Carter David: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Carter David: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:935] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Following on from the excellent contributions from National members of Parliament on new Part 3A I want to raise a different point and to ask the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton for some answers. My concern is the process. 
The bill went through the Primary Production Committee was substantially rewritten with the help of parliamentary counsel then came back to the House and at that stage the committee I think had every right to assume that it had done a pretty good job. Then today Mr Anderton suddenly dumps Supplementary Order Paper 8 on the Table of the House. When I look through that Supplementary Order Paper I see that a good amount of it is technical and makes changes to drafting and I accept that—I want to make sure that when the legislation finally leaves the House it is as accurate as possible—but the part that puzzles me and I think it would only be fair that the Minister take a call and answer this question is why the Minister has seen fit subsequent to the select committee process to remove clauses 46 to 47A from the bill as reported back and put them entirely into a new part. If that is done as a matter of clarity to give us better legislation then I say to the Minister that that advice should have been given to the select committee at the time. I want the Minister to tell us why he has seen fit to present this substantial Supplementary Order Paper at the eleventh hour. 
The second point I want to raise with the Minister is in regard to the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 8. The third bullet point states that the Supplementary Order Paper amends the Veterinarians Bill to “relocate the provisions of the Bill in relation to conditions of practice (from clauses 46 to 47A to new clauses 55A to 55C).” The next words are important and the Committee should note them: “There is no substantive amendments to these provisions.” That is what the explanatory note states and the Committee has every right to rely on it. But when I go through the Supplementary Order Paper and through clauses 46 to 47A in the bill as I read it—and I admit that we have been working on this for some time and we will continue working on it over the next couple of days so I may have missed something—I do not find any change at all in the wording of the provisions on the Supplementary Order Paper. It seems to me that clauses 46 to 47A have been picked up in their entirety put in new Part 3A and denoted as clauses 55A to 55C. 
If I am right I am very suspicious of the wording of the explanatory note of Supplementary Order Paper 8: “There is no substantive amendments to these provisions.” I see the Minister is seeking some advice; I would be very pleased to hear his explanation. I do not see any change; maybe there are some very small minor changes—maybe punctuation or a minor change of wording—but we as the Committee need to know that. We become worried when explanatory notes of Supplementary Order Papers are inaccurate. 
So I ask the Minister to give us an explanation of those two points only. I am sure it will not take him long to do that. I reiterate the two points so he is clear on why we want the answers. First why subsequent to the select committee process has there been a substantial change in drafting format? I think that advice should have been given to the select committee at the time by parliamentary counsel. I do not criticise the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry officials; I enjoyed working with them and they did a great job. This is a drafting issue pertaining to parliamentary counsel. The second point is that I want to know whether there are any changes at all or whether those clauses have just been picked up in their entirety with no change and put into the new part.