“The concept of being both a membership-based representative organisation, and a regulator makes little sense. This arrangement also creates a conflict of interest,” writes politcal columnist MICHAEL MOORE. 

How long does it take to get an appointment with a medical specialist? 

The medical colleges that govern how many specialists can be part of the profession have an inherent conflict of interest. In a similar vein, the ACT Law Society has the power to judge and disenfranchise its members.

Professional groups have been at the core of ensuring high-quality services for many years. The calibre of professionals in the law and in medicine are amongst the highest in the world. But is it right the way these organisations protect their own power, jobs and money?

As these professional groups are both part of maintaining standards and are also advocacy groups, they have considerable power and influence along with an inherent conflict of interest.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, for example, sees its triple role as “educate”, “advocate” and “innovate”.

I have the greatest respect for the work of this college and the range of other specialist medical colleges. However, we simply do not have enough specialists. The inherent conflict of interest is that incomes are well protected when there are not enough specialists. 

It is simple supply and demand economics. Waiting up to six months (and longer), for example, to see a specialist is simply not good enough. The medical colleges have not been able to address this shortage, and it is time to look at alternative governance systems.

In 2013 the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) found inconsistencies in training approaches and concerns about transparency and fairness of the processes. 

The Australian Medical Council (AMC) overseas medical training and overseas standards of education, training and assessment of the medical profession. Their role is to “promote and protect the health of the Australian community”. 

However, the long, long waits for specialists, and the out-of-pocket expenses incurred indicates that the AMC’s role in the “protection and promotion of the health of the Australian community” is not working so well. It is time for all Australian Ministers of Health to break down the collusion that is effectively built into the processes for accrediting our medical specialists. 

It is not just the medical colleges that have the conflict of interest. The ACT Law Society is going through torrid times. The society is considering a process of reform. However, the process may well focus even more power in the hands of fewer people. 

No wonder it is torrid times! The concept of being both a membership-based representative organisation, and a regulator makes little sense. This arrangement also creates a conflict of interest.

The Law Society says its role is to “represent, advance, and defend the interests of an independent legal profession in the ACT”. A sensible enough role for a membership-based organisation.

However, it also claims to “protect the public interest in the ACT system of justice through the efficient regulation of the profession”.

The role also includes “lobbying and consultation to protect members’ interests and to defend the reputation of the legal profession in the ACT”.

The ACT Law Society has significant powers to regulate and oversee lawyers practicing in the ACT. These powers stem from the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT) and include setting rules for legal practice, maintaining professional standards, handling complaints about professional conduct, and prosecuting disciplinary matters. 

The society also plays a role in protecting client and public monies and providing legal assistance. Disciplinary actions taken against lawyers may also include prosecuting matters before the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). 

The society claims to represent the profession, and there is significant power in the hands of the council, and particularly its executive committee. There are proposals to grab even more power by cutting the size of the council, including non-elected members and increasing the length of terms. 

Less than a third of ACT Law Society members have voted for those standing for council. This is hardly the grounds for wholesale changes to an organisation that carries such significant power. 

It is a challenge for ACT Attorney-General Tara Cheyne. As changes to the Constitution of the Law Society need to be approved by the attorney-general, she should work with her predecessor, the Greens leader Shane Rattenbury, and other Assembly colleagues to examine the possibilities to improve and protect the integrity of the profession.

Michael Moore is a former member of the ACT Legislative Assembly and an independent minister for health. He has been a political columnist with “CityNews” since 2006.