Wilkinson Kate: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:914] 
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.