Roy Eric: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Eric: Veterinarians Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:891] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 The principal area that I have as a matter of concern is clause 6 “Entitlement to registration”. Logically a lot of it makes sense. The person must pay a prescribed fee. I am not sure how that fee is set and what it is for but OK there has to be membership of some recognised organisation. The person must have a recognised veterinary science degree or a diploma from a recognised institution. That all makes sense. We are after all dealing with matters that relate to animal health. 
In many respects a veterinarian has a more difficult role than that of a doctor. When someone goes to the doctor he or she can say: “I’ve got a pain. It hurts me here. It throbs. My temperature is up.” or whatever. But when we take an animal to a vet the animal does not have a dialogue with the vet. So in many ways the vet has to be able to interpret signs of ill health in a much more difficult arena than doctors do. 
Phil Heatley 
: Doctors don’t make house calls. Vets do. 
ERIC ROY 
: That is another point. Vets are required to make house calls today. 
The point I wish to make is that I really disagree quite strongly with clause 6(1)(b) which states: “(b) a veterinary science degree or diploma of not less than 4 years of study and 1 or more of the following: …”. The point that I would like the Minister to respond to is why we have a designated time that it takes to learn. The principle should be based on what qualifications one has what area of learning one has and what exams one has passed not on how long it took to get those qualifications. To me it seems an absolute nonsense that we are prescribing—no matter what people’s qualifications are—that they have to have studied for 4 years. Ultimately the qualification is important not how long people were at university for. 
I well recall some debates in the House 3 or 5 years ago where we had similar arguments relating to physiotherapy students and physiotherapy legislation. At that time it seemed totally improper to me that a time limit was prescribed by those who were managing and running physiotherapy schools. They said that it had to be a 4-year course from memory. Again they were just extending out the whole process which created more job opportunities and a whole range of things surrounding that. But the issue was quite clear: it was whether those people were qualified to practise not a matter of how long it had taken them to get there. 
Further on in clause 6(1)(b)(iii) there are some areas that I would like the Minister to comment on as well relating to a pass and assessment programme approved by the council. We are designating a responsibility without instruction to the council for it to come up with something that could be quite subjective. Again having just read another provision where the important thing is how long someone took to study I would like to know with a little more preciseness what sorts of things the council might require and to have this provision removed from the subjective arena. I would like an explanation from the Minister as to why that time requirement is pre-eminent and why there is no designation about what level degrees have to be at. I see the officials are now instructing the Minister so I look forward to a contribution on that point. 
Let us be quite clear: it is important that we have the best possible veterinarians that we can get. For that purpose we need to have the most appropriate people taking veterinary courses which must have the best syllabus the best curriculum and the best practices. Those things are absolutely essential but to require a designated time seems quite confusing to me.