Page 3700 - Week 12 - Thursday, 21 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The consequence of this anomaly existing in the ACT legislation is that a person who holds osteopathic qualifications but is registered in the ACT as a chiropractor has entitlement under the mutual recognition provision to seek registration as a chiropractor in any other participating jurisdiction. It therefore could be argued that the ACT has the lowest qualifications for registration as a chiropractor. This is not meant to be interpreted as meaning that the qualifications for registration as an osteopath are lesser qualifications than those for a chiropractor.
The dividing of the register is aimed primarily at protecting the use of the titles "chiropractor" and "osteopath" rather than limiting the practice of the person concerned, the emphasis being on controlling the use of the title rather than the scope of the practice. There is considerable difficulty within the profession itself in clearly defining the exact differences between chiropractic practice and the practice of osteopathy, but it is understood within the profession that there is a difference in philosophy as well as in some of the techniques that are used.
Further, no registration board in Australia has attempted to set the parameters of practice. There is no definition within the Bill which will limit the parameters of practice in either occupation and there is nothing in the Bill which will prohibit a chiropractor using osteopathic techniques or an osteopath using chiropractic techniques. Unless all jurisdictions where mutual recognition applies have the same standard for registration of a person as a chiropractor or an osteopath, a jurisdiction with a lower standard will provide a means for a person who satisfies that standard but not the higher standards required in the other jurisdictions to gain registration in those jurisdictions under the mutual recognition principle.
The transitional provisions will ensure continuation of registration for chiropractors registered under the Chiropractors Registration Act 1983. They will be registered on the same terms and subject to the same conditions as apply to his or her registration immediately before the commencement of the new provisions. However, there is a provision for the board to undertake a review of all chiropractors registered under the principal Act to determine whether they are entitled to be registered as a chiropractor. Where the board determines that the registered chiropractor is not entitled to registration as a chiropractor, it will serve a notice in writing on the person requiring him or her to show cause why his or her registration should not be transferred to registration as an osteopath. Where the registered chiropractor fails to show good reason why his or her registration should not be transferred to registration as an osteopath, the board will transfer that registration unless it is considered that there is good reason why this should not be done.
It is not anticipated that there will be any registered chiropractors aggrieved by any such decision of the board. However, there are provisions for a person to make submissions to the board as to why his or her registration should not be transferred to that of an osteopath. Further, the aggrieved person may then appeal to the ACT Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of any such decision of the board.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .