Hansard debates

Search Hansard
Search help



 

Legislative Assembly
 
VETERINARY PRACTICE BILL

22 May 1997
Second Reading
GUDE

 


                            VETERINARY PRACTICE BILL
                                 Second reading

  Mr GUDE (Minister for Education) -- I move:
  That this bill be now read a second time.
The  Veterinary Practice  Bill  1997 provides for  protection  of the public  by
registration   of  veterinary   practitioners   and   investigations   into  the
professional  conduct   and  fitness  to   practise  of  registered   veterinary
practitioners.

Veterinarians in government service and private  practice provide the  basis for
control of diseases  of animals which impinge  on public health, interstate  and
international  trade  in  livestock  and  livestock  products  and  the  general
wellbeing of companion, competition and recreational animals.
The bill establishes the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria
and  the  Veterinary  Practitioners Registration Board  Fund  of  Victoria.  The
reforms will  bring the board into  line with similar legislation covering other
professions where the principle of peer review and public representation  on the
board provides the basis for the standard of professional services.
Provision is made for registration of veterinary practitioners, which allows for
temporary  or conditional registration  and  registration as  a  specialist in a
specified branch of veterinary medicine or veterinary surgery.

The  board  is enabled to  hold investigations and informal  and formal hearings
into complaints received  regarding veterinary practitioners  or their  conduct.
Provisions  include the appointment of non-board members to hearing panels where
the number of available board members is insufficient to allow all panel members
to hear a matter afresh at each stage, or where special expertise is required in
a  particular  case. In all  hearings  one member of  the  panel  will not be  a
registered  veterinary practitioner, representing  users of  veterinary services
and the general public.
Appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal are provided in place of  appeals
to the Supreme Court. These are envisaged to be minimal as there  have been only
two appeals to the court in the past two years.

The Department of  Natural Resources and Environment will monitor the  number of
appeals and, if the  workload is greater  than  expected, consultation with  the
Department  of  Justice will take  place  to ensure an  appropriate  transfer of
funding between the  departments to meet the  costs of additional resourcing  at
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The  bill  removes  the  current  restrictions on  the  ownership of  veterinary
practices. It  is recognised that the board will have no power  to act  directly
against an owner who is not a registered veterinary practitioner  in  the  event
that complaints  are generated about  the  upkeep or standard  of  facilities or
administration  of the  practice.  However,  it  is  recognised  that the  board
requires  power   to  enter  facilities  to  investigate  complaints  where  the
facilities are not owned by a veterinary practitioner, and to this end provision
has been made for issue by a magistrate of a warrant to enter.

I now wish to make a statement under section 85 of the  Constitution Act 1975 of
the reasons  for  altering  or varying  that  section.  Clause 86  declares  the
intention of section  52(3)  of the bill  to  alter  or vary section  85  of the
Constitution Act 1975.
Clause 52(3) provides that  no  action  for defamation lies against the board or
its members for giving notice under clause  52.  Clause 52(1) empowers the board
to notify any determination to impose conditions, limitations or restrictions on
the  registration of  a  veterinary  practitioner,  or  suspend  or  cancel  the
registration  of  a  veterinary  practitioner  in  the  Government  Gazette,  to
registration authorities in other states and territories and in New Zealand,  to
the employer  of  a veterinary practitioner  and  to a  veterinary  registration
authority outside Australia if the board  has received a request for information
about the veterinary practitioner from that authority.

The reasons for the  limiting of  the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are that
the purposes  of the act will not be fulfilled if a veterinary practitioner  can
continue to practise  or  purport to  be  a registered  veterinary  practitioner
because notice of the board's action has not been  communicated  to the relevant
authorities.  This provision  is  essential  to ensure  that  the board and  its
members can communicate vital information to  the  relevant  authorities without
the threat of civil action for defamation against them.
The  initiatives  have  the  support  of  the  profession and  bring  Victoria's
legislation  covering   the  veterinary  profession  into  a   uniform  national
framework, thus  honouring the state's  commitment  given seven  years  ago. The
provisions meet social, national and international commitments for the
provision of veterinary  services  that impact on  market access for  Victoria's
livestock and livestock products interstate and internationally.


Page 1631
I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mr BRUMBY (Leader of the Opposition). Debate adjourned until Thursday, 5 June.