Carter David: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Carter David: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:876] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I will start by thanking the new Minister of Agriculture and the Leader of the House for finally allowing this legislation to be progressed. I know from briefing papers he received following the election and from papers I received that it has been of huge concern to the Veterinary Association and to the Veterinary Council of New Zealand that the work has now be completed by the select committee for exactly 6 months. It is interesting that on 14 June 2005 we reported this legislation back to the House. I know that representations were made to the Government by numerous people within this vital profession that the matter be progressed before the election. The Government saw fit to leave it on the Order Paper but I do genuinely say thanks to them for finally bringing it to the House today so that we can pass it through all its stages. 
This legislation is important. It affects a vital career in this country and if it had been held over any longer it would have meant that the registration processes that are vitally changed by this legislation would not have been able to be used by the profession until the registration year 2006-07. The work had been done by the select committee—I will comment in detail on that shortly—and there seemed to be no good reason why the matter should not have been progressed with more urgency by the Government. 
As the Minister has outlined there are three major reasons for this legislation. There was a need for the qualifications of vets to be recognised when they qualified overseas. We needed to have a registration process that was modern and gave people travelling through New Zealand the ability to accept limited registration. We put a lot of effort into the third purpose of this legislation which deals with the disciplinary powers and process of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. 
The Primary Production Committee did a lot of work on this legislation and as is typical of that committee it was done without rancour and division as we worked through issues— 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Wonderful chairperson! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I could not possibly comment on that but I can certainly say that as a group of parliamentarians we worked through the issues as diligently as we could and I feel confident that the legislation as presented back to the House now is substantially improved and again I want to comment on that. 
If anybody looks at this legislation they will see that there have been a large number of changes. We did not receive many submissions as the Minister noted—in fact only 10 and we heard only eight of those—and the interesting thing about half of those submissions is that they were given to the select committee by people who tended to be distraught and distressed about the treatment their beloved animal had received from a particular vet. These people were still disputing the competence of the vet who had attended their animal. I know that Doug Woolerton certainly wants to talk about Bianca the parrot shortly and I will leave him to do that. Their submissions to be truthful were largely irrelevant to the bill in that it was not our job to relitigate processes that had been undertaken by the Veterinary Council. 
A matter on which those submitters did have every right to appear before the select committee—and I assure those people that we diligently considered their particular submissions—was whether we were setting up satisfactory processes whereby the competency of the veterinary profession and of any particular vet was adequately checked and cross-checked. Numerous people within the select committee process made the comment to us that the process seemed to be one that was significantly about judging the competency of fellow vets. That frankly is inevitable. On the complaints assessment committee we have two vets and one layperson. The role of that committee is to hear the initial application of complaint and decide whether the matter warrants further investigation. If it does require further investigation then the complaints assessment committee sends it to a judicial committee which again is made up of one member of the Veterinary Council—a vet appointed with a particular expertise and experience with regard to the complaint that is being made by the complainant—one layperson and a solicitor of not less than 7 years’ experience in law which is a change we made through the select committee process. 
So I acknowledge that without doubt the process is dominated by the veterinary profession but I say to those people that there is no other way it can be done. One cannot have a process by which the complaint is judged by people who do not have the professional expertise to consider the legitimacy of the complaint. 
Finally with regard to this matter I see no reason at all why the veterinarians involved in this particular judgment process would in any way make a judgment that lowered the standards of the veterinary profession throughout New Zealand. It simply would not be in their interests to do so. 
There is little doubt that the original Act of 1994 which is not so very old when we think about it did need to be modernised. I think that one of the reasons is that we significantly recognise the shortage of vets in this country. For example we received a submission from Massey University and the committee recognised without doubt that the qualification delivered from Massey University for veterinarians is internationally regarded. It is therefore not surprising that our graduates are then able to take that qualification go overseas and earn substantially more than they are able to earn if they remain in New Zealand. I speak from experience because I have a niece who qualified through Massey University. She has spent most of her time since qualifying working out of Melbourne in Australia where she is able to earn substantially more money than she can in New Zealand. That means that we have a looming shortage of veterinarians in New Zealand and no more so than in rural New Zealand. That is something that should alarm every member of this House because we are a country totally dependent on the value of agriculture. 
The Labour Government may finally wake up to the fact that agriculture is the backbone of the economy and that because we are so dependent on primary production it is essential to have a process whereby we encourage vets to stay in New Zealand. If that is not sufficient to supply the numbers we need then we must have a process by which we can utilise young vets who have qualified overseas and who have come to New Zealand perhaps on work experience and use them for 2 years; or perhaps a process whereby people with an overseas qualification of the right standard is recognised and allow those people to enter the profession in New Zealand. 
In my closing time I want to comment on the fact that anybody studying this legislation will note that there has been significant change via the select committee process. The question therefore needs to be asked about what consultation occurred out of the lead Minister—who at that stage was the Hon Jim Sutton—with the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association. Sadly we were told that not enough consultation took place. Consequently we had to take a step that was unusual in the New Zealand select committee process but one that has been used very very successfully in the Primary Production Committee whereby the committee got the officials the Veterinary Council and the Veterinary Association to work closely with it through the deliberation process. I want to extend my thanks to Julie Haggie chief executive officer of the Veterinary Council to Ron Gibson its chairperson and to Murray Gibb chief executive officer of the New Zealand Veterinary Association for the input and assistance they gave to the select committee so that we were able to deliver legislation that will now work. It seems to me absolutely pointless for a Government to be so disconnected from this profession that it advances legislation that straight away the industry is at loggerheads with. So I take the opportunity of thanking the members of my select committee. It is rather sad to look at the list of people who worked through it and to see that people like Janet Mackey my then deputy chair is no longer a member of Parliament. But she is a person to whom I pay tribute. She did an immense amount of work on that particular select committee. We have re-formed it with a new membership and I can assure the House that we greatly miss the contribution of Doug Woolerton. It has almost become a serious select committee but I am working on that and we will have some humour introduced to it over time I can assure members. The National Party certainly supports the second reading of this legislation.