Connell Brian: Veterinarians Bill — First Reading 
Connell Brian: Veterinarians Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18769] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to start by responding to a couple of comments that Jill Pettis made about Jim Sutton. I was down at a ward meeting in Timaru on Tuesday night. There was a room full of farmers and Jim Sutton— 
Hon David Carter 
: That’s not in your electorate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: No but it was in Timaru and that is why it is important. Jim Sutton got up and started speaking to the meeting. Someone put up a hand and asked: “Excuse me who are you?”. That was to the Minister of Agriculture in his own electorate. They did not know who he was. Then he apologised for being late for the meeting. He said: “I can’t control whether the aeroplanes will get here on time or not.” Someone said: “Well Jim you should have just jumped in a car and sped down.” So I thought that was pretty good advice to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure he went home thinking that he will have to work harder if he is to retain that seat down in Aoraki against a fantastic candidate in Jo Goodhew. She is doing a splendid job and she is knocking on lots of doors. 
Let me come to the bill and say that National does support it to the select committee. But we have some very clear reservations. There are some components of the bill in terms of just speaking about this that will be repetitious but that I am afraid is the nature of the way this bill has been drafted. 
The first thing the bill is calling for is a modernisation—a makeover—and we definitely support the intent of that. I have spoken to the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association and they also say that this move is overdue. But the thing that concerns them is the issue of registration and getting enough vets to work in New Zealand. It is not just the issue of whether we have enough vets but also the issue of where those vets are working. Too many of our vets now are attracted into our large cities to run small animal practices and what is happening around our farms—our productive sector—is that farmers simply do not have enough vets to call on. 
So what has been suggested and I support the initiative is a relaxation of the requirement for a minimum 5-year qualification. That requirement does not take into account the qualifications of people whom the council deems would be suitably qualified to work in the area of veterinary science. That is absolutely essential. What is happening is that we are producing First World graduates in this country we are paying them Third World wages and we wonder why they are going overseas in droves. It is not just our vets. We have 500000 people—and just a very quick analysis of those people tells us that they are amongst our best and brightest—working in other people’s economies right now. So I support what the legislation is trying to do. It will provide some flexibility that will attract people in sufficient numbers to support our vets and enable our agricultural sector to get enough people on the ground at the right time in the right numbers and with the right skill. The right skill is not being relaxed; that is important. 
I do have to say that what this Government has done around the scholarship debacle will not help this issue one iota. Here we are facing a shortage of vets and hardly a science student in this country received a scholarship! It all goes back to the feet of Trevor Mallard and this Government. It is an appalling outcome that he has managed and he should be held accountable for it. 
The other part of the bill that I agree with is the aspect of limited registration. For example it will allow the council to have a greater ability to allow people to practise in their areas of specialisation or strength without their necessarily having the full breadth of veterinary skills. The council has suggested that that could be in the area of research teaching meat inspection or pathology. Essentially the bill is saying that someone should be allowed to practise in his or her area of skill under very strict conditions. To me that makes sense and it is very pragmatic. 
The second issue I want to raise with the House is around the area of fee setting. Under the present Act fees must be set by Order in Council. That is overly cumbersome and bureaucratic. The bill intended—and I say that with some caution—to allow for the setting of fees by the Veterinary Council after due consultation. In other words it wanted to be able to gazette fees rather than set them by way of regulation. But the bill has been drafted in such a way that that intent is not being captured and the Primary Production Committee will need to be very cognisant of that point when the bill comes before it. 
The third area to note is that the council will have wider and more flexible disciplinary powers. The bill will allow for competency review by peers and essentially the council will have powers to sanction those who are not practising to agreed standards. That part of the modernisation is absolutely necessary if our vets are to maintain the high reputation they have. It is a sensible improvement and essentially it would bring the veterinarians’ profession into line with other professions like accounting law and the medical profession. That is the intent but as I have already alluded to there are some omissions and errors which are primarily in the drafting. They can be fixed and unless they are fixed the intent—which all the parties in this House support—will be lost. So the select committee will need to look at that very carefully. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sure that it will. 
I spoke about the council’s ability to set standards and to have greater disciplinary powers. However the only instruments it has at the moment to do that with the way the bill has been drafted are by way of Order in Council. That was not and is not the intention. Vets want the ability to bring their profession into line with other professions as I have already said. Specifically they want to insist on continuing education. They want to be able to say to people in the profession: “You must keep abreast with modern science otherwise we will reserve the right to look at your practising certificate.” I think that is reasonable. That is what other professions insist on and I think it only reasonable that an area of scientific endeavour like this should have the same rule run across it as well. But again the way the bill is drafted that intent is being lost. 
The other area that I shall touch on briefly is around the issue of appeals. If a vet has been deemed by the council which is essentially his or her peers not to be performing to an adequate standard at the moment—unless the council meets which is on a very protracted basis—the council does not have the ability to say to that person that: “We want to start an investigation or revoke your ability to practise.” The way that this legislation is drafted a litigious vet could appeal that process to the District Court. He or she could drag out that process for months if not years. I suggest that the select committee consider amending the process to allow appeals to the High Court. It would be a more expensive process and one would want to be certain of one’s position before spending the money and so would the council. So I think that is a sensible suggestion. I suppose that I am suggesting the select committee looks at the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. 
In summary I conclude with these views. The intent of the bill is good. The National Party supports it but unless the drafting is tidied up that intent will be lost and an opportunity to modernise the bill and bring it into line with like professions will be lost.