Hansard debates
Search Hansard
Search help
|
|
|||||||
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.