutory time limit for limited registration so I invite him to read the clause. 
A couple of other points were raised about the 4-year qualification period. I understand that that was agreed to with the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. The council says in terms of qualifications both specific and time-limited that the qualifications require a 4-year course. I am not going to second-guess the Veterinary Council. If the member wants to do that he can go and see the councillors and have a chat to them. But I presume that select committee members understood that when they discussed the bill; if they did not they may well have asked the question. But that is where it came from—from discussions held with the Veterinary Council. 
The question was raised originally just to get the bona fides right about my qualifications in terms of my ministerial warrant. I have the authority as the Minister of Agriculture to deal with all matters in that portfolio—including animal health this bill and the Act that will result from it as well as the current Act of course. 
I want to remind members who are complaining about the time frame for this bill by the way that it was introduced in January 2005. It is actually going through the House in December 2005. That is not too bad. If members want a track record of bills like this I can tell them that the original bill which was enacted in 1994 was in the House for 17 years. It was 17 years in the process before it became an Act. So if we are looking for blame on time constraints there is plenty to go around. That bill was in the House from the early 1970s to 1994 so we are processing this bill at lightening speed in comparison with what was happening before. 
In terms of the questions as to why there are changes I am a bit mystified. I sat in my chair and listened to National Party members railing that this bill has taken too long—like 1 year—that we had to get it passed urgently and that vets were waiting and would be celebrating. Now I am asked why we are progressing it. Well we are doing so because there were amendments that the vets themselves wanted made and when those amendments were considered in relation to the Act it was actually discovered that because the previous bill had been in the House for so long—for 17 years—it had virtually become antediluvian by the time it was passed and it was time to revise it virtually before it was enacted. So we are now doing the work that previous Parliaments did not do—and I think we are doing it with great expedition. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It was good to see the Minister taking a call but he did not answer one of the questions that I had in relation to the previous part which was: why are we not dealing with some of the changes here by way of amendment? Why do we need to repeal the Veterinarians Act of 1994 in total and put in place a totally new bill? Why can we not just deal with some of the concerns the sector has had by just incorporating the changes? It seems to me to be just a lot of work. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I answered that. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: The Minister says he answered that question but he might like to clarify his position. My colleague Phil Heatley made some comments about some of the concerns of veterinarians. Although there seems to be consensus and support for this bill I am wondering how the vets up and down the country are feeling as a result of one of the Government’s announcements today. The Government has announced that it will increase the accident compensation levy for vets next year. It has just confirmed the rates for the 2006-07 year. As we know most vets are self-employed and the Government is going to increase the accident compensation levy from $3.22 to $3.54. So while we are dealing with a lot of issues related to the broader concerns of registration and how the vets run their sector another decision has been made today by the Government and it is basically a bit of a kick in the guts to veterinarians who are trying to remain in business and provide a very valuable service to their local people. So while the Government I am sure is trying to be helpful by bringing in this bill it is doing so on a day when it is making some decisions to the detriment of many veterinarians up and down the country. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on that. 
Once again when we look at Part 2 we see that the bill has been absolutely rewritten as a result of the select committee’s work. I understand that select committees do review legislation and may make some very important changes but when we look at Part 2 which has been rewritten almost in its entirety we wonder about the level of work that went into the writing of the first draft that had its first reading. I understand that there will be some changes during the select committee process—often some significant changes—but it is seldom that we see a bill coming back to the House that has been almost totally rewritten. It makes me wonder what work went into the bill prior to its first reading when it is clear that as a result of greater scrutiny at the select committee the members on that committee have seen fit to make dramatic changes. Clause after clause has been struck out and totally rewritten and I see here that that process was unanimously supported. 
 But also when we look at this part we see that it attempts to prescribe in law a step-by-step approach for the Veterinary Council to make decisions about how it looks at registrations how it evaluates them and on what grounds it can decline them and I am wondering why the process has to be prescribed in law in such great detail. Surely once the council has been appointed one should have a certain amount of faith in it and in the work it does to oversee the registration of veterinarians. One does not need to prescribe what it does to the nth degree which gives the council very little flexibility. I would not be surprised if this legislation contains a clause that I have not seen yet telling the Veterinary Council when it can and cannot have its coffee breaks because the prescription of the work the council will do basically gives very little leeway for it to make decisions. I believe that overarching legislation can be set in place but there has to be faith in the industry and its representatives. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on this part but I am concerned about the comments made by the Minister who took the opportunity to criticise my colleague Phil Heatley—who put a tremendous amount of work into this legislation—when he was talking about limited registration. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Ask him whether he was right. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I will certainly take the opportunity of pointing out to the Committee that Phil Heatley obviously understands this legislation far better than the Minister does after being briefed. Mr Heatley spent some time talking about time limits on limited registration but the Minister does not seem to have been briefed on the point that the previous legislation had a 3-month time limit. The legislation as drafted by the previous Minister’s office suggested a time limit of initially 12 months with the ability to extend it for a further 12 months. To tidy up the mess created by the work of the previous Minister the Primary Production Committee had to work closely with the Veterinary Council and it found that the best solution was not to have a time limit at all. That is the history of this I tell Mr Anderton. It was the select committee not the original legislation drafted by the Labour-Progressive Government that finally got it right. 
We value the opportunity to have limited registration for two reasons. We acknowledge that because the oppressive tax rates of this country are driving a lot of our young qualified vets offshore where they can earn more money in places like America Australia and England we need to capture the opportunity of— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Not because of the tax rates though. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I say to the Minister that about 600 young qualified and talented New Zealanders leave this country every week. If he asked them why they go one of the reasons they would give him is the dramatic tax rates they have to pay in this country compared with what they have to pay elsewhere around the world. The other reason is that the pay rates overseas are considerably better than they are here. That means that people who make the choice to go actually have far more money in their pockets at the end of each week. If the Minister had been awake earlier in the debate he would have heard me say that my own niece who qualified as a vet at Massey University has spent most of her time practising in Melbourne rather than New Zealand because of tax rates and pay rates in Australia compared with New Zealand. 
However I want to concentrate on the time limits on limited registration which is the part that the Minister clearly has not been well briefed on. I tell him that if he wants to take the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage then I would appreciate his doing so. I really do appreciate finally having a Minister who takes the opportunity to rise to his feet and make a few comments as we ask questions but he should at least take the opportunity of being briefed about the true history of the legislation. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Brief your colleague. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I can assure the Minister that Phil Heatley worked diligently on this legislation. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: But he got it wrong. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No we did not get it wrong. Every Labour member on the Primary Production Committee voted with us. This legislation has now come back before the House unanimously supported by the Labour members on that committee so we did not get it wrong. That is why we are here today passing the legislation through the House. We are happy to support it because now it is right. It is right because the select committee did the work and it is right because we had significant support from the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association. 
I want to comment a little more on limited registration. Among the things that became very evident to the select committee was that when we become so desperately short of qualified veterinarians in this country we have the opportunity to employ vets who have specialist qualifications in a particular area. An example may be qualified veterinarians who have specialised in the area of food safety. Those people may not have extensive experience in large or small animal work but that does not matter. We have the opportunity to recognise that those people have qualifications in their particular field and that we need to grab their services because we are desperately short of qualified veterinarians in this country. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I think I am particularly qualified to talk on this bill because I am a lawyer and I have a dog. I think that that makes me more than suitably qualified— 
Hon Member 
: And you have a gun licence. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes I do have a gun licence. So I do realise the importance of registration and I do realise the importance of practising certificates which is what I particularly want to focus on in relation to Part 2. There are certain parallels between the veterinary profession and the legal profession. Whilst lawyers do not necessarily deal with animals they do at times have clients who may behave like animals. So I think that adds even more to my qualifications to talk on this matter. 
The law profession is very similar to the veterinary profession because lawyers who are registered as barristers and solicitors of the High Court of New Zealand are also required to hold a practising certificate as are veterinarians under this bill. That is to promote the standards the branding and the consistency of the profession’s reputation and I will keep coming back to that. It is the same with veterinarians. In New Zealand veterinarians are a very well respected profession and it is very important for the integrity of the profession that those standards and the branding are protected. I think that the amendment requiring a veterinarian to be both a registered person and the holder of a practising certificate—it is not an either-or situation; one must have both—is a very important one and I commend the Primary Production Committee for that amendment and for insisting that it happen. Just for the sake of background I refer to the explanatory note of the bill which makes the bill’s principal purpose clear—again going back to the question of branding and reputation. The explanatory note states that the amendment: “will assist the Council to protect the reputation of the veterinary ‘brand’ ensuring that only those persons who have current skills and knowledge and are subject to the Council’s control can use the term veterinarian.” I think that is very important. 
Clauses 22 to 28 refer to the different provisions relating to the practising certificate. Again it is not unlike a lawyer’s practising certificate. Whilst we can be lawyers we cannot hold ourselves out as practising solicitors without having a practising certificate. Similarly with the veterinarians the practising certificate has to be renewed annually and that enables the council—whatever council that might be; whether it be the New Zealand Law Society in the case of barristers and solicitors or the Veterinary Council in the case of vets—to actually ensure that the person who is requesting and renewing a practising certificate is maintaining that consistency of standards and will not harm the reputation of the veterinary profession. And it ensures in fact that the branding of the veterinarians is maintained throughout the currency of that practising certificate. Similarly with a lawyer’s practising certificate—and just as an aside it is rather ironic that whilst we regulate in certain professions there is a Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill coming through that is actually deregulating lawyers but I guess that is a matter for another time. But in relation to the practising certificate of course there must be provision for that practising certificate to be withheld and in fact suspended. That is just common practice. If somebody in the profession has breached the standards required of such a highly regarded profession it is only right and fit that that person is no longer able to practise and can no longer hold a practising certificate. 
So again I go back to the consistency of standards. This legislation is about maintaining the reputation and the correct branding for our highly regarded veterinarians. I will keep drawing the parallels with the barristers and solicitors legislation the Law Practitioners Act because again if required we must hand in our practising certificate. If there has been an event of misconduct or some such thing then it is for the reputation of all the good apples in the box that that practising certificate be withdrawn. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Veterinarians Bill regarding registration and practising certificates. I too have been registered and have held a practising certificate. There are a number of points that I will make. 
It is only right and proper that the registration process be thorough. Interestingly in this legislation it is so thorough that I return to my former theme—that is that Part 2 is absolutely full of areas that are struck out and through the hard work of the Primary Production Committee new parts have come into this bill. Again I remind those present that this is because the original preparation work did not happen. When the former Minister of Agriculture brought this bill to the House consultation with the appropriate sector had not happened yet that sector had sought this bill and members of that sector had said that this bill was necessary and that they should go forward into the future with the provisions that they would like. But the work had not gone in and therefore it was left to the select committee. I hope one day that I will be a member of a select committee that will do such studious work and will come forward with something that is obviously well supported by the members of this House. I have not had the benefit of working with such a committee but as I say I am looking forward to it. I also note the former comments that there was very good consultation and collaboration with the sector. That has resulted in the provisions that are now in this bill and in particular registration and practising certificates. 
Another really good point that has been made by one of my colleagues is that this legislation is for registration of not only overseas veterinarians but also of New Zealand veterinarians. I wish that more of the New Zealand veterinarians were registered and that we could keep them here in this country. I return to the theme that has been brought up before—the theme of why these veterinarians are leaving New Zealand. There is no doubt in my mind that it is because of high taxation and high compliance costs. Earlier today we heard the amendments on the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation debated and that is the bane of some veterinarians’ lives as well. Then there are the PC problems and the fact that the rest of their families are paying tax too. They have high student loans and indebtedness and they are going overseas because they know they can put more money in their pockets by being anywhere but New Zealand. We have heard of the 600 people per week who head off to Australia—our highly skilled and highly trained New Zealanders. So I say that it is really sad that veterinarians have waited for this bill for the last 6 months because they are certainly looking forward to it. 
The registration and practising certificate part of this bill is particularly important because it does protect the public of New Zealand and it protects the animals of New Zealand. That is very important because we have already heard about the cockatoo that had not been protected—the cockatoo with the very good name that had been mistaken for a girl a daughter a woman or something like that. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: A lover! 
JO GOODHEW 
: No I am not sure it was the lover. 
Eric Roy 
: Bestiality! 
JO GOODHEW 
: No we will not get into anything like that thank you. The registration and practising certificate part of the bill does in fact protect both the animals of New Zealand and also the public. As we know people get very emotive when they believe that the person who is providing care for their animal may not be appropriately registered. So it is only appropriate that all of the work that has gone on during this select committee process is in the legislation—it is just such a shame that the original bill had not been carefully prepared by the Hon Jim Sutton the previous Minister of Agriculture. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is he still a vet? 
JO GOODHEW 
: I do not believe that the Hon Jim Sutton was a vet but as a former farmer then he most certainly should have had in his heart the animals that he had formerly cared for and in fact his rural practice. It is interesting that in the House today we heard from Mr Woolerton and from Tariana Turia who were both members of that committee and we do find that— 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This part deals with the issues of quality and competence from veterinarians. It is the bit of the bill that makes sure that those who are practising as veterinarians have the skills necessary and it goes a bit further. In some cases it may provide for the limited registration of people so they can work with animals either by species or by the particular conditions that those animals present. 
But I think it is very interesting that on a day when the Government has decided to proceed with caution on the issue of xenotransplantation there appears to be no capacity in this bill to ensure that a veterinarian working with animals who are part of a xenotransplanatation programme must care for those animals appropriately. 
Eric Roy 
: What’s that all about? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well this is about the science of taking genetic material from an animal and perhaps transplanting that material into the body of a human or perhaps even taking— 
Katherine Rich 
: What! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that is basically how it works. The member might be a little bit concerned about that but the Government has decided today to proceed with that science. 
I know that there will be a lot of diabetics around who want that to progress. We do not have too much of a problem with that. Members will have seen this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
. It featured a cartoon of the mouse with a human ear growing off its back. The deal there is that various molecules are transplanted into the mouse the ear is grown removed from the back of the mouse and transplanted on to the human in the case of accidents. It is an interesting field of science. It is one that we simply cannot ignore because it will become more and more common. 
Hon Member 
: What’s that got to do with this bill? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well let me just open the minds of members a little bit. Let me invite members to think outside the square and just consider that a veterinarian is basically an animal doctor. Do we not want those animals who may eventually have some of their tissue transferred into humans to be as well treated as possible? Do not those veterinarians have to have a far greater understanding of the medicine of the human body as well? It does not appear to me that there is anywhere in this part—this is the part that states how people become qualified to be veterinarians—any provision for that particular field of expertise to develop with recognition from the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. 
I would like the Minister to indicate to the Committee whether that has been considered. When they were taking the report from that excellent Minister Mr David Benson-Pope recommending the cautious proceeding with xenotransplantation technology did they get any sort of report from him about the particular husbandry that may need to go around animals that are part of that programme? It is not a simple issue. It is not a funny issue. It is a very serious one because one would not want to have—as the Green Party has pointed out—some form of viral transmission through the fact that the various animals that are going to provide opportunities for people to have a better quality of life have not had the best of care or the best of understanding from those who are looking after them during the process of developing the tissue of any type that is to be transplanted. So it is a serious issue and one not surprisingly that has not been considered—but there must have been a Cabinet paper at least or a line on a report somewhere that mentioned the particular issue. 
At the same time I am interested in clause 13 which deals with the scopes of limited registration. I am a little bit confused about this. Would for example someone dealing with the very very specific science of xenotransplantation end up with a limited registration? Would we for example say that the person does not have to know a great deal about the husbandry of horses or any other animals other than those that are of part of the xenotransplantation programme? Could that person be in fact a scientist who had a general interest in science and was qualified enough to be granted a limited practising certificate and limited registration? Speaking of limited I say to members that if they want to see people who are limited they should look across to the New Zealand First Party. Not only are they limited they are oppressed; they are a people oppressed. There are only a few of them of course and there will be even fewer of them in the future. I wonder where their leader is today. He should be here talking about this bill. 
I ask the Minister quite seriously whether this limited registration will be a way for various scientists to gain partial registration to advance the cause of xenotransplantation. I see the Minister is thumbing through some papers. I assume he has something there to— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Whatever I’ve got is more sensible than this speech. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister says it is not sensible. I am asking the Minister what the Government would do if one of the programmes for xenotransplantation saw the transport of a virus from an animal to a human. That is exactly what we are worried about when it comes to bird flu. The Minister sits there laughing and saying this is not a serious issue. It is an issue that is bothering households up and down this country as we speak. It is an issue that is bothering nations all around the world as we speak. But Mr Anderton says that it makes no sense and is not even worth talking about. 
What we have here is a bill determining who may work with animals. We have another part of the Government saying that we may now get into xenotransplantation—cautiously but none the less it is going to happen. We saw the example on the news this morning of tissue being taken from pigs to be placed into humans. If that tissue has a virus attached to it that otherwise would not affect a human and therefore goes into the human body and starts another reaction in the chain—this is the Greens’ issue and I agree with them on this—what might be the consequences? There is not a single qualification in this bill to ensure that those who work with those animals have that understanding. The Veterinary Council is allowed to give limited registration but what does that mean in this context? The council is allowed to register veterinarians but how does that work in this context? 
I think that the Minister who is sitting there saying we are talking a load of rubbish is a bit like the ostrich putting his head in the sand or like the fellow in the early part of the 19th century who said that all scientific knowledge in the world had been discovered. This issue is going to go on. It is going to keep bothering people and bills like this should not ignore it. I would like to see where this enlightened Government took its advice from. Clearly there will be a Cabinet paper probably somewhere on Mr Benson-Pope’s desk that indicates there is a link between these two. 
Hon Bill English 
: He will leak it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: My colleague Bill English says that there is every possibility that we will read about it in a selected Sunday newspaper as Mr Benson-Pope leaks it to them in order that the right slant might be put upon xenotechnology vis-à-vis the veterinarians’ story. I would like the Minister to indicate whether that has been considered and perhaps indicate whether the Government does see the issue of viral transportation from one species to another as being a serious risk not only for New Zealand but for all countries. 
There are of course some people who would benefit enormously from a bit of xenotransplantation. If it were possible Winston Peters would I think be slicing genes out of poodles and shoving them into his members just as quickly as he possibly could. 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to take a different tack on this. Part 2 contains the most prescriptive rubbish I have ever seen. The problem with this country is that we are over-regulated. We have far too many Acts of Parliament. What do we see here? It is a part of a bill about veterinarians that basically tells them how to suck eggs and to do everything else in between. Sure the council should be the body that gets everybody together and takes the registrations but what do we do? We 121 members of Parliament say: “Right on Monday at 10 o’clock you’ll do this.” That is basically in effect what Part 2 does. From day to day it sets out exactly what the council is there for and what it does. It does not give the council any room to manoeuvre. It does not give the council any way shape or form to go about doing its business. 
Phil Heatley 
: Flexible. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It cannot be flexible. This is the most inflexible legislation I have seen. Oh yes of course we will vote for it because at the end of the day it is about quality and about the registration and operation of veterinarians. But I do not like it one bit. I do not like it because of the fact that it is too prescriptive. It is far too prescriptive. The trouble with this country is that the 121 members of Parliament believe that we are the experts. Why do we not leave the experts’ job to the experts? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: We realise you aren’t. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: There we go. We have a classic example in this House of a failed farmer who thinks he is a vet thinks he knows what he is talking about because he moved a couple of cows into the milking shed and thinks that now gives him the right and the expertise to talk about veterinarians. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I do not know what he did with the cows while he was in the milking shed but I do not want to go there—that is not actually part of the bill. 
In respect of overseas vets this is a classic example of how we try to over-regulate the market and tell everybody what to do. If an overseas veterinarian comes here why does the Veterinary Council of New Zealand not take up the cudgels take up the job and look at that person’s qualifications? Overseas veterinarians should be checked out by all means—that is not a problem. Why does that have to be in an Act of Parliament? Why can we not allow the council to do its job? That job is to look after the registration and to look after the quality of vets that we have in the country. It is pretty simple. 
The Hon Brian Donnelly is looking over at me while I am speaking and is pointing at the Minister. Why would he point to the Minister? I know what that means. Brian Donnelly is saying that it is the Minister’s fault but it is not his fault. It is the fault of the coalition partner—New Zealand First. We know that it is the fault of the coalition partner. I have heard people say it is the “Peters-Clark” leadership but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about giving the power to those who know best. 
Those people know their industry. Why are we saying to the council: “Look guys we’ll take the registrations we’ll suss out whether you are a good person—we’ll do all of that.” Why do we pretend to know everything about everything? Why do we do that? Is it because we want a job in the next 10 to 15 years so that once in a blue moon somebody will come to the House or to a parliamentarian and say: “Under the Veterinarians Act 2005 …”? It is a load of rubbish. We are over-regulated. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 6 be agreed to:  
to omit from paragraph (b) of subclause (1) the number “4” and substitute the number “5”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of subclause (1) the number “4” and substitute the number “6”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of subclause (1) the number “4” and substitute the number “7”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of subclause (1) the number “4” and substitute the number “8”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 6 be agreed to:  
to insert in paragraph (b) of subclause (1) after the word “study” the words “and 1 year of practical experience”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) of subclause (1) after the word “study” the words “and 2 years of practical experience”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) of subclause (1) after the word “study” the words “and 4 years of practical experience”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (b) of subclause (1) after the word “study” the words “and 5 years of practical experience”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 9 be agreed to:  
to omit from subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) the number “7” and substitute the number “8”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 9 be agreed to:  
to omit from subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) the number “7” and substitute the number “9”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 9 be agreed to:  
to omit from subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) the number “7” and substitute the number “10”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to Part 2 be agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before beginning Part 3 there is a proposal to divide Part 3 by the insertion of a new Part 3A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 with clauses 56 to 64 formerly part of Part 3 becoming part of the new Part 3A. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 By way of information for members of the Committee I am advised by the clerk that this is the appropriate procedure for this provision. I move  
That Part 3 be divided by the insertion of a new Part 3A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 with clauses 56 to 64 formerly part of Part 3 becoming part of a new Part 3A.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Can I just check whether we will have the opportunity to debate the new part in a separate debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes you certainly will. That is a separate debate. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 3 Complaints disciplinary hearings medical and competence assessments and conditions of practice 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 Part 3 which deals with complaints disciplinary hearings medical and competence assessments and conditions of practice is a necessary part. If we are to have robust legislation and a series of requirements—and a number of members have spoken about the necessity of having a credible veterinary practice—we need mechanisms to deal with anomalies much as we would hope that there are none or indeed very few if any. This part deals with that. 
I may have missed something but I have sat here and read the headings of the 40 clauses that Part 3 had before the division that we have just agreed to with the absorption of Supplementary Order Paper 8 in the name of the Minister Jim Anderton. I have read the 40 clauses and I do not understand. There is clause 30AA “Interpretation” and then mention in clause 30 of some sort of quango that I cannot identify anywhere else in the bill. That is the complaints assessment committee. The complaints assessment committee is mentioned at least 17 times in Part 3 as an all-powerful all-knowledgable creature that will deal with problems. But I do not find when reading the bill how that beast—that complaints assessment committee—will be created who will be on it what the requirements to be on it will be how often it will meet how members will be replaced how their performance might be reviewed and what their role in this process will be. I am not saying that we do not need the committee but if we have it we need to know where the members will come from and what their particular qualifications might be. 
Rightfully this Part 3 is very strong on words like “observe the rules of natural justice”. In clause 32 the words “good faith” are used. This body is to determine whether there have been breaches in performance by vets in a range of things including practise payment of dues sloppy procedures and inadequate recording—one thing after another. I want to know who those complaints assessment committee members will be and how that committee will be created. That information may well be in the bill; if it is it needs to be more prominent because I have spent half an hour trying to find it. That in itself is an issue. I would like to be proven wrong because I do not want to enact a power to an authority and not know where its members are from. The Minister in the chair Jim Anderton is nodding so I will look forward to his response. 
Let us assume that the information is in this bill and that I have had a senior moment and not been able to see it or find out where it is. It would seem to me appropriate that those people would have some kind of veterinary experience. That would be somewhat logical if they are to assess their peers. But if we are to take seriously the words about natural justice being observed one must ask whether those people if they are veterinarians are practising and whether they can be objective if they are in a practice that may or may not be in competition with someone who is deemed to have breached the rules and is required to appear before the all-powerful complaints assessment committee. 
 I say to the Minister that I think the Committee needs some elucidation on just who is on the complaints assessment committee how committee members are created and how their performance might be reviewed. Are they practising veterinarians in competition with other veterinarians who might find themselves having to appear before the all-powerful all-knowledgeable complaints assessment committee? I am just a little bit alarmed by the vagueness surrounding this issue. I see that the officials are now briefing the Minister so I will look forward— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I can’t understand what you’re saying either. 
ERIC ROY 
: Well look it is quite clear. The Minister cannot understand but I am asking quite clearly who sets up the complaints assessment committee. I can find no rules in Part 3 which is the part dealing with complaints and disciplinary hearings as to where its members come from. Yes they exist. Maybe they already exist. Are they set up under a provision in previous legislation? Before I can vote on this part I need to know where they come from who they are and whether they are practising—all the matters I have mentioned. And that is of absolute paramount importance. If this is a robust and credible piece of legislation then how the committee is created ought to be recorded in Part 3 which is the part of the bill about complaints and disciplinary hearings. Does the Minister understand my request? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Yes 
ERIC ROY 
: Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I thank Eric Roy for his very good contribution to this debate. I am surprised the Minister could not answer him— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’m not. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I guess the member is right. But I see that the Minister is being briefed now so that he can try to explain his own legislation because Eric Roy raised some very valid questions. I say to Eric Roy that he has to understand that some of the answers to the questions he has raised are clearly elucidated in Part 4. We will look forward to spending the next 4 or 5 hours discussing that part so then his questions will be answered. The Minister now knows as well as the officials have been busy telling him where a definition of the complaints assessment committee exists within the legislation. 
This was a part of the legislation to which the select committee put in a huge amount of effort. We deal here with the very delicate situation of providing a rigorous fair complaints procedure that has the opportunity to test the competency of veterinarians to practise within New Zealand. It became very interesting to the committee that 50 percent of the submissions we heard were actually from owners of pets that had died and those owners felt very aggrieved that the veterinary profession had let them down. We had the sad case about which Doug Woolerton spoke so brilliantly earlier today in the Committee stage. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh come on. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No Doug Woolerton sat through the select committee deliberation when we had the submission on Bianca the cockatoo. Bianca the cockatoo was owned by Maureen Green and Jeanette Parker. In fact Bianca’s full name was Bianca Parker-Green. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Is she allowed a vote? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No Bianca is not allowed to vote; sadly Bianca has passed on. But the point I am making here is that we were astounded by the strength of the submission we received around Bianca and her perceived treatment by the vet. So we want to make sure that we have a process— 
Katherine Rich 
: He’s crying; he’s moved. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No no. I am certainly not that upset. We want to make sure that we develop a bill here that has a process by which in future cases of a Bianca the client of the vet has a legitimate process whereby the concern can be well aired and if a vet has acted incompetently the profession has a chance to discipline that particular person. 
I tell Eric Roy—and the Minister may by now understand—that making a complaint to the complaints assessment committee will in fact be the very first procedure that an aggrieved pet owner will go through and the committee will be the body by which the profession will judge whether a complaint is valid. It will not make a decision at that stage as to whether there should be disciplinary action. That is a further process to be handled through what we call the judicial committee. But in the case of this new legislation when passed Ms Parker and Ms Green would first of all approach the complaints assessment committee and present their case about the sad demise of Bianca and the committee would make a ruling as to whether a case existed that warranted investigation or whether the case required no further investigation. 
I know that I have spent some time talking about Bianca but that was the strongest case we had. We also had a very very moving case from Caroline and Angus Macdonald who were very concerned about the treatment their dog received. They took the opportunity to come before the select committee to try to ensure that we worked through this legislation to present an Act that would give such people the chance to have a fair hearing. Dennis and Gillian Weatherell also came to us because of the treatment they felt they had received from their own vet at the time on one of their dogs. The select committee found with the strength of presentation of those submissions that people feel very deeply obviously— 
Katherine Rich 
: Passionate about their animals. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
:—absolutely passionate—more passionate than the Minister is at the moment I might add in his treatment of this legislation. People become very passionately involved in the treatment their animals receive. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 After I listened to Mr Roy for 7 minutes he still could not find where complaints assessment committees were mentioned in the bill. It is in clause 74: “Complaints assessment committees”—not surprisingly. The complaints assessment committee is actually appointed by the Veterinary Council. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to look at other matters in Part 3 to do with the suspension of registration with disciplinary hearings when a disciplinary action occurs and also with the rights of appeal of those who apply to have a vet disciplined and the rights of vets themselves to appeal when they are disciplined or have temporary suspension of their registration. I would like to signal that for me to move through those particular clauses and the concerns that I have may take a second 5-minute speech. I will be appealing to you Madam Chairperson that I have that opportunity although I appreciate that it is at your discretion. 
Before I embark on that particular matter though I would like to raise with members the matter of the unusual clause 30AA “Interpretation”. They will recall a matter to do with clause 30AA that I outlined in my second reading speech. It was to do with those vets who would thwart disciplinary action or suspension by saying that because they no longer held practising certificates or because they were no longer registered they could not be disciplined. In other words they would say their sin if you like occurred in another life when they were registered or did have a practising certificate. They would say that yes the relevant conduct may have occurred only 3 months ago but that they no longer held a practising certificate were no longer registered and could not be caught. 
Well that is not the case because the Primary Production Committee recommended to the Minister and Parliament that an amendment be inserted as new clause 30AA to make it clear that for the purpose of complaints and disciplinary action or for the issue of medical incompetence assessments a “specified person” is defined as someone who holds a practising certificate but also includes someone who held a practising certificate that had lapsed when he or she was called to account. If people were practising as vets or were seen to be practising as vets whether or not they were registered and held a practising certificate they can be held to account but clause 30AA also deals to those people whose practising certificates have lapsed when they are called to account. I think that is an interesting thing to raise with members simply because it is just one of the little loopholes that the select committee through intense and expansive investigation pulled out of the original bill and was able to fix. 
I would like to move on to the other matters I signalled at the beginning of my speech that I want to traverse. First of all concerning the issue of the grounds for a disciplinary hearing in clause 43 members will recall that in the debate on the last part I warned past and future vets that if they faced criminal charges and were convicted of crimes before the courts their ability to practise veterinary science in this country is under threat. They should not embark on a life of crime not only because obviously it hurts other New Zealanders but also because there are long-term consequences as well as short-term consequences that can hurt their careers—and I have warned them. Let it be said today that no vet shall be able to stand before a judge and say that Phil Heatley failed to warned him or her not embark on a life of crime. Vets will be held to account for their criminal convictions. 
I want to raise another matter which is brought up in clause 43. Not only can a vet be refused registration because he or she has committed a criminal offence whether in this country or in another country but that person can also be subject to the provisions of clause 43(1). The clause states that the council may take one or more actions at the conclusion of a disciplinary hearing where it is satisfied that a vet has been convicted within the last 7 years or has another offence that has a direct bearing on the profession where a vet’s practice reflects adversely on his or her fitness to practise as a veterinarian or where a vet has been found guilty of professional misconduct or of any act or omission that affects or discredits the profession—and that person can be deregistered. That is a very serious act of discipline indeed because it could cut short what is potentially a very positive and fruitful career for that person. I would just say that someone can be refused registration as a vet if he or she embarks on criminal activity but what is worse is that someone can effectively be deregistered if he or she is already a vet. Members should take warning; I have informed them of that today. So that is the matter of deregistration or of being refused registration. 
There is also the issue of the interim suspension of a veterinary practitioner. In fairness an interim suspension is all about suspending a vet so that there can be an investigation that may or may not lead to proof of guilt in that case and to possible deregistration. The debate that we had in the select committee was about how long a vet should have his or her registration suspended before it is reasonable for a decision to be made and for that person be reinstated struck off or deregistered. Originally the legislation stated the period should be 20 working days but the Veterinary Council and others came to us and said that although it was reasonable for the vet who has been suspended to have such a short time frame it was not long enough for the council to do its investigations. The council wanted to have 50 working days. 
We were a bit concerned about that. For someone who would be taking a forced suspension from his or her career and who would effectively be unemployed there is immense uncertainty for up to 50 working days. But we succumbed to the arguments of the Veterinary Council. We listened to it we heard its arguments and we decided that if it takes 50 working days to gather the information analyse it and make a serious and considered judgment so be it. 
Katherine Rich 
: 50? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: We put the period at 50 working days. We allowed the Veterinary Council to take 50 working days before it had to in effect make a decision. Members will see that is provided for in clauses 37 and 37A. 
Another matter that was raised was the matter of appeals. We have allowed vets to appeal a Veterinary Council decision to the District Court and I do not think one could ask for more than that. The select committee has told vets that it would give them access to the District Court to appeal a decision made by the Veterinary Council. I think that vets have a very strong power here indeed to appeal against something that can seriously impinge on their career or give rise to questions over their conduct. If vets feel aggrieved in some way or feel that they have not had a decent hearing from their own council they can now appeal to the District Court. 
Interestingly enough we did not allow that option for a vet’s accusers. We have not allowed those who bring a complaint against a vet to appeal to the District Court. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why not? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Now members may ask why we did not—there is a big shout—but the simple reason is that complainants are witnesses to the vet’s practice. They are simply witnesses to the vet’s practice but the vet himself or herself is an active participant in either foul practice or good practice that has been misinterpreted. Complainants are simply witnesses so why should they be allowed to appeal to the District Court? They can though go to the High Court and seek a judicial review to look at the issue and check that all has been done properly. So complainants can challenge the complaints assessment committee process by judicial review in the High Court but they cannot go to the District Court. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 As many members in the Committee have probably realised I am not one to get bogged down in the detail unless it is absolutely essential but I have to say that— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Tell us about Bianca. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I will because that story goes to the heart of what this bill is all about. People who look on their pets who have pets in their lives and who transfer their love to those pets— 
Phil Heatley 
: Companions. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
:—companions; that is the way those people look at it—want to know whether any redress is available to them if things go wrong if their pets are not treated in a professional manner or if the pets are not treated by someone their owners see as competent. If they are not happy they want to know whether something can be done. 
In the case of Bianca Bianca’s family—her parents her caregivers; I shall put it that way—wanted to know what the select committee would do about it and through the select committee they wanted to know what Parliament would do about it. They were in what they saw as the highest court in the land and they demanded some answers from our chairman. To give our chairman some credit—which I do not like doing too often—he took that case seriously. He brought us into line as a committee and said that we must do something in this bill to reassure people that they have redress that veterinary practitioners are competent and that even where the veterinarian is competent and a member of the public feels they are not there is somewhere members of the public can go to have the matter sorted out. It is not only about competency; it is not only about being right; it is about the public being satisfied that right has been done. Our chairman to his credit took that case up and made sure that the provisions dealing with complaints were in the bill to ensure that those things happened. 
The public must have confidence in vets. Out on the farm there is an element of callousness— 
Hon David Carter 
: They have more confidence in vets than they do in New Zealand First. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Mr Carter as a farmer will understand that he will spend a finite amount of money on a sheep a cattle beast or whatever. But when it comes to small animals—to cockatiels to Bianca—there is no limit to what a person is prepared to spend. There is no limit to the redress they will demand if they do not believe that their “Bianca” is being treated right and our chairman made sure that the bill took care of that. So it is not only a matter of ensuring that right is done but also that the public need to have complete faith that it is being done and they need to see that it is being done. In the end they need to know that there is a process that is robust and that will censure those vets. In the tragic case of Bianca the public did not feel there was enough censure in the system so we have worked hard to put that into the system. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 What an inspirational contribution that was. I think that people sitting at home listening to this debate can rest easy knowing that with people on the Primary Production Committee like Doug Woolerton David Carter and Phil Heatley they have strong advocates there. Pet owners of this nation can feel happy that they have people on that committee who are just as passionate about their pets as they are. 
We have heard a number of members discuss the sad case of Bianca Parker-Green the sulphur-crested cockatoo. I think we should rename this part the “Bianca part” because this whole part is really about how we deal with complaints against vets. We should really refer to this part as the one that deals with what happens when vets go bad. This is where New Zealanders who have— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: When they go ape! 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Mr Woolerton says: “When they go ape!”. It is the part that sets out how complaints will be dealt with and how they will be treated and the steps that the Veterinary Council goes through when it receives valid complaints about the treatment that some vets in this country have delivered. 
So I will speak this evening about the complaints assessment committee. I would like to make a few comparisons between the set-up that the bill will put in place for the complaints assessment committee and the set-up that we have for select committees in this Parliament. One of the things I am unsure about is the power that the complaints assessment committee will have. I would like members to turn to clause 35A “Power to call for information or documents” which states: “… a complaints assessment committee may by written notice require any person to provide to the committee any papers documents records or things.” Just as a small aside I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia to stand and tell us what is meant by the word “things”. Since we are talking about vets the mind boggles about some of the “things” that could be called upon. 
If we look at the power this assessment committee has we see that it has stronger powers than a parliamentary select committee. People who have followed a similar inquiry—or complaint as such—within Parliament at the moment will have been watching the TVNZ inquiry. One of the things the select committee found was that even though it could invite people to appear before the committee or could write to people such as Susan Wood Bill Ralston or Paul Holmes there really was no requirement for any of those people to attend. But if we liken the powers that this complaints assessment committee will have we see that it will have the legal right to require any person to attend a committee. So we have the situation of the complaints assessment committee having stronger rights than a parliamentary select committee. I wonder why that is. I would like the Minister to take a call and explain why the complaints assessment committee has stronger powers than a parliamentary select committee. 
As one of the previous speakers pointed out when talking about the Bianca incident the owners of that cockatoo felt that they were coming to the highest court in the land to put forward their views. I would agree with that. Yet here we have the situation whereby a very very minor court—if we could call it that—the complaints assessment committee will have stronger powers than a parliamentary select committee. That TVNZ inquiry has called person after person to appear and those people have declined to come. Yet we will say to vets that if they are in the gun if there is a complaint about them the complaints assessment committee will have the power to call absolutely anybody as it makes an assessment of those complaints. I do not think that is right. I think the Minister needs to explain why he is satisfied that the assessment committee has stronger powers than a select committee. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 It is always sad when we hear a very emotional speech from Doug Woolerton. I suppose when somebody speaks emotionally about Bianca Parker-Green we remember our own pets. Mine was Gee. He was a mongrel. He did not worry about that. He got run over and he has gone to that big kennel in the sky. We took him to the vet but he died overnight. It is ironic that it was on the day of my first National Party regional conference in Auckland and I was not there for him. I picked him up and took him home and we buried him in the backyard where the daisies grow now. 
Katherine Rich 
: Are you allowed to do that in Auckland? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely! It is my land. But I always wondered whether the vet had done the right thing by my dog. I always had the feeling in the back of my head— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Gut—in your gut! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —in my gut. Well there is plenty of it. I wondered whether the vet had done the right thing by Gee. 
Phil Heatley 
: Who killed Old Yeller? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Who killed Gee? Was it the person who was driving the boy-racer car or was it the vet? To this day I really do not know. How ironic it is that we are talking—[ 
Interruption 
] I see that the comedy act for Labour the Minister of Maori Affairs has turned up. He sat in the chair for about 5 minutes and did not know what he was doing. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Before I was rudely interrupted by the dinner break I was talking about my dear departed Gee the hybrid—not mongrel I am told—dog. I will be attempting to take another call as I am allowed to do under the Standing Orders but I want to say that we have always wondered whether the vet did right by our dog. We still to this day do not know whether the vet let him toddle off into kennel land. I suppose the irony of it is today we are celebrating the opening of  
King Kong 
 down the road. King Kong is another animal that is doomed to go to the big ape place in the sky—something that maybe New Zealand First members know something about. 
I want to talk about the part of the commentary dealing with the complaints assessment committee. It states: “Some submitters said the existing complaints and disciplinary processes are weighted in favour of veterinarians.”—hence the insertion of I think clause 30. It is just like the Police Complaints Authority; people need to have trust and faith in the process. I still think there is some way we can fix this. I still think there is a provision in this bill that we should change. It is veterinarians who are on the assessment committee and it is veterinarians who are on the judicial committee. It is a wee bit too much like the Police Complaints Authority where police investigate complaints against the police. There needs to be somewhere in Part 3 a defined demarcation between the council those who sit on the assessment committee and those who sit on the judicial committee. 
That is what this part is supposed to do—to give a bit of trust. It is supposed to provide a process that the public can trust. Many people in this country have pets whether they be birds dogs cats goldfish horses or in Mr Woolerton’s case cows. 
Chris Tremain 
: Three of them. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He has three cows. He is a huge farmer. Daisy is one of Doug Woolerton’s cows I think. We are supposed to engender that trust and faith in a process and I still do not think Part 3 actually does that at all. The Primary Production Committee has done its utmost to try to get that separation between the organisations but if somebody feels he or she has a complaint to make against a veterinarian there still is no clear demarcation between those who are on the assessment committee and those who are on the judicial committee and I would like to see more work done on that. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: That’s in Part 4 Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No it is not. If the member reads the bill properly—as I am sure she has; I am not for 1 minute accusing her of having not read the bill—she will see that Part 3 is about the assessment committee and the judicial committee. There has to be more demarcation between the two. Like I said it is a bit like the Police Complaints Authority; we really have to engender some trust and faith in those processes in order for them to work. We have seen in the case of Bianca Parker-Green the sulphur-green cockatoo that the owners did not have enough faith or trust in the process. Where could they go to get that trust that faith and confidence in the process? It is a delicate balance because there have to be skilled people on these committees. I would question how people get on those committees but as my learned colleague said that comes up in Part 4. 
I want to take a brief moment to congratulate the chairman of the committee the Hon David Carter and also my bench mate Phil Heatley on his impassioned plea about clause 30AA. That clause catches those who run away and say they are not veterinarians any more. 
Phil Heatley 
: You can’t keep running. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: They cannot keep running—“You can run but you can’t hide.” That is the great thing about that clause. Phil Heatley did an amazing amount of work on it. I congratulate the committee on that part of it. It really does try to get the balance right and to get some faith and trust in the process but I am afraid that it falls a bit short because the council picks the people who do the assessment and also the people who sit on the judicial committee. So I think we need to tweak that a little bit. 
I do not know what the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton might have to say about that. I hope he takes a call and points out where I am going wrong—or not. I say that if we are to have a process that works properly then we have to make sure that the process does work and that people have enough trust and faith in that process to go down that track whenever they feel that their pet has not been given justice I suppose or the right medicine. Those are my issues on that. I hope the Minister takes a call. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Sometimes in talkback land one can let the facts get away with one’s prejudice but here in the Chamber one cannot. It would be a good idea if people kept to the facts—or made an attempt at it. We are told that the committees are all mixed up and that there are veterinarians all over the place. Actually the member was dealing with new Part 3A anyway which is inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 8 in my name and which we are not supposed to be dealing with. 
Hon David Carter 
: No clause 69. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Well let us look at clause 69 “Composition of Council” for a start. We can see the composition of the council is three veterinarians two laypersons one veterinarian appointed by the Minister and the person for the time being responsible for veterinary science at Massey University. So we have a mix there. 
Hon David Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am trying to help the Minister. He is now moving to clause 69 which is in Part 4. We are still discussing Part 3 with Part 3A to go. Then we will move to Part 4 when we will have plenty of time to talk about the composition of the council. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Speaking to the point of order we just heard that all the judicial committees and all the complaints committees are all mixed up with veterinarians and council members everywhere. I responded to that by saying that the facts are that the council members appoint the committees. In the committees we are looking at we have district court judges or retired court judges. The last time I knew or thought about it I was aware a barrister or solicitor of the High Court was unlikely to be a practising veterinarian. I would like the member to get on to the facts of this legislation and not mislead the people who may be listening. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to raise two points. First my colleague raised a point of order with you. The Minister rose and speaking to the point of order basically started a 5-minute speech. I ask you to try to rule on that first. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Does the member want me to deal with it as he goes along? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: In a short while Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: What is the other part? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The other part of the point of order was that I was accused of misleading the Committee. I think that is out of order. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Misleading the people who are listening. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank both of you for raising that whatever it was. I think the point of order was wrongly raised in the first place. I took it that the Minister was simply making those references by way of comparison. I thought they were relevant. I thought that much of the other stuff that has been said was irrelevant. We will move on. The Minister has had his say; does anyone else wish to speak? 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 3 and to offer sympathy to Tau Henare about Gee. I am still not sure whether Gee got run over by the vet or the boy racer but Gee needed protection. He needed protection and justice and Part 3 goes some way towards ensuring that he would have got that justice. Part 3 as we all know relates to complaints disciplinary hearings medical and competence assessments and conditions of practice. Whilst I am not a practising veterinarian I was a practicing barrister and solicitor so I suppose I am halfway there. We must have transparent and robust processes. 
I go back to my original theme. My original stance was that this bill is all about protecting the brand. It is all about protecting the brand of the veterinarians. It is all about protecting the reputation of veterinarians not just in New Zealand but also in overseas jurisdictions. We have an enviable record of wonderful veterinarians and if we do not have the legislation to support that reputation then it has only one way to go and that is downwards. This bill is about maintaining the consistency of those standards. Part 3 goes some way towards putting in place the glue that holds those standards together. 
We all have pets. For some of us they are part of our families although no doubt they do not qualify for the Working for Families beneficiary scheme. I actually think that is somewhat discriminatory for some but however I will stick to the point because I do believe in showing some relevance. The public and their pets must have confidence in their vets. That is the ultimate test. Do pets and the public have confidence in their vets? They must have confidence in the process and in the substance of the process. They must be confident that the mistakes—and we have seen that people do make mistakes—will be addressed; that the mistakes will not be denied; that the mistakes will not be forgotten as happened 23 years ago; and that the mistakes will not be refuted. For example if a cat or a dog has been bullied with a tennis ball by a vet that vet must be held to account. This part goes some way towards addressing that. A vet cannot hide behind any so-called privilege of the House because this process is intended to be open and transparent. It is not dissimilar to a court. We have rules of procedure. 
I am pleased to see that at least some cognisance has been taken of the ability of some legal assessors. For example clause 31 allows for the appointment of a legal assessor who can advise the Veterinary Council on procedure and proceedings. That is a very important point in relation to the impartiality of the council which after all is determining the fate of the pet the pet’s owner or the pet’s vet. 
Phil Heatley 
: Will the vet leak the results? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: It is open and transparent. I understand that it is open to the public so the public can listen to the results. However it might have been the pet that was doing the leaking. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh sorry! 
Having said that and moving on I am pleased to point out that there is legal provision for an assessor to make sure that rules and procedures are put in place to make sure that they are unbiased to make sure that they are impartial and to make sure that justice is at least seen to be done that there is some sense of natural justice in the whole process. It is important that the vet is protected as much as the pet owner because at the end of the day that is part of our principle of natural justice. This part goes some way towards protecting that rule of natural justice. That rule includes the right to a fair hearing. I am pleased to see that some procedures and rules will be in place to ensure that vets cannot be unilaterally charged. 
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. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 3 “Complaints disciplinary hearings medical and competence assessments and conditions of practice”. I do so because this is a very important part of the bill. Why so? Well we know that about half of the submissions before the Primary Production Committee were from worried pet owners. Why would there be worried pet owners? Because pet owners are second only to parents in terms of protecting the vulnerable—children and pets. That is why we have emotive pleas from pet owners and emotive pleas from parents that we look after their interests. That is why there is a provision that deals with complaints disciplinary hearings medical and competence assessments and conditions of practice. We have this part of the bill because those things are important if we are to protect pets as we would children. They are very vulnerable members of our families our whanau and that is why Part 3 has 34 pages—34 of the total of 91 pages. It is very very significant. 
My learned colleagues who are members of the Primary Production Committee that considered this bill have given us excellent insight into the deliberations of the select committee and I make no apologies for repeating my former theme. A large number of amendments were proposed by the select committee; a large number of paragraphs were struck out and new paragraphs put in—unanimously of course. They represent the very hard work that the select committee did to achieve a balance between the interests of the veterinarians and the interests of the pet owners. 
I am speaking to Part 3 because I am a pet owner so I understand. My pet Hogan a cat is reaching a stage at 18 years of age when he is a very very old pet. Of course I am concerned because before too much longer he will be visiting my friendly vet. I spoke to my vet today and he really encourages us to get this bill through the House before Christmas because it is very important for him. One day before too much longer Hogan will be visiting the vet and it will be for the last time. I want to make sure there is a process in place should I want to make a complaint about the vet—but I doubt I ever would. 
I want to refer to an earlier question asked by a colleague of mine about what the “things” might be in clause 32. I have an idea of what the “things” might be for I know that my vet stores the dead pets in the freezer. I think the “things” might be the dead pets in the freezer awaiting repatriation to their owners their whanau their family. They may be the “things”. I propose that this is perhaps an answer to that question. 
I do feel very passionately about this part because it is about protection for pets such as Hogan our 18-year-old cat who may soon be shuffling off this mortal coil or kicking the bucket or going to the great cattery in the sky. I like other owners—like the owners of Bianca Parker-Green the cockatoo—feel very very strongly about the protection of my pets. But as someone who has had a profession and is married to a professional I understand that there needs to be a balance between the rights of the vets and the rights of the pets and the pets’ owners. My learned colleague mentioned natural justice and Part 3 is the part of the bill that sets it all out so that we understand how these processes should take place. I remind members that Mr Heatley warned the vets. 
We know that the members of the select committee balanced both sides and came up with the many amendments. The original bill was a mess because the previous Minister of Agriculture had not consulted the sector groups. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I too rise to speak to Part 3 “Complaints disciplinary hearings medical and competence assessments and conditions of practice”. While I have every sympathy for others I can share my own story of a pet who is now departed. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Oh no. Who’s that? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Sally. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What was Sally? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Sally was a dear pet of ours. She was a Jack Russell terrier a faithful family pet. Do members know what her favourite game was? 
Hon Members 
: What? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: We would chuck a tennis ball and the dear little thing would chase after it. My goodness we loved that little dog. She would catch it in her mouth the sweetheart. Her little teeth would pierce the tennis ball but that would not make her stop. She would continue to try to stuff it in her little mouth. She would get about half of it in and then burdened by that tennis ball—because she was only a wee Jack Russell with little legs—she would make her way back to us. It was so cute. [ 
Interruption 
] No we did not tape her paws. It looked like we taped her paws because she was just a wee dog. This poor wee dog Sally whom we loved very dearly one day developed a fatal attraction to State Highway 1. It was very sad. 
Hon David Carter 
: Don’t tell me it was the motorcade! Helen Clark again? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: There was a swish of air. The vehicle was going so fast that I saw just a figure in the back seat reading so I do not know who it was. But it was a very sad moment for our family. We picked Sally up off State Highway 1 and took her inside. 
Phil Heatley 
: Healed her up? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I wish we could have. We had to take her to the vet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am just curious to know what clause or clauses this matter is relevant to. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I am addressing Part 3 because the point of the story is that Sally died. We left her with the vet we went home and we then had a phone call to say that Sally had died that night in the hands of the vet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: OK. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: It was very important to us to know that Sally had been looked after because we have two children who cared about that dog very much. OK I jest but I think it is very important that if we had not felt that Sally had been in good hands we would have had recourse. Had we needed to make a complaint against the vet we as a family needed to know we had good recourse. I believe that there needs to be protection not only for ourselves as pet owners but also equally for the vet who has been delivered this poor little creature with a tennis ball in its mouth and on its last legs. It is very important that both sides have protection. 
This bill is not only about pets—and I know that members in this room are feeling a bit bruised because of all the sad stories. It is also about farm animals. In fact I am a farmer. I have 10 heifers on our property. I need to tell members—and this does have a point Mr Chairperson—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is right; there is a bit of bull involved in this story. My dear husband rang me last night to say: “A terrible thing has happened my love.” I said: “What my darling?”. He said: “You know those 10 2-year-old heifers we have down in the paddock?” and I said: “Yes darling.” He said: “Guess what the neighbour’s bulls have hopped the fence. Worse than that those neighbouring bulls have had their way with our tender little heifers.” So we were faced with a genuine farming emergency as members with an agricultural background will know—and the National Party is blessed with many members with an agricultural background. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 32 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the word “counsel” and substitute the words “a justice of the peace”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 32 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the word “counsel” and substitute the words “an officer of the court”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 32 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the word “counsel” and substitute the words “barrister and solicitor”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 32 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the word “counsel” and substitute the word “lawyer”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) after the word “complaint” the words “but within 1 working day”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) after the word “complaint” the words “but within 2 working days”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) after the word “complaint” the words “but within 3 working days”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) after the word “complaint” the words “but within 4 working days”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) after the word “complaint” the words “but within 5 working days”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (1) the word “inquiries” and substitute the word “audit”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (1) the word “inquiries” and substitute the word “examinations”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (1) the word “inquiries” and substitute the word “probings”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 5; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (1) the word “inquiries” and substitute the word “investigations”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 35 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the word “inquiries” and substitute the word “audits”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 35 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the word “inquiries” and substitute the word “examinations”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 35 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the word “inquiries” and substitute the word “assessments”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 35 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the word “inquiries” and substitute the word “investigations”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 37A be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the number “50” and substitute the number “51”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 37A be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the number “50” and substitute the number “52”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 37A be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the number “50” and substitute the number “53”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 37A be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the number “50” and substitute the number “54”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 37A be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the number “50” and substitute the number “55”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 37A be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (5) the number “50” and substitute the number “56”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after the word “notice” the words “and fax and telephone”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after the word “notice” the words “and registered mail and fax”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after the word “notice” the words “and fax and telephone and registered mail”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after the word “notice” the words “and telephone”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after the word “notice” the words “and fax”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after the word “notice” the words “and email”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) of subclause (2) the number “20” and substitute the number “21”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) of subclause (2) the number “20” and substitute the number “22”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) of subclause (2) the number “20” and substitute the number “23”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) of subclause (2) the number “20” and substitute the number “24”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) of subclause (2) the number “20” and substitute the number “25”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) of subclause (1)(f) the amount “$10000” and substitute the amount “$11000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) of subclause (1)(f) the amount “$10000” and substitute the amount “$12000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) of subclause (1)(f) the amount “$10000” and substitute the amount “$13000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) of subclause (1)(f) the amount “$10000” and substitute the amount “$14000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (i) of subclause (1)(f) the amount “$30000” and substitute the amount “$31000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (i) of subclause (1)(f) the amount “$30000” and substitute the amount “$32000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 44 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (i) of subclause (1)(f) the amount “$30000” and substitute the amount “$33000”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to Part 3 be agreed to. 
New Part 3A Conditions of practice and appeals 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Part 3A “Conditions of practice and appeals” of the Veterinarians Bill is indeed worthy of support. It causes me to reflect on the working conditions as well as the imposed conditions of veterinary practice. Just for a moment I would like to reflect on the working conditions of veterinarians not so much nowadays but in the past decades when vets built up the tremendous rapport with farmers that has given us the very successful pastoral industries we have today. 
I have been privileged to live in some parts of New Zealand that are really very rural. One such place was Hokianga where my brothers and I had a dairy farm on Wharekawa Road at Oue. The vets that used to service the area were dedicated and did a terrific job but the conditions of practice were not always the best. 
I recall hearing of one such event that occurred in the 1970s when a vet received a phone call from an aggrieved client whose cow had just died after it had been treated by the vet. It was a sad situation. It was raining heavily at the time—the rain was almost horizontal—and it was about 10.30 at night. Those were rotten conditions to practise in. 
Hon Member 
: On the West Coast? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No no this was in Hokianga in the far north—the winterless north. But it was very wet. 
Hon Member 
: It was warm. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It was warm and wet. 
The farmer suggested that there were two things they could do. One was for the vet to accept the farmer’s diagnosis of the death. The cow shortly after the treatment had been seen fighting with another cow and the farmer considered that the lunging thrust of the aggressive cow’s horns had twisted the calf inside the cow which had caused the blood vessels to choke off from the heart leading to the cow’s demise. That was the farmer’s interpretation and in the view of the farmer it had sustained the cow’s death. The vet was told that the alternative was to come out straight away and perform what the farmer called a “postal mortem”. The vet however had no difficulty in agreeing with the farmer’s diagnosis. 
I recall another such event in terms of the conditions that vets had to practise under when the same vet—a good Scots-trained practitioner—was asked to assist a cow calving at Taheke. It was another foul night and the rain was similarly horizontal. 
Hon Member 
: On the West Coast? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No no still up in Hokianga. 
Hon Member 
: The winterless north? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well it was winter and the rain was warm but it was raining. The vet said he would get on his way as he imagined the creek was coming up. The farmer said that yes it was and that the cow was in fact in the creek and having difficulty calving. The farmer thought that the cow probably had a broken leg. “Gracious” said the vet “she is in the creek she is having difficulty calving and you think she has a broken leg? I’ll get there as soon as I can.” “No rush” said the farmer “I think she’s quite comfortable.” Those were the conditions that vets had to practise in. 
The life of a vet was not without difficulty even in a domestic sense although often the difficulty came from absence rather than presence. I remember another occasion in Kaitaia in the winterless far north— 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is to be no comment at all during a point of order. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: That sounded like a very nice story for children at night but I ask the member to be more relevant to the part we are debating. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I ask the member to continue. 
Hon Member 
: What was the ruling? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The ruling was to please continue. Indeed on that occasion the vet was away and he had to engage a locum. 
On occasions when the normal veterinary practice has changed systems have changed and farmers get confused we need some quite specific conditions that apply to the practice of veterinary-trained people. We need the sorts of conditions that are specified in Part 3A. In looking at the conditions of practice and appeals we could start with the proposed new clause 55A and go through the clauses in a precise manner looking at each one. But in reality National supports this bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise not to join in the pitiful filibuster of the National Party. In the extremely unlikely event that anybody is listening to Parliament tonight I just want to assure listeners that what they have been hearing is the National Party’s attempt at a filibuster. That term was invented in America to refer to parties that try endlessly to delay a Parliament. Is this what the National Party members are reduced to—talking about pets and filibustering? Is this how they think they will throw their weight around Parliament and impress listeners? I can tell those members that all this will do is turn people off and turn off the voters because it is a complete waste of Parliament’s time. We have heard a lot about pets tonight but what about the other animals in New Zealand that veterinarians care for? 
This part of the bill is all about the conditions of practice of veterinarians but what about the conditions of the millions of farm animals in New Zealand that live in conditions of utter cruelty? Millions of hens live in cages where they have only a very tiny area in which to turn round. There are millions of hens in New Zealand that are fed antibiotics continuously. If veterinarians were concerned about the conditions that hens in this country live in those cruel conditions would end tomorrow. Of course there is one other person—who happens to be in this room—who could bring to an end the cruel conditions that hens and pigs in sow crates have to endure in New Zealand. That person is the Minister of Agriculture. 
But since we are talking about veterinarians we need to think about for example the millions of chickens that endure terrible conditions—up to 40000 of them are crammed into sheds—and are fed antibiotics continuously for breakfast lunch and dinner. We know that the continuous feeding of low doses of antibiotics to millions of animals that are not even sick will cause antibiotic resistance—and it is doing so. Fifty percent of the chicken flocks in New Zealand have been found to carry antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Now why is that practice taking place? Who is dispensing the antibiotics? Who is prescribing antibiotics to millions of chickens in New Zealand continuously in low doses for their breakfast their lunch and their dinner? It is the veterinarians who are writing out the prescriptions for the continuous feeding of antibiotics even though they know as every member of this Parliament knows that that practice is causing antibiotic resistance. It is putting the future health of New Zealanders at risk. The Minister of Agriculture is laughing but he will not be laughing when antibiotic resistance develops to such an extent that we are not able to treat basic diseases in New Zealand. 
Unfortunately it is the veterinarians of this country who are not only filling out the prescriptions to enable these appalling shameful practices to take place but who are not speaking out. If veterinarians were to say that it is cruel to keep hens in cages where they cannot turn round or even stretch their wings then I am sure that that practice would be eliminated—even if this Parliament is so spineless and so pathetic that it will do nothing to end the suffering of the millions of animals that are enduring horrendous conditions every single day even as we speak. Even as we speak there are pigs in sow crates that cannot even turn round and are driven to despair. There are also hens in cages and all those animals are there because veterinarians are tolerating the practice and turning a blind eye to it—and of course the Minister of Agriculture who is laughing is allowing that practice to continue. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of new Part 3A “Conditions of practice and appeals”. It is part of today’s Supplementary Order Paper 8 which is amending the Veterinarians Bill reported by the Primary Production Committee. I think that committee has done a commendable and very thorough job. I have been reading through the bill and in particular Part 3 “Complaints disciplinary hearings medical and competence assessments and conditions of practice” and of course the Supplementary Order Paper amendments to insert new Part 3A “Conditions of practice and appeals” which is very thorough. I have been really impressed that the provisions are so similar to those of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. Members may know that I am a medical doctor— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: We knew that. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Yes and I would like to recount two stories about my life as a medical student which have relevance to new Part 3A. They are two stories that impressed me and that I remember very well. 
In the 1970s I was a medical student at various Auckland hospitals. It was before the Cartwright inquiry; we did not have the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act and we did not have a process for obtaining informed consent. The first story happened when I was a student at Green Lane Hospital—as I say before the Cartwright inquiry. As students we were asked to perform vaginal examinations as part of our gaining experience and so forth but we did not have any informed consent process for those women patients. The examinations were done under anaesthetic; the patients were unaware of those vaginal examinations done by students. It felt vaguely wrong but none of us spoke out I am ashamed to say. Then of course we had the Cartwright inquiry and that dragged all the doctors kicking and screaming into the position where we had to have informed consent and respect patient rights. 
A second episode that also struck me was when I was a student at Auckland Hospital’s sexually transmitted diseases clinic. A male patient was brought in. He was not asked if he would allow students to be with the doctor. He was asked to strip and was then examined with all those students around. He was embarrassed I was embarrassed but nobody spoke up. 
Now some 30 years later we do have the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act and now we have the Veterinarians Bill which is being amended. I endorse the position of veterinarians in supporting this bill. It a good to have something that is transparent and robust. I will read from the March 2005 news brief of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. The council supports this change in the complaints process and I would like to read a short section: “The Bill allows the council to require a competency assessment of a veterinarian to ensure that the veterinarian is meeting the minimum standards for continuing practice.” That is just like the provision of the medical Act—the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act—and I endorse it absolutely. The change is necessary. We have seen that important change come over the medical fraternity during the last 30 years and it is natural that it would follow into the veterinary world as well. 
I also agree with Sue Kedgley in her comments regarding the welfare of animals around New Zealand. The difference between humans and animals is that humans have the means to complain but animals do not. So people need to complain for them or there needs to be some sort of transparent process for their welfare. That is why I thoroughly endorse the Veterinarians Bill particularly new Part 3A. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I will continue with a consideration of Part 3A “Conditions of practice and appeals’. I would like to raise a matter with the Committee as it sits and deliberates on this bill—the matter of when the conditions of practice and appeals are removed. Members will recall that those conditions of practice are all about the Veterinary Council imposing conditions on specific people: how they might practice and whether there are any guidelines as to where they can practise and particular disciplines within veterinary medicine they are restricted to and other areas they are restricted from. A restriction might come about through a recommendation by a complaints assessment committee or it might be a result of a disciplinary hearing or a medical competency assessment. It could come about through all manner of means. It could be some sort of limited discretion or registration provision for a vet perhaps a vet newly out of vet school who is able to practice only in a particular area for a time before he or she gains competence and moves on. That is what this part is about. 
 My concern is simply this: when we move to new clause 55C we see that it discusses when the Veterinary Council may cease to apply the restrictions. So there are conditions around a particular vet practising for all the reasons I have just outlined and the council may move to remove those restrictions. It can do that on the earliest of the following dates as stated in new clause 55C(1): “(a) the date stated in the relevant notice under section 55B(1): (b) the date on which the Council is satisfied that the specified person has completed in relation to the condition the requirement or requirements stated in the relevant notice under section 55B(1): (c) the date on which the Council is satisfied that the specified person is able to comply with the relevant minimum standards of practice without the imposition of the condition.” So in all cases the council can remove the imposition on that particular vet. My concern is simply this—and members will guess what I am about to ask; everyone is leaning forward because they can all guess—how often does the council— 
Hon Member 
: Meet. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: —meet? Well how often does the council meet? The reality is that the members of that council are dispersed throughout the country. They come together from time to time to release these vets out into the workforce and to remove restrictions on them. They might meet in November but then might not meet in December; they are not like the National Party which is working right to the wire. They might not meet in January. They are not like National Party members who will be out there right throughout January door-knocking and seeing what the people want. People might see me on the beaches but I will not be sunbathing. I will be out there talking to New Zealanders. 
Georgina Beyer 
: You are tempting me now! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I will see Georgina Beyer in her bikini on the beaches of the Wairarapa but I will be working. 
But the Veterinary Council might not meet in December and it might not meet in January. We would hope that it would convene in February but the point is simply this: if a veterinary practitioner wants to be released from the restrictions around him or her because he or she has proved competency and if this council which meets in the first week of the month meets in November and the application falls past that time the vet has to wait all through November December and January. That is 3 months before the decision is made. I think that that is quite appalling. I believe that there should be a change made in this legislation to make sure—[ 
Interruption 
] The member Rick Barker who is heckling is busy in Wellington because he has no electorate to service any more. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I follow another worthy contribution from my learned colleague Phil Heatley one of the members of the Primary Production Committee who has worked slavishly on this bill to make it what it is today. I think the pet owners and veterinarians of this country can be very thankful that we have members on that committee of the merit of that member and of my colleague David Carter who sat on that committee as well. 
I have learnt something new tonight as a result of reading Supplementary Order Paper 8 which inserts a new Part 3A. It is that when bills become Acts—get the royal assent—all the numbering can change. One of the concerns I had when looking at this Supplementary Order Paper was that it states that “clauses 46 to 47A (line 20 on page 50 to line 26 on page 54)” are to be omitted. That may sound very technical and mean very little to listeners at home but basically it takes out all the provisions between and including clauses 46 and 47A. When I looked at the whole bill I thought: “Hang on a minute. Clause 45 then will jump to clause 48. What happens to the numbering?”. So I went and had a chat with the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton and with his agreement I had a chat with the officials. I was not aware that sometimes when we make changes in Committee when we take out chunks paste them and move them round the place we mess up the numbering and it is not until the very last part of the process that all the numbers change. Doing that can have quite an impact because bills that go through the House that undergo huge strong debate are often referred to by clause numbers and that numbering can change quite late in the piece. That was certainly of personal interest to me to learn after having been here some 6 years. 
It was interesting to hear Sue Kedgley chat about the contributions made by the National Party then talk about all and sundry issues such as sow crates and antibiotics in chickens. That makes me wonder what the relevance of some of those issues is to this bill because this bill sets in place a structure so that veterinarians can go through their registration be processed and practise in this country be they veterinarians from New Zealand or ones who have come into the country. Then in the event that things go wrong and a complaint is made against them there are quite straightforward procedures about how those complaints are handled. 
If we look at the new Part 3A we get into a discussion about what happens after a decision from the complaints assessment committee is made and here we have quite detailed provisions about what happens to people who have had a judgment made against them. In reading these provisions I find myself becoming a bit confused because someone who has had a judgment made against him or her can still practise but only under specified conditions in specified practices and doing specified work. It seems to me that this level of detail is probably best not put into a bill like this one but left for perhaps the Veterinary Council to make its own regulations and rules about how it deals with vets whom complaints have been made about. It ends up being quite confusing. 
I am wondering—and I would be interested in the Minister’s view on this—whether part of this Supplementary Order Paper really relates to overseas vets who come into the country and have qualifications that do not necessarily marry up with the qualifications that New Zealand vets hold. They might have a qualification that forms part of a New Zealand vet’s qualification but does not quite match the full qualification. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak to new Part 3A “Conditions of practice and appeals” specifically. I was very interested to hear the comments made by Sue Kedgley earlier on and although I believe that Ms Rich may have been a bit hard on Sue Kedgley I found what Sue Kedgley had to say about battery hens incredibly interesting. I know a bit about battery hens because I have rescued a few in my time. I have kept hens for years and I know all the benefits of looking after them. In that time I have done a bit of research on battery hens. Although people may think it was inappropriate that I was looking to rescue battery hens from their little cages it is disgusting to go to visit those places where they are lined up in their little cells. As they peep out between the little bars they are stacked up three-high on top of piles of excrement which absolutely stinks to high heaven. They get their little bit of shot of water that they can nibble at and they have their beaks clipped to stop them pecking at the others and their feathers are ripped out by those they are sharing the cage with. They have their little allocation of food. The light is manipulated so they think it is daytime when it is actually night-time. That is their lot. 
A battery hen can crank out 270 eggs a year or about one every 26 hours if it is kept in that manipulated state. So I took it upon myself—as someone who wanted to have his little slice of the good life on his quarter acre—to go and buy some of those hens. They were cheap—no pun intended. They were only $1.50 each and I got six of them to take home. Some of them were so knackered that they just sat on the ground. They could not even stand because they had been kept in those squalid conditions for so long. But after a little while they started to dig around in the wood shavings that I had prepared for them they had food they could help themselves to and they were given clean water. As a result of reading an exquisite tome called  
The New Complete Book of Self-Sufficiency 
 by John Seymour I introduced a rooster. All those hens discovered a whole new pastime in the hen house. [ 
Interruption 
] That member did his apprenticeship for this House by sharpening pencils for MPs. Some of us have knocked around for quite a while and we know a bit about hens and chickens. We know the difference anyway. 
What happened was that those chickens once they were allowed to scratch around in the dirt have a bit of a dust-bath to keep the mites away and have a bit of fun with the old rooster—which I am sure Mr Hughes knows all about coming from Horowhenua—they found that they did not lay quite as many eggs but they had a helluva lot more fun. 
It struck me while I was listening to Ms Kedgley that it is very much like those people who vote Green and Labour. They never knew what they were missing when they were stuck in their little cage. They never knew because their environment was so totally controlled. They had their little squirt of water their little shot of pellets their little shot of whatever it is up the jacksie like Ms Kedgley was talking about and they laid to their full potential. They never knew what life held for them until they came to live in my little hen house. When they were given a bit of freedom some wood shavings to scratch around in and the old rooster now and then they knew what life was really about. 
So those voters who have their environment manipulated who get a little squirt every now and then who have their lights turned on so they think that it is daytime when it is really night-time trot off to the polling booth and cast their vote in the direction of Labour and the Greens. They are just like those battery hens. But those rescued battery hens—a little bit like myself—have come over to the right side. They have scratched around in the dust. They know a little bit about what life is like and they know a little bit about roosters. They know how much fun the old battery hen can have with a rooster. I tell the members that if those rescued battery hens could vote they would be voting National. 
I am worried about some of the practices that this council is going to be able to dictate. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I thank my learned colleague Mr Borrows for the lesson on battery hens and what to do and what not to do with them. I rise to speak to new Part 3A and to bring some relevance to the debate despite the assertions of non-relevance or irrelevance from my not-so-learned colleague from the Greens. I rise to put some relevance back into this debate and to talk about the conditions of practice. I know that it might come as a surprise to members that I might actually address the question but so be it. 
I wonder whether sometimes it is the chicken before the egg or the egg before the chicken because we are talking about the Veterinary Council having somewhat impressive albeit discretionary powers. Whenever any body has discretionary and impressive powers one has to look at the body itself—in other words the council. If we look at the composition of the council—and I know that this is in the next part of the bill but it is relevant in terms of who has the authority to impose those conditions—it can be seen that the council includes two laypersons one veterinarian appointed by the Minister and an academic. I wonder whether that is entirely appropriate when we are setting the standards in advance for a profession that is obviously concerned about protecting its brand and its reputation and maintaining the consistency of those standards. 
I wonder whether the Minister has brought that to mind as to the composition of the council when imposing these conditions of practice because these powers are impressive and they are subjective. There is always a danger with discretionary subjective powers that there is a lack of certainty. When laws are uncertain they can lead to misunderstandings and they can lead to their being regarded as bad law. The subjectivity I think is a concern. The conditions imposed must be only those that in the council’s opinion are necessary. There is no objectivity in that test there is no requirement whatsoever as to what is reasonable or what is not reasonable and I do wonder as to the appropriateness of the total subjectivity of the test. 
My having said that some of the conditions that have been listed—and again they are discretionary and not mandatory—seem to reek somewhat of common sense I must confess. It is not unusual for many professions for example to require continuing education as a condition and in fact many professions require continuing education in any event as a prerequisite to having a practising certificate and I speak on that in relation to chartered accountants. They have an extensive continuing education programme that ensures that their profession does indeed protect its brand its reputation and does maintain as far as possible consistency of standards. There are conditions that I think are sensible and for those veterinarians who have been censured it is entirely appropriate that a condition of supervision may be applied. Obviously there are also conditions that a specified person may not perform any work of a stated kind and this gives some flexibility if for example there is a certain field of expertise with which that vet is not familiar. I think again there is some common sense there. 
My major objection to new Part 3A is in relation to the notice. A condition in new clause 55B prescribes that the council must notify the person of any conditions of practice it has imposed. There is absolutely no notice requirement in this provision. It is almost like having the verdict before the trial and I am concerned that the sense of fairness—the sense of natural justice that pervades some of the rest of the bill the sense of a right to be heard—seems to be omitted from new clause 55B. In effect there is no notice requirement whatsoever in relation to any conditions that the council may subjectively and unilaterally impose. I am concerned that could lead to serious injustices. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Following on from the excellent contributions from National members of Parliament on new Part 3A I want to raise a different point and to ask the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton for some answers. My concern is the process. 
The bill went through the Primary Production Committee was substantially rewritten with the help of parliamentary counsel then came back to the House and at that stage the committee I think had every right to assume that it had done a pretty good job. Then today Mr Anderton suddenly dumps Supplementary Order Paper 8 on the Table of the House. When I look through that Supplementary Order Paper I see that a good amount of it is technical and makes changes to drafting and I accept that—I want to make sure that when the legislation finally leaves the House it is as accurate as possible—but the part that puzzles me and I think it would only be fair that the Minister take a call and answer this question is why the Minister has seen fit subsequent to the select committee process to remove clauses 46 to 47A from the bill as reported back and put them entirely into a new part. If that is done as a matter of clarity to give us better legislation then I say to the Minister that that advice should have been given to the select committee at the time. I want the Minister to tell us why he has seen fit to present this substantial Supplementary Order Paper at the eleventh hour. 
The second point I want to raise with the Minister is in regard to the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 8. The third bullet point states that the Supplementary Order Paper amends the Veterinarians Bill to “relocate the provisions of the Bill in relation to conditions of practice (from clauses 46 to 47A to new clauses 55A to 55C).” The next words are important and the Committee should note them: “There is no substantive amendments to these provisions.” That is what the explanatory note states and the Committee has every right to rely on it. But when I go through the Supplementary Order Paper and through clauses 46 to 47A in the bill as I read it—and I admit that we have been working on this for some time and we will continue working on it over the next couple of days so I may have missed something—I do not find any change at all in the wording of the provisions on the Supplementary Order Paper. It seems to me that clauses 46 to 47A have been picked up in their entirety put in new Part 3A and denoted as clauses 55A to 55C. 
If I am right I am very suspicious of the wording of the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 8: “There is no substantive amendments to these provisions.” I see the Minister is seeking some advice; I would be very pleased to hear his explanation. I do not see any change; maybe there are some very small minor changes—maybe punctuation or a minor change of wording—but we as the Committee need to know that. We become worried when explanatory notes of Supplementary Order Papers are inaccurate. 
So I ask the Minister to give us an explanation of those two points only. I am sure it will not take him long to do that. I reiterate the two points so he is clear on why we want the answers. First why subsequent to the select committee process has there been a substantial change in drafting format? I think that advice should have been given to the select committee at the time by parliamentary counsel. I do not criticise the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials; I enjoyed working with them and they did a great job. This is a drafting issue pertaining to parliamentary counsel. The second point is that I want to know whether there are any changes at all or whether those clauses have just been picked up in their entirety with no change and put into the new part. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to proposed new Part 3A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) of proposed new clause 55A the number “1” after the word “of” and before the word “or” and substitute the number “2”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to proposed new Part 3A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) of proposed new section 55A the number “1” after the word “of” and before the word “or” and clause the number “3”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to proposed new Part 3A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) of proposed new clause 55A the number “1” after the word “of” and before the word “or” and substitute the number “4”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to proposed new Part 3A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (3)(j) of proposed new clause 55A the words “or tests” after the word “examinations” and before the word “or”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Hon David Carter to clause 56(2) be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of subclause (2) the words “20 working days” and substitute the words “25 working days”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 8 in the name of Hon Jim Anderton to new Part 3A be agreed to. 
Part 4 Veterinary Council of New Zealand 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This includes debate on schedule 1. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 We come to a part that is critical to the bill and first I take the opportunity of actually congratulating the Government. If we go through Part 4 we see that it is one of the few parts that did not have to be almost totally rewritten because of the incompetence of the previous Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton. We finally have a part that we can get through relatively unscathed. 
The clause I want to concentrate on in this contribution is of course clause 69 “Composition of Council”. Many people have taken the opportunity to talk about the vital role the council will have under this legislation. I take this opportunity to thank the current Veterinary Council for its role in helping us get this legislation right. It was invaluable and its advice was well received by the committee. It is a great pity that the previous Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Sutton totally ignored its advice prior to the drafting of the bill. 
Clause 69 states that the council must have seven members. The council must have: (a) 3 veterinarians elected in accordance with regulations”—and I will talk about that in my second contribution—“(b) 2 laypersons appointed by the Minister by notice in the  
Gazette 
;” and (c) 1 veterinarian appointed by the Minister by notice in the  
Gazette 
; and (d) the person for the time being responsible for the veterinary science academic programme at Massey University.” Under clause 69 the person from Massey University is very easy to appoint. It should not be much trouble for the Minister. Then we move to the vet whom the Minister must appoint. I have a candidate I would like to suggest. It is the Hon Pete Hodgson because he will be looking for a job in the very near future—within the next 12 or 18 months when the Government falls to bits. The Minister ought to keep Pete Hodgson in mind as a possible appointment because he will certainly be looking for a job. 
Clause 69(b) requires two laypersons to be appointed by the Minister by notice in the  
Gazette 
. Again we have a nomination tonight—Dame Ann Hercus. I believe that she is looking for a job. I believe that she has a little bit of additional time in her diary. She was a very valued member of the Television New Zealand board until a matter of hours ago. Surprisingly after the examination of TVNZ at the Finance and Expenditure Committee today she has created a bit of room in her diary. She has done the honourable thing and fallen on her sword—because of course there has been a large number of leaks but we will talk about the leaks later. She is an excellent candidate for consideration. So we have one candidate and she will do a good job for the Minister. She will certainly report any matters that might be of embarrassment to the Minister. After all she did a very good job reporting matters of embarrassment to the Minister of Broadcasting so she has a track record. 
Simon Power 
: What about Dianne Yates? She is retiring early. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I have to say to my learned colleague Simon Power I would not recommend Dianne Yates. She is famous for only one thing. She has a bill before Parliament at the moment about the docking of dogs’ tails. Vets earn a huge amount of money from the cosmetic docking of dogs’ tails. I think she would have a conflict of interest. 
Katherine Rich 
: She did a dog impression in the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: She did do a dog impression in the House so she has shown some expertise. 
We need to be considering advising the Minister on his ability to appoint two laypersons under clause 69(b). We have found one candidate and we will continue throughout the rest of tonight to come up with suitable recommendations from the National caucus. We are here to help. We want this legislation passed as quickly as possible. We want the composition of the council determined as quickly as possible. We know that the Hon Jim Anderton is new to this field and has no familiarity with the farming sector or the veterinary profession. Therefore we will make sure that over the next couple of hours we take every opportunity to assist him in making good nominations for the one further position he has to find on the Veterinary Council. It needs to be someone who can work closely and collegially with Dame Ann Hercus. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 For any members opposite who may be looking for a job after the Christmas break there is an opportunity to sit on the Veterinary Council. I know that the member from Dunedin South the Hon David Benson-Pope might be looking for a job over the Christmas break. I know he has been looking at his options. I understand that he has an offer to be a ballboy at Wimbledon but I do not think he is quick enough on his feet to take up that one. So he might like to stand as a member of the Veterinary Council. It might be a useful job for the Hon David Benson-Pope. 
There are other opportunities on the council. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Jim Anderton whether the veterinarian appointment has to be a veterinarian who holds a practising certificate because that has not been stated in the legislation. I would be interested to know that because members opposite may have tripped themselves up. I do not think Pete Hodgson holds a practising certificate and if he does not he may not be able to get this “job for the boys” and he will miss out altogether. 
I notice that there is no paragraph (e) in clause 69 to appoint a member of the council who does not sit on the council and who takes no responsibility for any other business. If there were such a provision we could have Winston Peters as the fifth member. He could sit on the council only for things relating to his particular skills which of course would be dealing with the equine industry. As the Minister for Racing he has an opportunity there. 
So there are plenty of job opportunities. Three veterinarians are to be elected in accordance with the regulations. Two laypersons are to be appointed by the Minister. David Benson-Pope is a possibility there. One veterinarian is to be appointed by the Minister by notice in the  
Gazette 
. The last is the person who for the time being is responsible for the veterinary science academic programme at Massey University—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there is a candidate. There are plenty of opportunities there for former Labour members of Parliament after the Christmas break. 
 I move to another matter clause 78. I took some practical steps and wandered along to the Bills Office regarding this particular matter. I was interested to see that the annual report by the Minister for that financial year has to be tabled in the House of Representatives 16 days after he receives it. Well the Bills Office has never received an annual report. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Darren Hughes’ heckling is so effective is it not! He has tripped me up what every 10 seconds in this speech! He has nailed me; I am on the cross. Darren Hughes is a phenomenal heckler. I tell members what would be more effective. After Christmas he will take his pills his voice will break and then there will be a deep voice booming across the Chamber instead of a little squeak and it will blow us off our feet. But up until now it is the small voice of Darren Hughes heckling the members on the other side of the House. He should come back when his voice breaks heckle us and he will be effective—he will knock us off our feet. 
Hon David Carter 
: Maybe they’ll drop before he comes back. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes they will drop over Christmas and the member will be an effective heckler. He will certainly take it to members on this side of the House. He will not have to squeak and carry on and we will respect him. 
Anyway I turn again to clause 78 “Annual report”. Subclause (2) states: “Within 16 days of receiving the annual report from the Council the Minister must present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives.” We have not had one to date. There are none in the Bills Office. There are none in the records. I congratulate the Government on the fact that presenting a copy will now be compulsory and the council will have that transparency. I will certainly be getting the annual report of the Veterinary Council to see the progress of its work over the next year with the passage of that particular measure. 
Darren Hughes 
: He has nothing else to do. He can’t get promoted. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Only dogs can hear Darren Hughes. Only dogs are put off when Darren Hughes heckles because his voice is so high. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We have been waiting now for 5 weeks to find out what it was that the Exclusive Brethren paid for. What was it that they were buying from the National Party with all that investment? What was the deep issue that the Labour Government was proposing that had the Exclusive Brethren so up in arms that many of them actually voted in this election for the first time in their lives according to our check on the electoral rolls? What is in this bill that has the Opposition members talking? Having told us that they would take only one call on each bill after—which one was it? 
Darren Hughes 
: After the ports bill. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: They said they would take only one call on each bill after the ports bill but suddenly the entire C-team of the National caucus has come into full flight in the Chamber. What has caused that? The Veterinarians Bill. Why would the National Party caucus be so excited about the Veterinarians Bill? We get excited about bills about humans but they get excited about bills about animals. I can think why that would be but probably the Standing Orders would prevent me from saying so. It is animals that get the people opposite so excited; humans they pass over. They have had so many opportunities today to talk about other things but they have chosen to talk about this. 
Mr Heatley had one main point. It was that we have not had under this left-wing socialist tax-grabbing Government a single report from the Veterinary Council as provided for in the Veterinarians Bill. Well no we will not have any reports until we pass the bill. Then the council will have to produce an annual report and table it. It is appallingly true that until an Act is passed requiring people to table an annual report they do not have to table it. But of course if we had given the veterinarians a tax cut they would table an annual report all by themselves without being required to by the Government! So I thank the Opposition for doing our job for us. Carry on—we are watching the clock tick away. We are just baffled by what their tactics are at this point in the evening. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 After that contribution I think it is important to note that it does not matter whether the issue is big or small—the National Party will take the issue seriously and I think that pet owners and veterinarians up and down the country will be concerned to hear the comments made by Dr Michael Cullen that he does not think that their concerns are important enough to warrant a serious and thorough debate. 
I turn my attention to Part 4 which is about the make-up of the Veterinary Council. Once again I turn my attention to the complaints assessment committee. I see the new member Shane Jones heckling away there. The point I would like to make is that the complaints assessment committee has greater powers than the committee that he currently chairs. I will recap for those who were not here earlier. This bill allows a complaints assessment committee by written notice to demand anybody it wants to come before it and to demand any information it wants on any complaint. It can demand anything whatever that thing might be to be brought to it. Basically it has stronger powers than a select committee of this House. 
I know that that member Shane Jones just wishes he had those powers right now as he oversees the TVNZ inquiry where impotently the Finance and Expenditure Committee invited Bill Ralston to come along to the select committee and he declined; invited Susan Wood to come along but she declined; and invited Paul Holmes to come along to the committee but he declined. Had Mr Jones been the chair of a Veterinary Council’s complaints assessment committee he would have had a better chance of getting all those TVNZ staff members to come along and talk about issues of import to him. 
So we have a committee that must have two or more people. How we can have a committee with just two people on it I do not know. It is more of a couple than a committee. They sit and deal with complaints that might be very important but might be less significant than some of the issues that the Finance and Expenditure Committee currently inquires about here in Parliament. 
One of the things that do concern me about this part is clause 74(5) which states: “A resolution of a complaints assessment committee is passed if a majority of votes are cast for it.” Well I have a bit of a problem with that provision because each committee has only three people on it. That is my reading of clause 74(2) which states that each committee has two vets and one layperson. Well in the event that there is a complaint that is contentious the vets can gang up on the layperson and they need to have only a majority of one for that complaints assessment resolution to be passed. 
That does not seem very fair. That does not seem to be due process. Surely if significant complaints are brought before the complaints assessment committee—for example the Bianca incident which my colleague David Carter mentioned earlier—and the debate is contentious and the members of the committee do not agree they need to have only a majority of one on a committee of three for the resolution to be passed. I think that as the complaints assessment committee may deal with some quite contentious issues that is not good enough. The complaints committee obviously needs to have more people on it and it needs to have a greater balance. Otherwise we will always be in a position of the vets ganging up on the layperson or two people ganging up on one. I really think the resolutions need to be passed by consensus given that the committee is so very very small. 
We have talked about the composition of the council and that clause has been renamed the “Hercus clause” by my colleague David Carter. I wonder why the Minister needs to appoint anybody on to a council that is basically going to oversee veterinarians. Why do we need to have any political influence at all? Why can we not trust veterinarians to put people on to their board whom they trust and vote for? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 It is interesting to hear strident cries from National members about undemocratic process and appointments to committees of the council. I have just checked with the officials that the composition of the Veterinary Council is exactly the same as the composition set by the 1994 Act. Who was the 1994 Act passed by? 
Darren Hughes 
: The Labour Party? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Was it? I did not think Labour was in Government then so I do not think it was. No the National Government passed the Act but National members are now saying the Veterinary Council is a hopeless hotbed of socialist intrigue and undemocratic process—and it has not changed! It has not changed one scrap. I was thinking maybe I had missed something and that maybe it had changed. But this bit of the Act is exactly the same as the previous one. Furthermore it has been the same all the time the Primary Production Committee has been looking at the legislation. So if it is so bad now—and everyone has to examine this very closely—then what was the select committee doing? I thought that under the very capable chairmanship of David Carter everything was hunky-dory and going along swimmingly. So nothing changed in the 1994 Act. Everything was fine because National passed it but now on this night it all has to be filibustered as though there is a plot against democratic process as we know it. 
I do not think any self-respecting vet will be listening to the debate but if they are then I would like them to consider this: we are told that the National Party wants to help the veterinary profession and get this bill passed. The Government was criticised just a few hours ago—although it seems like days with the quality of the speeches—for holding the bill up; that it had to get in; that the vets were ready to celebrate and the champagne bottles were going to be opened. Yet here we are hours later arguing footling amendments ridiculously trivial rubbish that the so-called famous chairman of the select committee all on his own behalf changes the number and all the rest of it. There have been hours and hours of delay. 
I treat with complete derision what is going on here. The National Party may think it is funny or smart. I think it derides and undermines the reputation of the House and I treat that behaviour with contempt. If those members carry on like that then there is nothing in what they are doing that will advance the sum of knowledge in the veterinary profession by one millimetre. But they should go on doing it if they think that is the way to gain their reputation outside this Parliament. They should go ahead and make our day. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I presume that after a contribution like that we will be allowed a wide-ranging debate on the remaining part. After the Minister rose to— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: They haven’t been already. 
SIMON POWER 
: It is totally contrary to Speakers’ rulings for a Minister in the chair to interject. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is absolutely right but he invited it. 
SIMON POWER 
: No I did not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I may have misheard but that is the way I understood it. The member spoke and the Minister responded. 
SIMON POWER 
: We now seek a ruling after having had a contribution from the Minister in which he referred to the bill I think once. Prior to that members on this side of the Chamber had been pulled back to the point of the bill by you on several occasions. I noticed that Dr Cullen in his contribution—which had very little to do with the bill—was not required to address the part in any serious way. I ask you now to advise the Committee on whether it is your intention to allow a wide-ranging discussion on the remaining part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I will continue to run the Committee as I have done and I would say that people from both sides have strayed from the bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to bring to the attention of the Committee just how holier than thou the Minister seems to be. Never in his—how many years has the Minister been here 20 years? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Longer than you. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The Minister blurts out: “Longer than you.” Obviously any fool would know that. [ 
Interruption 
] Here we go bring it on! It will be 40 love in a minute I say to Mr Benson-Pope. He should keep his trap shut. [ 
Interruption 
] Absolutely! At least I am not a bully and at least I did not lie to the House. At least I did not make up stories and come down to the Chamber and tell— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The Minister has the holier-than-thou attitude of a long-serving member of Parliament that says we are bringing the House into disrepute with our so-called tactics as if he has never been party to a good discussion on a long bill that is actually a very intense bill. He has never been party to any sort of tactic in the House. That is what happens when one becomes an angry old pensioner. 
The leader of New Zealand First is the other half of the angry pensioner duo. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would like some semblance to the subject of the debate. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Is that right? I was just following what the last two Government speakers were on about. I am sorry that I have misread the situation. Clause 69(b) states: “(b) 2 laypersons appointed by the Minister by notice in the  
Gazette 
; …”. What it should really state is: “(b) 2 Labour Party cronies appointed by the Minister by notice in the  
Gazette 
; …”—and yes not only Ann Hercus as my learned colleague says. 
I hear that Jonathan Hunt is on his way back now. Do members know why? The reason is that the leader of New Zealand First will pick up the job as High Commissioner when he has done a bit of a stint as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Jonathan Hunt will come home then he will end up with the plum job on that council. 
But he is not the only one. What about John Goulter? He could be one of the laypersons who is appointed to the council. Or maybe it could be Ken Douglas another angry pensioner. He is not doing much these days. The Minister should put him on the council. I tell members that he would be the first red veterinary councillor they have ever seen. He would be good. But here is another one—another guy who does not do much for a living. In fact he makes his living off an appointment by the Labour Party. It is none other than the president himself Mike Williams. Mike Williams could be on this council. He is a good candidate. 
The Minister can sit there with a smug smile and a smug face and he can shake his head all that he wants to. But the holier-than-thou attitude is gone Mr Angry Pensioner. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 At this point in the debate as I stand up to address Part 4 “Veterinary Council of New Zealand” I think it is very important to reflect for just a moment on why this bill is so important to the members of the National Party. I think we just need to look at the map of the electoral seats as a result of the last election to note the large swathe of blue that provincial and rural New Zealand is now painted. We need only reflect on the number of electorate seats that have been returned to their rightful National home to realise that yes the concerns of rural and provincial New Zealand are very important to us as indeed is the Veterinarians Bill. 
It has been noted on the other side of the Chamber how keen and enthusiastic we on the National side are to debate this part of the bill and I want to take a moment now to thank my more senior colleagues for the time they have taken to come to provincial and rural New Zealand to support our campaigns. I want to thank Phil Heatley who came down to Otago to help me campaign in order to win back Otago to National so that farmers would be well represented in Otago. I want to thank Simon Power who took time out of his busy schedule to come down to Otago. I took him through Middlemarch in the middle of winter and we heard the concerns of farmers in Otago. We went through black ice but that did not deter us because we were very very concerned about the issues to do with farming in New Zealand. The issues are not just about pets for us in the National Party; they are also about farming. 
I return to Part 4 Veterinary Council of New Zealand. I note that clause 67 “Functions of Council” states: “The Council’s functions are—(a) to advise and make recommendations to the Minister on any matter relating to veterinarians and the practice of veterinary science:”. Clearly this part of the bill is of vital importance and interest to us on the National side of the House. I want to move to paragraph (g) of clause 67 in which the council’s function is: “to receive investigate and hear complaints about inquire into the conduct of make assessments of and discipline specified persons under Part 3:”. Now just returning to Part 3 very briefly I tell members that people have very strongly held affections not only for their vets but also for their farm animals. I think we in National have a very clear understanding of why this bill is so very important to us. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 4 “Veterinary Council of New Zealand” and I do so because it is a very important part—remarkable indeed. But unlike Mr Cullen I actually want to talk about Part 4. I want first of all to thank the Minister for his enlightening comments but in fact I had already noted that there are unlike many parts of this bill few if any changes to Part 4. Why is that? It is because the former Minister of Agriculture did not manage to meddle with this part before presenting the original draft. In fact the details around the Veterinary Council around the complaints assessment committees and around the judicial committees obviously met with the approval of the sector—the very same sector that was not consulted with prior to putting together the rest of the bill. So Part 4 is remarkable for that. 
Part 4 is also very important because it concerns the registration body of the peers and the peers are the vets. The council members are there to examine to register to advise the Minister on any matter including education to talk to other countries about reciprocal arrangements to hear complaints and also to prescribe standards. I want to refer to talking to other countries about reciprocal arrangements and why that is so important. Again we come back to the fact that we are short of vets and particularly of rural vets. And I reflect on what my colleague has said about the blue tide that has swept through New Zealand—the blue tide that recognises that provincial New Zealand is important. The primary production sector is important and that area of New Zealand has been callously disregarded by the Labour Government. In fact on 17 September it was Labour’s peril. We see in the Chamber tonight many members who now hold former Labour seats myself included. 
When we look at the complaints assessment committees we see they have as my colleague Katherine Rich has suggested very very powerful powers. Again we are still to be illuminated about things. I put it to members again that those things are still probably the frozen bodies of the pets in the freezer. The judicial committees are a very important part of the process. We see that because Part 4 does not have many changes if any; it is just a mere five pages compared with the 31 pages that we saw in Part 3. 
We can talk about clause 69 “Composition of Council”—three elected veterinarians and also another appointed one and two lay persons. I may have to take a slightly divergent view from that of my colleague Katherine Rich regarding the make-up of that committee. I believe it is in the best interest of veterinarians that they represent the views of pet owners by making sure that there are no bad apples amongst them. I do believe veterinarians will judge their peers very harshly on occasions when they are before them so therefore there will be a balance of views that looks to the interests of pets and vets. We have heard here tonight about the emotive issues around those who worry terribly about their pets and the balance on that council is very important. 
I have just a final comment to make regarding the possible laypersons who could be appointed and I say we have had some suggestions. Earlier this week I saw in the  
Timaru Herald  
that the Hon Jim Sutton is looking for a new job so I wonder whether he could be a candidate. But chillingly I also suggest— 
Hon David Carter 
: A racing car driver! 
JO GOODHEW 
: Oh true yes he could also do that. Chillingly I also suggest that there will be some National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) markers who are disenchanted and disillusioned with their jobs. They too will be looking for a new job. So it may be that NCEA markers would be a very good idea as lay members of the council. I believe that my colleagues will come up with many more suggestions about those lay people. We have had some great suggestions here tonight but I still think that perhaps the Hon Jim Sutton should be right up there because he has suggested that he may be looking for a new occupation. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I have been looking forward to taking a call on Part 4— 
Darren Hughes 
: He wants to go on the council! 
SIMON POWER 
: Mr Hughes chips in and says that I want to be on the council. It seems to me there are a fair number of candidates on the other side who would make excellent lay people on the Veterinary Council not the least of whom is dear old Paul Swain there—one of the good centrists and moderates of the caucus who is about to gracefully exit. This would be a good way for “Swainy and the boys” to make a few dollars on the side when they leave Parliament. We would support his nomination. If he puts his nomination in National will support Paul Swain going on the council. I tell members that the thing that worries us about good people such as Paul Swain who are sliding out of the Labour Party is that we will be left with a whole lot of lefties over there with none of the sort of sensible middle-of-the-road guys like Jim Sutton and Paul Swain. We always know. We can smell it coming. And poor old Swainy who is well regarded on all sides of the House is on his way out. He has done the honourable thing and decided he will move on before the axe falls. I tell Swainy to come on over. If he wants to be on the council we will sort it out for him. 
Of course we have plenty of other candidates to choose from although none of them are as good as Paul Swain and Jim Sutton. But I could imagine Dianne Yates on the council. She knows a lot about taking tails off dogs. She would be an ideal person for this particular committee. Or Jill Pettis would be an excellent person to have on the committee. Martin Gallagher sits at the back there smiling and shaking his head. But we all know that secretly he wants to give away the chair of the Law and Order Committee and get himself on to the Veterinary Council. I tell members that it would be easier for him to manage that than the Law and Order Committee where he has to rely on Ron Mark turning up some time in the first 10 minutes to make sure he has a quorum. Poor old Martin Gallagher is struggling in that job. This is a job for him. Let us get Martin Gallagher on to the Veterinary Council. He could sit there with Swainy and Jim Sutton. They would make a great team. 
What about Russell Fairbrother? Poor old Russell Fairbrother. He was on the way up. He got the suicide posting of having to chair the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee. He was a future Attorney-General and Minister of Justice but he was swatted in Napier and now he is destined for the Veterinary Council. Poor old Russell Fairbrother! Whatever happened to him? 
What about that nice Rick Barker? Whatever happened to him? I say to members that of all the Ministers that this Government has had he signed JPs’ nominations better than anybody else when he was in charge. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Rick Barker should be on the council. 
SIMON POWER 
: Paul Swain says that Rick Barker should be on the Veterinary Council. [ 
Interruption 
] With a name like Barker that is quite right. If we had Swainy on the council we would have more of those little quips. I say well done to Paul Swain and I think Rick Barker should chair it. 
What about poor old Moana Mackey? I have to confess I think Moana Mackey makes an intelligent contribution to this House. Unfortunately she is languishing at the bottom of the Labour list. She is gone. I think she would make a valuable contribution to the Veterinary Council. I think that would be an ideal place. She could talk about the effect of student loans on cats. I think it would be an excellent place for her to be. She has a big future on the Veterinary Council along with Martin Gallagher if he gives away the Law and Order Committee and along with Paul Swain who is gracefully trying to retire. 
What about Shane Jones? I tell him to cut out the middleman and go straight to the Veterinary Council. He should forget about Cabinet and go round the Finance and Expenditure Committee and straight on to the Veterinary Council. National will even support his nomination if that is where he wants to go. I figure that David Parker’s workload is so small that if he was put on the Veterinary Council sure he would refuse to do media interviews about the appointment for a month but in the end he would get on to the council and do some serious and real work because he has made such an impact on the transport area and on climate change—he has been the Minister for 3 weeks and carbon tax has gone. 
So that is what the composition of the lay people on the council would look like. We would have a rotating system of lay people like Dianne Yates Jill Pettis Russell Fairbrother Moana Mackey Jim Sutton and Paul Swain—a man who I believe could make a seriously valuable contribution in that arena. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 69 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (d) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(d) The person nominated by Massey University as a representative of their veterinary science academic programme. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 72 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the number “2” and substitute the number “3”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 72 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the number “2” and substitute the number “4”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 72 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the number “2” and substitute the number “5”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 74 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (2) the words “and 1 of whom must be appointed as the secretary of the committee”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 74 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (2) the words “and 1 of whom must be appointed as the deputy chairperson of the committee”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 74 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the number “1” after the word “and” and substitute the number “2”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 75 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the number “5” and substitute the number “7”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 75 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (2) the number “7” and substitute the number “6”. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 75 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (2) the number “7” and substitute the number “5”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 75 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (4) the words “2 or more” and substitute the words “3 or more”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 76 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the word “must” and substitute the word “may”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 78 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “16 sitting days” and substitute the words “20 sitting days”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 78 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the number “16” and substitute the number “9”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 78 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the number “16” and substitute the number “10”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to clause 78 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the number “16” and substitute the number “18”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I want to ask the Minister for her comments on three sections and I want to start with clause 86 “Service of documents”. I raise this because I just wonder whether the Primary Production Committee although it worked diligently on this has actually missed something here. Clause 86(1) states: “Any document notification or summons required or authorised by or under this Act may be served—(a) by delivering it personally to the person; or (b) by posting it to the person at that person’s usual place of residence.” I have no concern with clause 86(1) but clause 86(2) I think actually raises something that the Primary Production Committee may have missed and I think the Minister should concentrate on this. Clause 86(2)(a) states that if a summons is served personally on a person then that person must receive it “at least 48 hours before the attendance of the witness is required”. 
The point I want to raise with the new Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King is that—[ 
Interruption 
] Well maybe this Minister will actually know something about it. The point I want to raise is that there seems to be an incredibly short time frame between the time someone is served a notice to appear and the time that that person must appear—at least 48 hours. I genuinely worry whether the Primary Production Committee has missed something because I know that if the summons were served on a person like Dame Ann Hercus she would have no trouble being there in 48 hours because her diary is free now. But if the document were served on my vet Dave Matheson of Teddington RD1 Lyttelton who runs the most efficient vet clinic in Christchurch the Shirley Vet Centre then Dave would have huge difficulties clearing his diary because he is one of the most competent vets in Christchurch—probably the most competent vet in Christchurch. He would have a very busy schedule if people brought Sally the dog or Bianca the cockatoo to him. Under this legislation if summonsed he would be required to be at the hearing in 48 hours. 
I seriously say to the Minister—and the Minister might like to check with the officials—that maybe I am misinterpreting this or maybe it is something we have missed at select committee which would not be surprising because the Primary Production Committee has had a huge job sorting the mess out after the Government delivered the bill in such a cruddy state in the first place. Again I pay tribute to the assistance the committee received from the Veterinary Council in doing that. 
The second point I raise with the Minister in the chair Annette King is the inclusion of new clause 79AA “Protection for members of Council and others”: “Neither the Council nor any committee member committee member employee or agent of the Council is liable for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith …”. I was worried about the inclusion of that clause at the time we examined it in the Primary Production Committee. But after hearing the contributions from members of this Committee on the previous part where we talked about putting people like “Swainy and the boys” Dianne Yates Jill Pettis and the likes on to the council as the ministerial lay appointments—because they are people who will have lots of time after the next month or two—then I think we probably do need to realise that some of the decision making will be pretty marginal at best. 
Let us take somebody like Russell Fairbrother. He has been a disaster as a member of Parliament so he will probably be no better as an appointee to the Veterinary Council. We need to make sure that the whole of the council—some of them will be good people—does not become exposed to some of the marginal decisions that people like “Swainy and the boys” may make. 
The final point I make before “Swainy” walks out relates to the fees referred to in clause 87. Clause 87 states that the council may prescribe fees. That is satisfactory; I agree that that is a necessary role of the council but because the council will be stacked initially with Labour Party lackeys— 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is good to see Annette King in the chair. We can only hope that she has read the bill unlike the previous Minister in the chair Jim Anderton. 
I also am intrigued by the miscellaneous provisions that were pointed out by the Hon David Carter. One of the new unanimous clauses is clause 79AA “Protection for members of Council and others” which reads: “Neither the Council nor any committee member committee member employee or agent of the Council is liable for any thing done or omitted to be done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of their functions or duties or the exercise of their powers under this Act.” Why I find this—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is just far too much chatter. It is not fair to the member speaking. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. There was a lot of chatter coming from the member’s side of the Chamber. Would people give the speaker a fair go. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: When we look at possible appointments to that council like David Benson-Pope and all sorts of others who stumble trip and make mistakes and try to cover them up is it any wonder that we see a protection for members of the council and others which states that they may not be liable. Let us imagine David Benson-Pope sitting as a member on that council. Let us imagine a veterinarian coming before the council and David Benson-Pope tying the vet to a chair and shoving all sorts of veterinary apparatus in the vet’s mouth. If David Benson-Pope was on the Veterinary Council and did that to a vet who was before the council let us imagine the problems he would have if this no-liability clause 79AA was not in the bill. How could we have members like David Benson-Pope running amok on the council—abusing vets and everyone who appeared before the council—and not have this out clause? He could simply say that it was not him it was his press secretary. He could say it was not him that tied up the vet and shoved some sort of breeding device in his or her mouth or anything like that but that it was actually a staff member whom he has referred to the chair of the council to be dealt with in due course. He might not make any further comment but there would be a leak at the weekend in one of the Sunday papers. David Benson-Pope would have this protection clause whereby he would not be liable whatsoever. 
Clause 82 however is a clause made for Pete Hodgson. It is headed “Power of Council to supply evidence for registration overseas”. As we know Pete Hodgson is on his way out; he is one of the old men of the Labour Party. Clause 82(1) states: “The Council may supply to a veterinarian or other registered person the documents it thinks fit for the purpose of enabling the veterinarian or person to seek registration as a veterinarian outside New Zealand.” Of course Pete Hodgson wants a job overseas. The Labour Party is stacking the council so that it might supply the documentation for people like Pete Hodgson to get work overseas. 
What is the quid pro quo? That is what members are asking at the moment—I can hear them. The answer is in clause 82(2) which states that a veterinarian who requests such documents may have to pay a fee. Pete Hodgson will have to give some sort of backhander to the council and we all know what that will be: flu jabs. Only Ministers who send him overseas and give him the permission and the certificates will get flu jabs. Ministers of the Cabinet and members of the council will get the Tamiflu jabs. No other New Zealander will. Pete Hodgson as a retiring old man of the Labour Party who wants a job overseas as a vet will need that documentation to prove that he is a vet and that he can be registered to work overseas. The quid pro quo is that Annette King will receive a Tamiflu jab from Pete Hodgson the current Minister of Health. She was unable to arrange that when she herself was the Minister of Health as it would have been a conflict of interest. 
There is much in these clauses that points to a conspiracy of the Labour Party. The sun is setting on so many of its members such as Pete Hodgson. We heard about Russell Fairbrother and we see people like Rick Barker who took voluntary redundancy and just gave up in his seat in the last election. He lay down and waved the white flag. He gave up. The sun is setting on the careers of all those members of the Labour Party and they are looking for jobs—Pete Hodgson as a vet overseas and others as members of the Veterinary Council. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 First of all I say to Phil Heatley that his contribution was very droll very amusing and totally irrelevant so I will spend no time on it at all. However the Hon David Carter made a very serious contribution to tonight’s debate. He debated clause 86 “Service of documents”. He wondered why a document would have to be served within 48 hours and he mentioned his very good vet on Banks Peninsula somewhere who is so busy that he or she would not be able to receive a document or go to pick it up. So I thought I would read the whole clause to the member. 
Clause 86(1) states: “Any document notification or summons required or authorised by or under this Act may be served—(a) by delivering it personally to the person; or (b) by posting to the person at that person’s usual place of residence.” So we have the choice of delivering it or posting it via the very good New Zealand Post. Clause 86(2) states that if a document is served under clause 86(1) it has to be served—I tell Mr Carter to listen to this—within at least 48 hours. So it could be served 2 months beforehand but at least 48 hours’ notice must be given before the attendance of the witness is required. If one wants to post the document it must be served at least 10 days in advance. So Mr Carter’s very good vet on Banks Peninsula will have time to receive the summons. Let us face it if the vet is receiving a summons he or she may not be such a good vet. 
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. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I will take just a quick call to clear up the point the member was making about the clause stating that a member ceases to hold office if he or she dies. I am informed that that clause is in the current Veterinarians Act 1994. So there must have been a good reason why it was put in by the National Government in 1994. The member might also be interested to know that a similar clause is in the Electoral Act which states that a seat becomes vacant if someone dies. However many people on that side hold seats—and they are vacant already. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I would like to speak to Part 5 “Miscellaneous provisions”— which are numerous. Initially I would like to make a comment about the suggestion that the Hon Pete Hodgson be an appointed member of the Veterinary Council—a veterinarian appointed by the Minister. He would not be able to be so appointed because he has not been practising as a vet and under this new bill he would have to fulfil certain competency requirements and undergo some sort of retraining with supervision. Maybe we could have some suggestions over the course of the evening about who could supervise the Hon Pete Hodgson. 
In Part 5 the first miscellaneous provision is found in clause 79AA which members have discussed. It concerns protection for members of the council and others and states: “Neither the Council nor any committee member committee member employee or agent of the Council is liable for any thing done or omitted to be done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of their functions or duties or the exercise of their powers under this Act.” That is fair enough. The members of the council do need protection but they also need to be accountable. There does need to be some balance in that. 
The next matter I will talk about concerns clause 79 “Approved and prescribed matters to be notified and available for inspection”. Subclause (1) states that matters approved by the council must “(b) be made available so that members of the public may inspect the documents relating to the matter of free of charge.” That is also fair enough. That process needs to be transparent and the public should have access to those documents. Subclause (2) goes on to state: “However a person may be charged a reasonable fee if the person is supplied with a copy of any particulars.” I wonder what a reasonable fee is and who decides what the amount will be. That is an important fact. 
I move on to clause 80 concerning evidence which I think is an important provision. It states that the certificate of the council is to be conclusive evidence and I absolutely agree with that. It must stand up to close scrutiny otherwise what is the point? 
But clause 82 really worries me; “Power of Council to supply evidence for registration overseas” is of real concern because it means that we are giving vets leaving New Zealand a certificate of competency for registration overseas and that is a reflection of the state of our workforce. Not only are vets leaving in droves but so are so many other Kiwis— 
Phil Heatley 
: Taking their qualifications with them. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
:—taking their qualifications with them. They see no future in New Zealand and they are packing up and going off to a better life with better salaries and better opportunities. 
The vets themselves as reported in the Veterinary Council news brief from February 2005 recognise that as an issue and they recognise that their numbers in the workforce will fall short. I will read members a paragraph. It is quite important and highlights some parallels with other issues today: “The council will be able to offer limited registration under conditions to individuals whose qualifications don’t meet the recognised standards but whose skills sets are needed in specific areas. It is most likely that those individuals would be employed in sectors such as teaching and research and in areas of specific need. … This category would be used to deal with any emergency disease outbreak”—and that is my point. A flu pandemic will hit New Zealand at some point. It is not a question of if; it is a question of when and we will have a real problem dealing with sick people in their homes and having to invent a new type of primary health care. We will have to call on non-governmental organisations and on professionals who have perhaps been out of the workforce for a while to help. 
The vets are now recognising the same situation with a potential emergency disease outbreak of foot-and-mouth I suspect or something similar. I think it is sad that we are losing our workforce. The vets recognise it; they recognise that we need contingencies for emergency situations and we need to do the same for the flu pandemic when it comes. There is an interesting parallel here because I have been very concerned about the workforce issue in New Zealand particularly with the situation of the breast cancer workforce. It has put our programme under immense pressure. In 2004 we had to send our women over to the Gold Coast for radiotherapy. We do not have to send our pets overseas to see vets at this stage but it could become a problem. We may have to do that—to seek help. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I want to ask the Minister about clause 79(1) and (2). Clause 79(1)(b) states: “(1) Any matter approved or prescribed by the Council under this Act must—… (b) be made available so that members of the public may inspect the documents relating to the matter free of charge.” Clause 79(2) goes on to state: “(2) However a person may be charged a reasonable fee if the person is supplied with a copy of any particulars.” I would ask the Minister what in his mind constitutes a reasonable fee. The interpretation of a reasonable fee is rather large. Is it $10 60c per page or 40c per page—what does that term actually constitute? 
I thought that that was the only thing I would ask about Part 5 but as we read on we see Part 5 sets out the fee structure. It is just another grubby little Labour Government grab of taxpayers’ money. The fees are all over the place. Clause 87 “Council may prescribe fees” states: “(1) the Council may from time to time by notice in the  
Gazette 
 …” prescribe fees. I go on to clause 88 “Principles guiding prescribing of fees” to clause 89 which is also about fees and to clause 90 “Further provisions relating to fees”. The Government could have called Part 5 “Miscellaneous provisions about fees”. It is a tax—exactly! 
The point is that people out there will have to pay for that. The spin-off from this legislation is that vet fees will go up. The issue is not just about Veterinary Council fees and about how the council does its business; it is about putting the hand of the Government into the back pocket of the worker who may have a German shepherd— 
Shane Ardern 
: No a cocky. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Exactly! How many dogs do farmers have to help them run the farm? Let us say it is six or seven little Australian cattle dogs maybe. It means that when those dogs have to be taken to the vet because there may be a problem one that is not of the farmer’s doing but basically because dogs may become sick the farmer will be charged more. The Minister of Maori Affairs who is sitting on the Government side of the Chamber and looking really interested in this point may want to know about the dogs on his property too. When he takes them to the vet the vet will think that in case he or she has to front up to the council one day he or she should put his or her charges up and there we have the flow-on effect. So I am afraid that Part 5 is really about a tax grab and I suppose that all the cockies and people who own pets and animals will most probably say the Government should take its hand out of their pockets. 
Dr Jackie Blue raised the issue of clause 82 “Power of Council to supply evidence for registration overseas”. That would have been all right if there was a clause at about that point in the bill regarding the registration of overseas people as well in order to bring them together so that we were not actually losing people. 
Phil Heatley 
: Exporting them. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Exactly! As my learned colleague from Whangarei said we are exporting the skills of this country. That is what that is. What about the people in this country for goodness sake! Do we not care about the people who have the Biancas the Gees—do people remember Gee? He was the dog that was run over. This part of the bill is nothing more than a tax grab. 
In closing I just want to ask the Minister about clause 84 “Crown not liable for debts of Council”. However in every other part of this bill basically the Crown wants to have a say. The Crown is to appoint a couple of people to the board. The Crown is to do this and the Crown is to do that but when it comes time to front up the Crown does not want to be liable. It says it is not its fault if something goes wrong and that it only appoints people and makes the laws. So what is that all about? That is a serious question and I ask the Minister what that is all about. But I also want to ask why in clause 84 the reference is to the Crown and not the Government. I ask whether somebody could explain to me the difference between the Crown and the Government. Who is the Crown and who is the Government and is that reference just a ruse? 
Lastly I also want to say this. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Go on treat yourself. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I will actually. Nowhere in this bill is there a reference to the tangata whenua. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I too rise to speak on Part 5 but I would first like to applaud the comments made by our esteemed colleague the Hon David Carter and for his drawing attention to inter alia clause 86 of this bill. Clause 86(1) provides: “(1) Any document notification or summons required or authorised by or under this Act may be served—(a) by delivering it personally to the person; …” and in those circumstances it must be served at least 48 hours before the attendance of the witness is required. The Hon David Carter made the comment that 48 hours may not be sufficient time. The question was asked of the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King and she gave the glib reply that if it were a summons the person may not be a very good vet. 
I would like to raise the issue that a summons might be a summons to appear as an expert witness or it might be in the form of a subpoena in which case the vet may be a very very good vet. If the vet is a very very good vet where he or she is being invited as an expert witness that very very good vet may in fact have a heavy time schedule. In the interests of small business and in keeping the economy of New Zealand and primary producers afloat that vet may not be able to fit in on 48 hours’ notice a hearing that might not necessarily be in the vicinity of Banks Peninsula in the case of the Hon David Carter’s vet. 
I again ask the Minister responsible for the bill whether he will reconsider the sufficiency and adequacy of prescribing that 48 hours’ notice. It is very glib to say it is a minimum but we all know that the minimum that prescribes the rule rather than the maximum as a matter of practice. 
I think the Hon David Carter made a wonderful point and that just shows people the depth and wisdom we have on this side of the Chamber. In fact the more I get to know my parliamentary colleagues the more I am impressed by them. Having visited Gisborne at the instigation of our spokesperson on agriculture I was amazed and astounded at the ability of our spokesperson to be able to come to grips with all the issues regarding agriculture and to engage in meaningful conversation with those poor Gisborne growers of squash and tomatoes who have been hit by two civil defence events and who have been met with a resounding silence and a decline of any form of relief from this Labour Government. That is appalling. If we look at the flow-on effects of that flood and the rain in Gisborne—a region that contributes some $2 billion to our exports—in terms of the economy of this country then we realise the absolute importance of listening to farmers. So I cannot applaud enough the wisdom of our spokesperson on agriculture. 
I move on to the question of fees. Clause 87 states that the council may from time to time prescribe fees. Unfortunately we have to bring our minds back to the composition of this council. I have to confess that I have lost track of who the Labour appointment is to be who the best candidate is. There are so many candidates. But my point is that three members of the New Zealand Veterinary Association are part of the composition of that council. That is three members out of a total national membership of something like 2000 members. Three members have the power to impose unilaterally a fee on all other hard-working vets in New Zealand. I am just wondering about the efficacy of that actual prescription—that is the council does not even have to consult in relation to imposing those fees. There is no notice requirement. There is no opportunity for the hard-working vets who are not one of the three members of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to be heard. 
There is absolutely no opportunity in this bill for those vets to challenge the fees to seek justification of those fees and to have a fair hearing. I think that that is a complete breach of natural justice. I am aware of course that the fees must be fair and reasonable. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Motion agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Carter to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of clause 1(1) the words “3 years” and substitute the words “2 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 66 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 2 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 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. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: 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. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: 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 Maori 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? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I do not know what he did but he was removed from office. 
Hon Member 
: Tamihere? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: 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. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 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. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 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. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: 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. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 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. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 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. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 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! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: 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? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: 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. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: 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 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Veterinarians Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill was tabled in the House in December 2004. It had its first reading on 17 February 2005 and was referred to the Primary Production Committee on that day with the instruction that the committee present its final report before 14 June 2005. The select committee reported the bill back to the House on 14 June 2005. The bill has now had its second reading and has passed through the Committee stage. 
The veterinary profession makes a significant contribution to the New Zealand economy and society. In the livestock-based industries veterinarians are involved both on and off the farm. Veterinarians play a vital role in providing assurance to domestic and international consumers that our livestock-based food products are safe to consume. Many are also involved in biosecurity risk management. Urban veterinarians provide an important service of course to the owners of the many thousands of companion animals and pets in New Zealand society. Many people living in towns and cities know their veterinarian as well as if not better than their family doctor. 
The veterinarian profession through the Veterinary Council of New Zealand initially sought this bill. The profession wanted a more modern and flexible legislative framework both to reflect the changing nature of the profession and to enable more overseas trained veterinarians to practise in New Zealand while still maintaining the high standard of practice as required under the current legislation the Veterinarians Act 1994. The bill provides for that. I might say as an aside that it was clear to parliamentary counsel when they came to writing the bill itself that the former Act the 1994 Act was in fact outmoded and needed to be modernised and that is why so much change was made in the drafting process. I think that has served the veterinarians and the bill itself—and the clarity of it—well. 
The bill provides the council with a greater amount of flexibility in carrying out the purpose of the bill—that is to protect the public interest by aiming to ensure that veterinarians are competent to practise. The bill also provides for a greater degree of flexibility for the council in determining which veterinary training institutions and qualifications it will recognise for full registration. Those persons who do not hold a qualification recognised by the council but who have obtained a qualification of at least 4 years’ duration can seek registration after passing or completing a council-prescribed examination or an approved postgraduate training programme. Apart from that added flexibility however this will also encourage more overseas-trained veterinarians to seek registration in New Zealand which will hopefully ease the current shortage of veterinarians in rural practice. 
Another significant change in this legislative framework is the limited registration provision. This provision enables veterinarians who are highly trained in one area but who do not have an all-round veterinary science training to work in New Zealand in their area of expertise. This would help some New Zealand employers who are looking for a particular type of veterinary expertise to find suitable employees more readily. Some overseas veterinary schools are now already offering specialisation in certain areas of practice before a student completes the full veterinary degree. The new limited registration provision would enable such graduates to seek registration in New Zealand whereas under the old legislative regime they could not have done so. 
This bill is designed as far as is possible to be future-proof in terms of the changes in veterinary training that are expected in coming years some of which are already taking place. The bill also allows the council the flexibility to set its own fees enabling it more effectively to match its financial resources with its fluctuating needs. I could not understand I must say some of the discussion that took place during the Committee stage when National Party members criticised the Veterinary Council for charging fees to manage its own affairs. 
While the bill introduces more flexibility for the council it also ensures that a number of key safeguards for veterinarians and consumers are in place. The requirement to consult affected parties is one such safeguard. For instance when deciding whether to issue limited registration the council would have to develop scopes of practice for which limited registration would be permitted. Such scopes of practice are to be developed in consultation with relevant statutory agencies such as the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. 
To maintain confidence in our veterinary service the council needs powers to ensure that veterinarians maintain their high standard of competence. The bill enables the council to prescribe and implement minimum standards for continued registration. The bill also introduces a range of options for the council to use when dealing with competency and disciplinary matters—for example the council’s ability to impose conditions of practice on a veterinarian’s registration and/or practising certificate. I consider that this bill strikes an effective balance between giving more powers and flexibility to the Veterinary Council and including the necessary safeguards to protect the public and the national interest. 
I wish the Veterinary Council of New Zealand well in implementing its new legislative framework. I expect it will serve New Zealand’s veterinary professionals and their clients well both now and in the future. I believe they will all benefit from this bill and I commend its passage to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 As we draw the debate on the Veterinarians Bill to a close National will of course support this legislation. I have to say that after the contribution both through the select committee process and during the superb debate we have had over the last hour or two in the Committee of the whole House this legislation will be far better for the interest that has been taken in it by National members of Parliament. 
At the outset I want to correct the Minister Jim Anderton who claimed that there was criticism of the Veterinary Council from this side of the House because that is absolutely incorrect. In fact I say at the outset that because of the huge input both from the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association I am confident we are passing legislation that will stand the industry in very good stead. 
It is worth noting that this legislation left the House in a mess after its first reading. As the Hon Jim Anderton said that was indeed 17 February 2005. We were given a report-back date of 14 June and the Primary Production Committee met diligently with assistance from the Veterinary Council and the association to make sure we reported it back by 14 June. It is not the National Opposition’s fault that it has subsequently sat on the Order Paper for a full 6 months before finally after much begging and gnashing of teeth the Government has seen fit to pass the legislation almost at the latest possible date for it to be of any use to the profession. 
I commented that the legislation left the House in a mess and there is no doubt about that. Anybody pursuing the bill will see that the legislation was dramatically changed during the select committee process. Why that was necessary is that the previous Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Sutton who was responsible for drafting this legislation in the first instance absolutely failed to consult with the profession of the vets. That is just an arrogant and stupid thing for that Minister to have done. The Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association on many occasions wanted to be involved with the original drafting of the legislation but because the previous Minister the Hon Jim Sutton was so out of touch with his portfolio area— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: And his seat. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well he is certainly out of touch with his seat. Look what happened there. I say that it was a failing on the part of the Minister that he was not prepared to listen to sensible contributions. Consequently when the bill came before the select committee one of the things the committee agreed to do with all parties on the committee being responsible for this decision—but it is a technique that the Primary Production Committee has now used on a couple of occasions—was that we actually got the various bodies in this case the Veterinary Association and the Veterinary Council to come in and work through with us and the officials. It was a lot of hard work by the select committee but during that process we have now been able to present back legislation that I think is vastly improved. 
I want to pay tribute to all members of that select committee. Of course we had Janet Mackey as the deputy chair a member who has now retired from this House but a member who worked diligently. She was the Labour Party deputy chair of that select committee. She worked diligently with us to try to improve the legislation. Earlier we had a debate about which Labour Party lackey might have been a suitable lay appointment on the Veterinary Council and her name was missed. So I want to take the opportunity of suggesting that there is a person who has actually been through the select committee process with this legislation. I think she would be a very good appointment. I realise that she is not in favour with the sisterhood at the moment so therefore she may not be considered by level nine of the Beehive. 
I pay tribute to the work of Clayton Cosgrove. He did not interfere with the select committee process much. He came along had not studied his papers—although that was typical of the way Clayton Cosgrove worked. He brought along his mail his correspondence and his local Christchurch 
 Press 
 so he did not interfere with the process and that made it a lot easier. 
I saw Harry Duynhoven earlier in the House today. He came over to me and said he wished he could take a call in the debate but he had been instructed not to. So I tell Harry Duynhoven that he made a valuable contribution. 
I move now to two further members who are no longer part of this new Parliament Gerry Eckhoff from the Otago area a former ACT member and Ian Ewen-Street a very valuable member of the Green Party on that select committee—in fact the only valuable member of the Green Party I have ever managed to meet. Of course Phil Heatley gave us assistance and he has been a tremendous help in the debate tonight. The Hon Dover Samuels was available to take calls in the House earlier in the evening but has not been allowed to make a contribution. Tariana Turia made a valuable contribution when she was there and finally Doug Woolerton. He was the one who delicately broached the subject tonight of Bianca the cockatoo— 
Katherine Rich 
: Sulphur-crested! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: A sulphur-crested cockatoo—I do not know my birds as well as I perhaps should. But I thank Doug Woolerton for his humour and involvement in the select committee process. 
I did move the odd amendment through the night to try to see whether we could make the bill even better. I must admit that my success rate was not very high. I thought that in the spirit of Christmas the odd amendment might have been passed with a bit of acclamation from the Labour Party but no the meanness displayed to my amendments—well I guess we have to learn to live with that. 
But we have certainly had a very spirited debate. We have seen members of the National Party caucus make substantial contributions. We have heard about a number of affiliations that the National Party caucus has with the profession and the role that the vets play in our society. We had the excellent contribution from Jo Goodhew who succeeded the previous lacklustre Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton. She was able to tell us all about her cat Hogan. Then we had Jacqui Dean the new member for Otago giving a spirited description of Sally the dog—the dog that used to chase tennis balls. We forgot to ask whether it was tennis balls around Bayfield High School but I think certainly a number of tennis balls were chased by Sally who met a very unfortunate end underneath a motorcade on State Highway 1. But I do take the opportunity of stating to the House that Jacqui Dean did not go so far as to say it was “the motorcade” that received such important attention from the media this year. 
The veterinary profession is extremely important to New Zealand and that is why I am pleased that the House has spent a considerable amount of time on this legislation. This country is totally dependent on agriculture. That is a fact that many on the Labour Party side of the House tend to miss but we are totally dependent on agriculture. For agriculture to work well in this country we need a sound and strong veterinary profession. I express concern in the closing stage of this debate about the number of vets available to practice in New Zealand. We know we are qualifying a lot of vets but many younger people are taking the opportunity to earn substantially more money overseas and pay less tax and who can blame them? 
But a particular area of concern to me is that we as parliamentarians need to keep a note on how many vets actually choose rural practice. Because if we see a decline in rural practice by veterinarians as we have seen a decline in rural practice by the medical profession then that puts our economy under considerable risk. 
I want to conclude by paying special thanks to the role of the Veterinary Council—Julie Haggie its chief executive officer and Ron Gibson its chair. I thank those people for their contribution and advice during the select committee process. I note that Julie is still in the House having been here throughout the total debate and taking an interest. Finally I thank Murray Gibb the chief executive of the New Zealand Veterinary Association for his advice to the select committee. We have succeeded in getting a much-improved piece of legislation that I think will stand the veterinary profession in good stead for a number of years. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading of this bill just as I did in a previous reading. I certainly also listened with great interest to the contribution of members of Parliament during the Committee stage of the bill. I think for the sake of those who are listening to this House tonight that it is very important to focus on what this bill is about. 
The Veterinarians Bill repeals the Veterinarians Act 1994 which among other things sets out the requirements to register as a veterinarian in New Zealand. That very very important issue is addressed by this bill. The legislation is to be implemented by the Veterinary Council of New Zealand and the bill aims to take a principled approach to the regulatory framework for veterinarians rather than a more prescriptive approach. The approach is intended to provide greater flexibility for the council to implement the legislative framework. I note that the key provisions of the bill relate to the qualification requirement for veterinarians the registration processes for and categories of veterinarians the disciplinary powers of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand and I note the commentary on the bill focuses on the main issues examined in it. I will talk later on about the very critical importance of vets to New Zealand and the importance surrounding that branding issue. 
I was personally touched by the sincerity and focus that members of the Opposition had particularly in terms of naming potential appointees to the Veterinary Council. Although I think it is a compliment that they must have such a high view of the members they were naming I do think it is very important that we should of course look further afield than members of this House. I thank those who nominated me as a potential member of the council for their kind words and kind thoughts but I think we do need to look very extensively for potential appointees. I think a lot of people outside this Parliament could do the job equally as well as people like myself if not absolutely better. 
I think the Opposition may wish to reflect on the people it did nominate because I can obviously think of a number of people in the Opposition who may have time on their hands later in this term. It is a contribution for example that Dr Brash could possibly make later in the term in view of his vast array of skills and experiences. He of course—and I think this is obvious and I predict this here in Parliament in the closing stages of the year 2005—will have time on his hands. I do think we on the Government side of the House will certainly be going to the Minister to say that would be a fitting role for Dr Brash in terms of his service to our nation. 
I thought the contribution made by the member for Otago—I have not heard her speak much in this House before; I know she has spoken obviously but I was not in the Chamber at the time—touched on a very important and valid point which is the role of the family pet. We often underestimate just how meaningful and how important pets are. People do genuinely love their animals and they are an integral part of the family. We look at other people and we say that they are mad; we wonder how they could like a dog as much as they do. But having had a dearly loved German shepherd in our family that we kept alive as long as possible until the vet came and said that it was time for our dog to exit this life I can certainly relate to the member for Otago’s sincerity and anguish. She highlighted just how important the family pet is and I was personally quite moved by her commentary on and wonderful insight into and observation of just how meaningful pets are. 
I have been with my kids when the Siamese cats and the German shepherd had to go and they were taken along to the vet for the injection. That is a skill in human relations and sometimes we underestimate it but I think it is a critical part of a vet’s empathy and training. Obviously we want children to be brought up to have a love of and a care for animals. I think that is a reflection of their humanity. I do not underestimate how important pets are. I want to go on record as thanking the member for Otago for her very good contribution and observation. Of course she highlighted the actual importance of this bill. 
I want to move on and take the opportunity to thank the Primary Production Committee for its good work. I think sadly to a degree the chair of the committee perhaps unwittingly got into some point-scoring which diminished the wonderful work he did. I will pay him a compliment. I know he is not an electorate member and certainly he will have time at his disposal. I understand that the member stood in the Banks Peninsula electorate. I have looked at the map. I saw that electorate did not go blue; it is a very red electorate. But certainly I will be gracious and compliment the chair of the committee and also the other members of it. I thank my good mate Clayton Cosgrove for the wonderful work he did and for his focus. I also thank Doug Woolerton. He is a very good member of the committee. 
Certainly I do compliment the chair on his very very gracious words with regard to the deputy chair of the committee in the previous term who is our good mate on the Government side of the House—and I think on all sides of the House—Janet Mackey. Yes there is possibly a role for her on the Veterinary Council. Whether Janet Mackey would be willing to play a role on it is food for thought. She was in my view a very good example of an excellent member who covered a huge geographical area in her electorate. 
I say without being at all patronising or condescending—which I am not—to the Opposition members that if they want to learn how to be excellent wonderful constituency members of Parliament and how to cover areas with a huge geographical spread they should look no further than to Janet Mackey. She had an exceptionally down-to-earth approach. She was very very close to the people who did not have that view. I say to the new Opposition members and also to Sandra Goudie that they should stop and watch to make sure they do not get a born-to-rule mentality. If I can give some advice to the new members of the National Party in the context of this bill and of the contributions they made on it it is not to get a born-to-rule mentality. Janet Mackey is a very very good role model for them. 
In the time that I have left I want to say it is absolutely important that we clearly keep the brand if one likes of veterinarians. There is an item in the report about branding and focus. This is why I agree with previous speakers. I represent an electorate that is at the heart of the Waikato which is a major export and rural agricultural area. Of course as a member of Parliament for that area I am deeply interested in this bill. I want to join other members in complimenting the Veterinary Council of New Zealand and the Veterinarians Association. They do excellent work and they have a very very important role in this country which literally lives or dies by its ability to produce and export products that come from our farms and from the land. I think that this bill is very very important. I know that during the Committee stage all members treated this bill with absolute seriousness because it is a very important bill. 
I say to the Opposition members that if they want to have a good advocate for rural people quite frankly Richard Worth the previous member for Epsom may leave some members for dead. I found more passion in his contribution than in the contributions of some of the so-called provincial members. Richard Worth is from an inner-city seat. I compliment him tonight. Frankly some of the newer members of the National Party could learn from Richard Worth’s passion and interest. He made a very very credible and very interesting contribution during the Committee stage. I think it is the culmination of his esteemed legal career that he should arrive in this House as an Opposition spokesperson and make the contribution he did on the Veterinarians Bill. I compliment Richard Worth on that. 
I will close by saying that being a member of the Veterinary Council would be a good role for Dr Brash. It would be an honour for him and I will be promoting that later in this term when he is looking for a new job. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I think those scathing comments from Martin Gallagher about Moana Mackey’s performance in the last election in losing her mother’s seat were unnecessary. I think he could have been much more charitable to Moana Mackey about her attempt to win that seat. This has been very much cross-party legislation on which the parties have worked together—National has voted with Labour on most of it tonight—and for him to attack not National members but members within his own caucus is entirely unnecessary. I have a lot of respect for Martin Gallagher and I am disappointed about that. Anne Tolley did a good job but that should not take anything away from Moana Mackey who genuinely ran for that seat and who wanted to represent those people. To compare her with her mother is entirely unfair and unfortunate. 
On the other hand I would like to acknowledge my colleagues—not cut them down as that member chose to do with his colleagues. I acknowledge four colleagues in particular—and I do not intend to cause offence to those whom I leave out. This is their first urgency and they have been debating the Veterinarians Bill since roughly 4 o’clock. Those members are Jacqui Dean Jackie Blue Jo Goodhew and Kate Wilkinson and they have been involved in every single— 
Hon David Carter 
: What about Chester Borrows? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am coming to the gentlemen. Those four in particular have been involved in every single part of the bill. I have kept a record and they have risen to debate every part. [ 
Interruption 
] I will be tabling the record. They contributed as they saw fit and I acknowledge them for that—we really appreciate it. They also took the time to laugh at all our jokes—and they are doing it again—and we have appreciated that and I would like to acknowledge them. Of course Chris Tremain the member for Napier has been here and Chester Borrows the wonderful member for Whanganui. We have been surrounded by support and I guess David Carter and I are quite overwhelmed. It has been quite wonderful and I thank those members very much for that. 
We would like to acknowledge the Veterinary Association also and the Veterinary Council which contributed so much to the legislation—of course not tonight in this Chamber but at the select committee. They were there we consulted them and we brought in their experience. Clearly most of us are not vets—the Hon Pete Hodgson is the only member of the House who was a veterinary surgeon—so that advice was much appreciated and also of course the advice of the Meat Board. 
We do need the bill to pass this evening. As David Carter pointed out it has languished on the Table of the House for 6 months. The Primary Production Committee worked very very hard from February of this year through to June to move it and for it then to languish on the Order Paper for 6 months has been quite soul-destroying for the Veterinary Association and the Veterinary Council which wanted us to get on with it to ensure that they could register vets for next year instead of having to wait a further 18 months or 2 years. But finally we have forced the Government to put the bill through under urgency and we are delighted with the outcome. 
Issues in the bill that we challenged at the select committee included particularly the limited registration criteria. The Minister of Agriculture was hell-bent on making sure we could have South African vets United States vets Canadian vets and European vets come into the country. We welcome them too. Labour is hell-bent on bringing them into the country but it does not acknowledge all the other professionals including vets who train here but leave to go overseas—600 a week—because of the high taxes the political correctness the compliance costs and the headaches they face in practising here. Vets are leaving New Zealand. We have invested in them and they are going overseas. Architects are leaving doctors are leaving teachers are leaving nurses are leaving—everybody is leaving. It is only the loyal National Party members who are willing to stay and fight. We see that all the time. Vets are leaving too. In the bill the Minister is trying to encourage vets from other nations to come over and serve our rural communities and our inner-city communities with small-animal surgeries yet he is ignoring the plight of the vets who train here. The National Party makes a plea to the Government to look after our own as well as looking after the interests of those whom we are seeking to attract to this country. 
National will support the bill as it has done through all its stages and I commend it to the Committee. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in the third reading debate on the Veterinarians Bill. The bill of course repeals the Veterinarians Act 1994. I guess I see things slightly differently from the Minister in charge of the bill Jim Anderton when we talk about where the bill has come from. 
The history of the bill as I understand it is that it went to the Primary Production Committee in a pretty disrespectful state. The reason for that was that the sector had not been consulted when the bill was drafted. The former Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton had not sought the views of the sector. In fact when we look at the document and at the many many changes within it we see that the clauses of the bill with no changes are the clauses that survived from the last legislation. Therefore there was no need to consult the sector on that part—it was already a done deal. 
The primary production sector is very very important to New Zealand and the veterinarians are very important to that primary production sector. But the very Minister who was involved the then Minister of Agriculture did not seek the views of the sector when he brought the bill to the House. After that the bill went to the Primary Production Committee and I certainly commend its work under the very able chairmanship of National’s Hon David Carter. An enormous amount of work was put in. One only has to look at the pages of the document to see the work that went into making the bill fit to come into the House again today. Thank goodness the veterinarians will get what they want. They will see the bill passed by Christmas because we will certainly support it. 
We have already heard about the blue tide that has swept through New Zealand and we see many new members from rural provincial New Zealand in the House tonight who are supporting the bill. I just remind those present that Part 2 which deals with registration was a very important part because it sought the ability for us to encourage overseas vets to come and practise in New Zealand. Why do we need overseas vets practising in New Zealand? It is quite simple: many of the registered vets from New Zealand are leaving our shores. We know about the more than 600 New Zealanders who go to Australia each week. We know about those highly skilled highly qualified people. Well amongst them are vets. We know that those vets are going because of high taxes compliance costs and complications like the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. We know there are approximately 500 rural vets. My own vet is married to a German vet and I understand that they cannot wait to see the passing of the bill because they work in rural provincial New Zealand and they know the problems involved in getting extra vets. 
We know that the submissions to the Primary Production Committee numbered about 10. Massey University certainly took the time to submit that it was in support of the bill and it gave its ideas in the submission process. We also know that half of the submissions were from pet owners which brings me to Part 3. The provisions in this very important part mean that pet owners can be sure that they will have a process by which to address any concerns they may have. This afternoon and this evening we heard about Bianca we heard about my very own Hogan and we heard about Gee Sally and Tommy. Again I reiterate what I said before: the reasons we hear those emotive stories about our pets is that pets are second only to children when it comes to the emotional needs of the owners or parents. So we must have legislation that clearly sets out how we can keep them safe and how we can be sure that there is a process to follow if we feel that our pets just like our children are not safe. 
 Part 4 deals with the make-up of the Veterinary Council and what it is charged with doing. The council examines registers advises the Minister on issues like education talks to other countries about reciprocal arrangements—and by golly we need those if we are going to encourage vets to register in New Zealand—hears complaints and prescribes standards. We heard that there are some layperson vacancies on the council. I want to put forward my own nomination for a layperson vacancy. The Hon Jim Sutton has indicated that he is looking for a job so who better? He has an agricultural background and he probably has some understanding of what to expect from a vet. [ 
Interruption 
] And Ann Hercus—the council does need two laypeople. I also note that some disenchanted National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) markers will be looking for something to keep them interested after they have decided never to mark again. [ 
Interruption 
] Road markers? That would be pretty sad after marking NCEA exams but it would be much simpler and much easier and at least they would know what the rules were. 
In conclusion I just say that this bill is very very important to the National Party members gathered here to the veterinarians of New Zealand and to New Zealand as a country because we are so dependent upon the primary production sector. We know that the shortages of vets are in the rural areas. It is vitally important that this bill gets the attention it deserves that we get it through by Christmas and that we can say that this is a good deal done. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. Veterinary science is a remarkable profession and what a profession it will be as a consequence of vets enjoying the benefits of Labour’s remarkable student loan scheme. It is hard to imagine a more meaningful contribution that members on this side of the House have made to that profession. However in thinking about that profession I would say that it is necessary also to expedite the return of the kindergarten teaching profession because there is much work to be done amongst the speakers from the Opposition we have heard tonight. They need that sort of assistance. 
The Opposition has shown a great deal of interest this evening in the role and importance of a vet. Of course I am reminded of the role a vet plays in putting down the family pet. We have heard a great many accounts of cats and dogs but when I look across the Chamber I wonder what pet National members are preparing to put down in their obsession with this bill. Is it an English Pointer? Is it Mr English who upon hearing the guns during shooting would flee constantly stiff and apprehensive? Or is it Mr Brownlee who is living proof that climate change is dislocating a range of species—not the least of which is the beached walrus? What role will the vet have there? Let me continue. Perhaps it is a Blue Heeler. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The whole House knows that I am a very sensitive member and I understand that Mr Jones was attempting to insult me with his comments. Apparently—according in particular to the ACT party—I am also a very slow member but I do not understand what Mr Jones was saying. I wonder Mr Deputy Speaker whether you could indulge the House by allowing Mr Jones an extension to his 10 minutes so that he might explain his insult and so that I can feel the full brunt of his attack upon me. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Brownlee. He was entitled to raise the point of order if he felt offended. I think he is drawing a long bow really to think that Mr Jones made the comment to him or about him even though Mr Jones might have meant it to be that way. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The man just stood up and said that I was a beached walrus. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No he did not. I heard it and I say that he did not. But I am prepared to accept the member’s point of order. I do not want it to continue on. I do not accept that Mr Jones made the comment about the member or to the member but if the member is offended I have no doubt that Mr Jones will withdraw it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No I am not offended; I am simply in need of further explanation. 
SHANE JONES 
: There was no intention to offer offence. Firstly the walrus was a fictional thing. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh I can hear the Tauranga tugger—or is it tigger? The reference to the walrus can hardly have been offensive because a walrus is not indigenous. 
Let me continue on with the other roles that vets obviously have according to the discussions we have heard this evening. Well my fellow representative from Whangarei Mr Heatley during the course of the evening generated some heat but precious little light in relation— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is debating material and there are outrageous claims. I tell Mr Jones that for him to say that he is a representative of Whangarei is an outrageous claim. He is a Labour Party list lackey and that is what he should describe himself as. [ 
Interruption 
] 
SHANE JONES 
: The tugger has an unusual interest in the crotch but more about that at a later date— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just say to Mr Jones that I think we have had enough references to members in the House. Those references should not be made that way. 
SHANE JONES 
: We have heard a number of references this evening about the importance of the veterinary profession. Obviously Labour is of the view that this bill advances vets and protects the brand unlike the view of a host of members of the Opposition who historically through their policies have undermined the brands of guilds trades and professions. Through the removal of the appropriate recognition and the necessary training and funding those trades and professions have degenerated over the last 10 years. That is why this bill is an overdue improvement on the way in which those things were treated in the early to mid 1990s. 
The bill also refers to how it will be necessary to improve the number of professionals working in areas that are not represented purely by members of the National Party. Those areas are also very well known to Labour and represented by us. This bill is a good idea and will not only improve the prospect of our having more vets—indeed that will occur through our student loans policy—but also provide an opportunity for those who come from overseas to have their professional qualifications and talents perhaps gained from other parts and warmer climes recognised. Those qualifications and talents will be used in the pursuit of animal health and rural infrastructure and in general contribute to the pastoral economy which is something this party is proud to have driven fantastically well. Opposition members will hear a great deal more about that over the next 3 years as they sit very lonely in a neglected part of the Chamber. 
Hon David Carter 
: It won’t take that long. 
SHANE JONES 
: Mr Carter says that it will not take that long but this evening we have been subjected to extremely long and tedious speeches that show that the Chihuahua of the House from Piako did not understand that a very well-trained pet knows when to respond to a question. If National members had not pursued the strategy they pursued this evening we would have had question time tomorrow. 
There are a number of doctors in the National Party as well and I am particularly interested in the reference that the proposed legislation makes to emulating the qualifications framework and process that doctors go through. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Thursday)