Blue Jackie: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Blue Jackie: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:931] 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of new Part 3A “Conditions of practice and appeals”. It is part of today’s Supplementary Order Paper 8 which is amending the Veterinarians Bill reported by the Primary Production Committee. I think that committee has done a commendable and very thorough job. I have been reading through the bill and in particular Part 3 “Complaints disciplinary hearings medical and competence assessments and conditions of practice” and of course the Supplementary Order Paper amendments to insert new Part 3A “Conditions of practice and appeals” which is very thorough. I have been really impressed that the provisions are so similar to those of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. Members may know that I am a medical doctor— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: We knew that. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Yes and I would like to recount two stories about my life as a medical student which have relevance to new Part 3A. They are two stories that impressed me and that I remember very well. 
In the 1970s I was a medical student at various Auckland hospitals. It was before the Cartwright inquiry; we did not have the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act and we did not have a process for obtaining informed consent. The first story happened when I was a student at Green Lane Hospital—as I say before the Cartwright inquiry. As students we were asked to perform vaginal examinations as part of our gaining experience and so forth but we did not have any informed consent process for those women patients. The examinations were done under anaesthetic; the patients were unaware of those vaginal examinations done by students. It felt vaguely wrong but none of us spoke out I am ashamed to say. Then of course we had the Cartwright inquiry and that dragged all the doctors kicking and screaming into the position where we had to have informed consent and respect patient rights. 
A second episode that also struck me was when I was a student at Auckland Hospital’s sexually transmitted diseases clinic. A male patient was brought in. He was not asked if he would allow students to be with the doctor. He was asked to strip and was then examined with all those students around. He was embarrassed I was embarrassed but nobody spoke up. 
Now some 30 years later we do have the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act and now we have the Veterinarians Bill which is being amended. I endorse the position of veterinarians in supporting this bill. It a good to have something that is transparent and robust. I will read from the March 2005 news brief of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand. The council supports this change in the complaints process and I would like to read a short section: “The Bill allows the council to require a competency assessment of a veterinarian to ensure that the veterinarian is meeting the minimum standards for continuing practice.” That is just like the provision of the medical Act—the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act—and I endorse it absolutely. The change is necessary. We have seen that important change come over the medical fraternity during the last 30 years and it is natural that it would follow into the veterinary world as well. 
I also agree with Sue Kedgley in her comments regarding the welfare of animals around New Zealand. The difference between humans and animals is that humans have the means to complain but animals do not. So people need to complain for them or there needs to be some sort of transparent process for their welfare. That is why I thoroughly endorse the Veterinarians Bill particularly new Part 3A.