Wilkinson Kate: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:957] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I too rise to speak on Part 5 but I would first like to applaud the comments made by our esteemed colleague the Hon David Carter and for his drawing attention to inter alia clause 86 of this bill. Clause 86(1) provides: “(1) Any document notification or summons required or authorised by or under this Act may be served—(a) by delivering it personally to the person; …” and in those circumstances it must be served at least 48 hours before the attendance of the witness is required. The Hon David Carter made the comment that 48 hours may not be sufficient time. The question was asked of the Minister in the chair the Hon Annette King and she gave the glib reply that if it were a summons the person may not be a very good vet. 
I would like to raise the issue that a summons might be a summons to appear as an expert witness or it might be in the form of a subpoena in which case the vet may be a very very good vet. If the vet is a very very good vet where he or she is being invited as an expert witness that very very good vet may in fact have a heavy time schedule. In the interests of small business and in keeping the economy of New Zealand and primary producers afloat that vet may not be able to fit in on 48 hours’ notice a hearing that might not necessarily be in the vicinity of Banks Peninsula in the case of the Hon David Carter’s vet. 
I again ask the Minister responsible for the bill whether he will reconsider the sufficiency and adequacy of prescribing that 48 hours’ notice. It is very glib to say it is a minimum but we all know that the minimum that prescribes the rule rather than the maximum as a matter of practice. 
I think the Hon David Carter made a wonderful point and that just shows people the depth and wisdom we have on this side of the Chamber. In fact the more I get to know my parliamentary colleagues the more I am impressed by them. Having visited Gisborne at the instigation of our spokesperson on agriculture I was amazed and astounded at the ability of our spokesperson to be able to come to grips with all the issues regarding agriculture and to engage in meaningful conversation with those poor Gisborne growers of squash and tomatoes who have been hit by two civil defence events and who have been met with a resounding silence and a decline of any form of relief from this Labour Government. That is appalling. If we look at the flow-on effects of that flood and the rain in Gisborne—a region that contributes some $2 billion to our exports—in terms of the economy of this country then we realise the absolute importance of listening to farmers. So I cannot applaud enough the wisdom of our spokesperson on agriculture. 
I move on to the question of fees. Clause 87 states that the council may from time to time prescribe fees. Unfortunately we have to bring our minds back to the composition of this council. I have to confess that I have lost track of who the Labour appointment is to be who the best candidate is. There are so many candidates. But my point is that three members of the New Zealand Veterinary Association are part of the composition of that council. That is three members out of a total national membership of something like 2000 members. Three members have the power to impose unilaterally a fee on all other hard-working vets in New Zealand. I am just wondering about the efficacy of that actual prescription—that is the council does not even have to consult in relation to imposing those fees. There is no notice requirement. There is no opportunity for the hard-working vets who are not one of the three members of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand to be heard. 
There is absolutely no opportunity in this bill for those vets to challenge the fees to seek justification of those fees and to have a fair hearing. I think that that is a complete breach of natural justice. I am aware of course that the fees must be fair and reasonable.