Heatley Phil: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:908] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to look at other matters in Part 3 to do with the suspension of registration with disciplinary hearings when a disciplinary action occurs and also with the rights of appeal of those who apply to have a vet disciplined and the rights of vets themselves to appeal when they are disciplined or have temporary suspension of their registration. I would like to signal that for me to move through those particular clauses and the concerns that I have may take a second 5-minute speech. I will be appealing to you Madam Chairperson that I have that opportunity although I appreciate that it is at your discretion. 
Before I embark on that particular matter though I would like to raise with members the matter of the unusual clause 30AA “Interpretation”. They will recall a matter to do with clause 30AA that I outlined in my second reading speech. It was to do with those vets who would thwart disciplinary action or suspension by saying that because they no longer held practising certificates or because they were no longer registered they could not be disciplined. In other words they would say their sin if you like occurred in another life when they were registered or did have a practising certificate. They would say that yes the relevant conduct may have occurred only 3 months ago but that they no longer held a practising certificate were no longer registered and could not be caught. 
Well that is not the case because the Primary Production Committee recommended to the Minister and Parliament that an amendment be inserted as new clause 30AA to make it clear that for the purpose of complaints and disciplinary action or for the issue of medical incompetence assessments a “specified person” is defined as someone who holds a practising certificate but also includes someone who held a practising certificate that had lapsed when he or she was called to account. If people were practising as vets or were seen to be practising as vets whether or not they were registered and held a practising certificate they can be held to account but clause 30AA also deals to those people whose practising certificates have lapsed when they are called to account. I think that is an interesting thing to raise with members simply because it is just one of the little loopholes that the select committee through intense and expansive investigation pulled out of the original bill and was able to fix. 
I would like to move on to the other matters I signalled at the beginning of my speech that I want to traverse. First of all concerning the issue of the grounds for a disciplinary hearing in clause 43 members will recall that in the debate on the last part I warned past and future vets that if they faced criminal charges and were convicted of crimes before the courts their ability to practise veterinary science in this country is under threat. They should not embark on a life of crime not only because obviously it hurts other New Zealanders but also because there are long-term consequences as well as short-term consequences that can hurt their careers—and I have warned them. Let it be said today that no vet shall be able to stand before a judge and say that Phil Heatley failed to warned him or her not embark on a life of crime. Vets will be held to account for their criminal convictions. 
I want to raise another matter which is brought up in clause 43. Not only can a vet be refused registration because he or she has committed a criminal offence whether in this country or in another country but that person can also be subject to the provisions of clause 43(1). The clause states that the council may take one or more actions at the conclusion of a disciplinary hearing where it is satisfied that a vet has been convicted within the last 7 years or has another offence that has a direct bearing on the profession where a vet’s practice reflects adversely on his or her fitness to practise as a veterinarian or where a vet has been found guilty of professional misconduct or of any act or omission that affects or discredits the profession—and that person can be deregistered. That is a very serious act of discipline indeed because it could cut short what is potentially a very positive and fruitful career for that person. I would just say that someone can be refused registration as a vet if he or she embarks on criminal activity but what is worse is that someone can effectively be deregistered if he or she is already a vet. Members should take warning; I have informed them of that today. So that is the matter of deregistration or of being refused registration. 
There is also the issue of the interim suspension of a veterinary practitioner. In fairness an interim suspension is all about suspending a vet so that there can be an investigation that may or may not lead to proof of guilt in that case and to possible deregistration. The debate that we had in the select committee was about how long a vet should have his or her registration suspended before it is reasonable for a decision to be made and for that person be reinstated struck off or deregistered. Originally the legislation stated the period should be 20 working days but the Veterinary Council and others came to us and said that although it was reasonable for the vet who has been suspended to have such a short time frame it was not long enough for the council to do its investigations. The council wanted to have 50 working days. 
We were a bit concerned about that. For someone who would be taking a forced suspension from his or her career and who would effectively be unemployed there is immense uncertainty for up to 50 working days. But we succumbed to the arguments of the Veterinary Council. We listened to it we heard its arguments and we decided that if it takes 50 working days to gather the information analyse it and make a serious and considered judgment so be it. 
Katherine Rich 
: 50? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: We put the period at 50 working days. We allowed the Veterinary Council to take 50 working days before it had to in effect make a decision. Members will see that is provided for in clauses 37 and 37A. 
Another matter that was raised was the matter of appeals. We have allowed vets to appeal a Veterinary Council decision to the District Court and I do not think one could ask for more than that. The select committee has told vets that it would give them access to the District Court to appeal a decision made by the Veterinary Council. I think that vets have a very strong power here indeed to appeal against something that can seriously impinge on their career or give rise to questions over their conduct. If vets feel aggrieved in some way or feel that they have not had a decent hearing from their own council they can now appeal to the District Court. 
Interestingly enough we did not allow that option for a vet’s accusers. We have not allowed those who bring a complaint against a vet to appeal to the District Court. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why not? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Now members may ask why we did not—there is a big shout—but the simple reason is that complainants are witnesses to the vet’s practice. They are simply witnesses to the vet’s practice but the vet himself or herself is an active participant in either foul practice or good practice that has been misinterpreted. Complainants are simply witnesses so why should they be allowed to appeal to the District Court? They can though go to the High Court and seek a judicial review to look at the issue and check that all has been done properly. So complainants can challenge the complaints assessment committee process by judicial review in the High Court but they cannot go to the District Court.