Glenn Lynch
‘When Australians are offended they want something done about it. Just being offended is not enough. Getting it off our chest doesn't do the trick. We want action. We want disapproval made official. We want someone, somewhere, somehow to suffer because we're upset’ – Written by David Marr – Sydney Morning Herald 1 April 2009.
When I read this statement, it encapsulated the perception I get from initial discussions I have had with a number of complainants. The number of complaints being made to the Board has risen significantly over the last few years – the role of the Board’s Complaints Committee is to investigate complaints about practitioners. This process can colloquially be described as ‘sorting the wheat from the chaff’. The chaff being the sort of communiqué complaint such as the above would suggest (relatively minor types of complaints) versus the wheat - being the type of professional misconduct that any practitioner would frown upon and expect the Board to do something about.
The Board has a policy of processing the ‘minor’ complaint (‘minor’ on the face of it) because it believes that it is important that the practitioner receives the complaint and has an opportunity to read what their client has written and respond to it – as opposed to the Board dismissing the complaint without investigation, pursuant to section 46 ‘The Board may dismiss a complaint if the Board is satisfied that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or otherwise lacking in merit’ (although the Board does use this section very occasionally). Sometimes the investigation process can reveal some concerning aspects of the practitioner’s protocols independent of the actual complaint.
During the course of investigating complaints, the vast majority of practitioners fully co operate and are up front, frank and honest about the matters being investigated. This openness and frankness is what the professional investigation system is based on. Without it, there can be no-peer review and the only alternatives are non-peer processing via the consumer affairs tribunal and the courts. The Board would like to believe that the legislated process in the Veterinary Practice Act is based on the practitioner having confidence in the Board (their peers) to take all matters into consideration and to come to an appropriate decision.
In fact, I have received several positive comments from practitioners who believe that they have been kept up to date and understood the processes of the investigation and have felt comfortable about being interviewed (when required) by the Complaints Committee. The practitioner is always made aware of the specific particulars of the Board’s concerns before an interview, therefore they are prepared. They probably feel like...nothing to hide, nothing to worry about?
Conversely, the Complaints Committee has also come up against Solicitors and Barristers representing practitioners in the embryonic stages of processing a complaint. This is an assumed right of all people in our society. However it is not so in professional conduct matters before the allegations are particularized and the allegations are being investigated as to ‘what happened’. I am often left thinking to myself; did this involvement of the legal profession really ‘help’ the practitioner or just, up the ante? The Committee, Board and staff of the Board are not solicitors and consequently, when the practitioner enters a legal representative into the process, the Board must also refer the case to our solicitors for advice or to act on our behalf to deal with the ‘legal’ process. As you would expect, legal advice is not cheap, so the issue is now legal and expensive (for both sides).
I would not like to divulge the outcome of complaints where solicitors have been involved or the guilt or innocence of the practitioner but such cases are in the vast minority and the practitioner may not prescribe to the theory - nothing to hide, nothing to worry about? We get to the facts of the matter eventually; it just takes longer and costs more money - money that the Board always seeks to recoup.
It may not appear any different to the previous site; however, the Board’s website has been rebuilt and now fully complies with NSW Government requirements. You may see subtle new icons and hidden text on the home page – this is to accommodate people with certain visual impairments – if they have the appropriate software, these people can fully access the information on the site – even brail software can be used.
Annual registration Annual Returns (AR) and invoices were posted out prior to Easter and are due back to the Board by 31 May 2009. If the AR and invoice is not submitted by the due date, the Act requires the Board to remove the person’s name from the register – this is the unpleasant aspect of my job – please don’t let it happen to you.
Please do not send in CPD validations (certificates etc) – we only require your points.
I have initiated improvements to the process of paying and submitting the AR – it is so very simple – I request that if you haven’t done so before, give it a go!
You will note that as promised in the last edition of Board Talk, I have included the statistics gathered from last years AR – they certainly make for interesting reading.
On a personal note, I am aware that the Board’s President, Dr Garth McGilvray will not be putting his name forward to serve on the new Board from 1 July this year. From a selfish point of view, this will bring new challenges for me because I have always worked very closely with Garth and his mentoring will be sorely missed. I would like to thank Garth for all his efforts serving on the Board over the last 16 years. I have witnessed first hand the enormous contribution that he has made to the profession, not only in NSW but on a national basis as Chairman of the Australasian Boards Council Inc. All the current Board and staff of the Board wish Garth and Sue the very best for the future and I look forward to receiving his emailed photos of exotic sailing destinations from around the globe – he has certainly earned it.
Glenn Lynch
Registrar
