Aust Vet J Vol 78, No 2, February 2000132

News Extra

The following is a prepared article byGuild Insurance in conjunction withlegal advisers, Blake DawsonWaldron.

IT IS sometimes said, particularlyby those who are entrepreneurs,that there is no such thing as bad

publicity. Entrepreneurial and profes-sional attitudes do not always sit welltogether. When a professional is calledto account for particular behaviourbefore a panel set up by a professionalboard (whether it be a dental, medical,chiropractic, or other health profes-sional) often the first thing asked of asolicitor is “Will therebe publicity and can Ihave my name sup-pressed?”Recent decisions inVictoria, althoughdecided on legislationapplicable in thatstate, may be seen assuggesting that gener-ally courts will tightlyconstrue legislationgoverning individualprofessions. The endresult of recent deci-sions is that a panelhearing a disciplinarymatter does not havethe inherent power to suppress publi-cation of the identity of a person calledbefore it.For example, the Nurses Act in Victoriaand other states is representative of thelegislative scheme for other health pro-fessionals. Usually, the hearing of thecomplaint is generally open to the pub-lic. However the governing legislationempowers the panel or tribunal hear-ing the complaint, to determine that inparticular circumstances the proceed-ings be closed and the identity of thewitness not be published because thehearing involves taking evidence ofintimate, personal or financial matters.Alternatively the tribunal can conductthe proceedings “as it thinks fit”.The question of a professional board’scapacity to suppress publication of theidentity of the person about whom acomplaint is made has been discussedin separate decisions of the SupremeCourt of Victoria dealing with the

Psychologist Board and the MedicalPractitioners Board. In both cases itwas held there was no express power tosuppress. It was further held there wasno need to imply such a power in orderto ensure the panel in question wasable to perform its legislative tasks,such tasks including the need to pro-tect the public. It is important toremember that each jurisdiction has itsown specific legislation as backgroundand it is necessary to consider each caseon its merits.Overall, the position now appears to bethat panels hearing disciplinary com-plaints will not be persuaded to sup-

press the identity ofthe professionalsimply because theprofessional saysthat to do otherwisewould breach natu-ral justice or occas-sion professionaldamage. The start-ing point, fromwhich there is noeasy departure, isthat the identity ofthe professional is inthe public domainand is a matter ofpublic importance.

Given the importance to professionalstanding and the damage that can bedone as a consequence of an adversefinding, every professional is entitledto present their defence in a forcefuland coherent manner – appropriate tothe circumstances of the given case.Persons called before a board for a dis-ciplinary hearing should be under noillusion. Professional boards exist pri-marily to protect the public, even if itcan be argued that protection of thepublic is not necessarily achieved bykeeping the complainant anonymousand the professional public.It is important that any professionalcalled to account be given legal repre-sentation of the highest standard com-mensurate with the nature of the alle-gations the professional faces. Suchlegal representation is covered byappropriate policies of insurance.For more information contact GuildInsurance on Freecall 1800 810 213.

Publicity not alwaysgood for business

Compiled by AVA InsuranceAdvisory Committee - withassistance from Guild Insurance

P r a c t i c e

p i t f a l l s

ASTUDY of the use of layer hen cages isone of a number of animal welfareprojects before the National

Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare(NCCAW).NCCAW members are drawn from theCommonwealth, the States and Territories, ani-mal welfare interest groups and the AVA,through its National Veterinarian. NCCAW ischaired by Professor Ivan Caple-Dean of theFaculty of Veterinary Science at the University ofMelbourne. NCCAW, formed 10 years ago as an advisorybody to the Federal Minister with responsibilityfor Agriculture, has developed a number of posi-tion statements which are intended to be indica-tive of community standards in animal welfare.A position statement on cattle spaying, based onthe Willis dropped ovary technique, wasfinalised by NCCAW at the October meeting.Other position statements – on blood suppliesfor dogs and cats and on assessment of aggres-sion in dogs in shelters – have been agreed andwill lie on the table for six months to allowmember organisations to consult their con-stituencies.A position statement on rodeos will undergofurther work – and be extended to include campdrafting – before consideration at NCCAW’snext meeting in April.Other statements, at various stages of develop-ment are:• Tail docking of dogs (draft to be forwarded

to the Australian National Kennel Councilfor comment).

• Wildlife road kills will undergo further workin consultation with Austroads Australia.

• Dog health in indigenous communities isunder discussion with ATSIC.

Caged Layer Hens are under also under discus-sion by NCCAW. A delegation visited a farmnear Young (NSW) to examine cages built in the1960s, 1980s and 1990s. NCCAW noted theintention of EU to phase-out layer cages infavour of larger cages and other forms of hous-ing which incorporate perches, dust bathing andnesting boxes. This matter is under considera-tion.Other matters on the agenda included thereview of the Third Party Service Program forthe Preparation of Livestock Species for Export,draft Guidelines for Production of MonoclonalAntibodies and input on urban animal manage-ment.

A n i m a l W e l f a r e

Kevin Doyle,AVA NationalVeterinarian