Rich Katherine: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:932] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I follow another worthy contribution from my learned colleague Phil Heatley one of the members of the Primary Production Committee who has worked slavishly on this bill to make it what it is today. I think the pet owners and veterinarians of this country can be very thankful that we have members on that committee of the merit of that member and of my colleague David Carter who sat on that committee as well. 
I have learnt something new tonight as a result of reading Supplementary Order Paper 8 which inserts a new Part 3A. It is that when bills become Acts—get the royal assent—all the numbering can change. One of the concerns I had when looking at this Supplementary Order Paper was that it states that “clauses 46 to 47A (line 20 on page 50 to line 26 on page 54)” are to be omitted. That may sound very technical and mean very little to listeners at home but basically it takes out all the provisions between and including clauses 46 and 47A. When I looked at the whole bill I thought: “Hang on a minute. Clause 45 then will jump to clause 48. What happens to the numbering?”. So I went and had a chat with the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton and with his agreement I had a chat with the officials. I was not aware that sometimes when we make changes in Committee when we take out chunks paste them and move them round the place we mess up the numbering and it is not until the very last part of the process that all the numbers change. Doing that can have quite an impact because bills that go through the House that undergo huge strong debate are often referred to by clause numbers and that numbering can change quite late in the piece. That was certainly of personal interest to me to learn after having been here some 6 years. 
It was interesting to hear Sue Kedgley chat about the contributions made by the National Party then talk about all and sundry issues such as sow crates and antibiotics in chickens. That makes me wonder what the relevance of some of those issues is to this bill because this bill sets in place a structure so that veterinarians can go through their registration be processed and practise in this country be they veterinarians from New Zealand or ones who have come into the country. Then in the event that things go wrong and a complaint is made against them there are quite straightforward procedures about how those complaints are handled. 
If we look at the new Part 3A we get into a discussion about what happens after a decision from the complaints assessment committee is made and here we have quite detailed provisions about what happens to people who have had a judgment made against them. In reading these provisions I find myself becoming a bit confused because someone who has had a judgment made against him or her can still practise but only under specified conditions in specified practices and doing specified work. It seems to me that this level of detail is probably best not put into a bill like this one but left for perhaps the Veterinary Council to make its own regulations and rules about how it deals with vets whom complaints have been made about. It ends up being quite confusing. 
I am wondering—and I would be interested in the Minister’s view on this—whether part of this Supplementary Order Paper really relates to overseas vets who come into the country and have qualifications that do not necessarily marry up with the qualifications that New Zealand vets hold. They might have a qualification that forms part of a New Zealand vet’s qualification but does not quite match the full qualification.