Wilkinson Kate: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:897] 
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.