Anderton Jim: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:874] 
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.