Rich Katherine: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:894] 
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.