Joe O'Toole (Independent)

If so, I probably missed that section. Whatever about the membership of the board, the Minister should consider the membership of the board's education committee. I firmly believe that committee should have a majority of members of the profession. The Minister should amend the Bill to allow for that. Such people should be there to work out the relevant educational processes, qualifications and courses involved.

I recall that on my first day working as a primary teacher, I was discussing with the school principal the book list for the second class I was to take the following year. He said, "Always remember, you've been through your college course and what you learned there is what to select to teach your pupils." The same applies here. There is a consumer interest on the board but I am not sure if it extends to having more than the number of vets on the education sub-committee. The Minister should examine that matter.

I welcome enthusiastically section 55, which, while it does not protect the title "veterinary surgeon", makes it illegal for anyone to represent themselves as being qualified in veterinary medicine. That is a major advance. It is something that the accountancy profession failed to have included in the relevant legislation. Senator Coghlan proposed that but we could not find a suitable form of words. The form of words is very effective in this Bill and it will be welcomed by the profession to stop shysters getting involved who would drag the profession down.

The question of a preliminary investigation committee is a fraught one that will be tested every step of the way in the courts. I recognise the difficulty the draftsman had in putting that provision together. I have been through this matter in a number of different ways and I know that, every time, domestic procedure, which includes redress, will be tested in court. I see one minor flaw in it, however, which concerns the preliminary investigation committee. That committee should immediately inform the person on the register who is being considered for an investigation. There is an issue of natural justice there. Some may ask why it is necessary to bother somebody, as it might prove to be a mischievous complaint and he or she should be protected but it does not work like that. The person should be told immediately that the preliminary investigation committee is considering whether or not to initiate an investigation.

The Bill provides that the fitness to practise committee may ask the person being investigated to respond or give views. The word "may" should be changed rapidly to "shall". We should be seen to inform people that they are being investigated and to want to give them every opportunity to defend themselves.

There is another flaw in the investigation process itself. The Bill, quite correctly, states that the person being investigated may nominate somebody to represent him or her at the fitness to practise committee's hearings. The Bill should go one step further, however. Unless there is advice from the Attorney General that proves me wrong, such a person must be afforded an opportunity to see all the evidence, not just a summary. As currently framed, the Bill qualifies a person's access to the evidence but he or she must be able to see everything. A person should also have an opportunity to cross examine and test the evidence. It is not nice and it makes the process cumbersome but the tenets of natural justice are clear in this respect. A judge will look at this legislation and say: "There is a veterinary surgeon in good standing with a large practice. His career, reputation, family and place in the community is at stake in this investigation and, therefore, no stone should be left unturned to ensure justice."

It is not just that a practitioner would be entitled to have somebody representing him or her there but we also need to state in the Bill that a practitioner is entitled to ask questions and test the evidence. The legislation should make it clear, which currently it does not, that a practitioner would have access to all the evidence. Such a reference should be included.

Section 78(3) states:

The registered person to whom the inquiry relates shall be given notice, in writing, by the Fitness to Practise Committee, sent to the address of that person as stated in the Register or the Register of Veterinary Nurses, as appropriate, of the nature of the evidence proposed to be considered at the inquiry and that person, any person representing him or her, or any person whom they wish to call to give evidence in relation to the matter on his or her behalf shall be given the opportunity of being present at the inquiry.

That subsection does not go far enough. I know why the Minister, the Department and the draftsman framed it as such. It sounds like a neat way of doing it and we would probably all find it attractive. However, the person must have access not just to the nature of the evidence, but to every scrap of it, on which his or her reputation will be determined.