Why Racing NSW would be wrong to vet licence process Furore: The Australian Veterinary Association has labelled Racing NSW's proposal to licence vets proposal "an insult." Chairman Khrushchev ... reminds me of the tiger hunter who has picked a place on the wall to hang the tiger's skin long before he has caught the tiger. This tiger has other ideas. John Fitzgerald Kennedy WHAT would be so wrong with Racing NSW licensing vets involved in the Sport of Kings? I mean, RNSW enacting a robust integrity regime is its precise function. Why stop with vets; what about presiding over paramedics who treat famished and injured jockeys? Better still - let's not forget the lawyers who lurk about trying to inject their shenanigans into stewards' inquiries and appeals. After all, lawyers only just outranked talkback radio hosts and politicians at the bottom of Reader's Digest's 2013 list of (dis) trusted professions. Racing NSW is a statutory corporation, established independent of government, under the Thoroughbred Racing Act. Its essential function is to control, supervise and regulate thoroughbred racing in NSW. Incidental is the responsibility to implement policies deemed conducive to the welfare of the racing industry, and the protection of the public's interest in it. Put another way, RNSW's role is to safeguard integrity. Under the Act, RNSW has the power to register and license people associated with racing for the purposes of, or in connection with, its functions. It is in the purported exercise of this power that RNSW has forecast its definite intention to license all veterinarians providing professional services to thoroughbreds in either competition or in training. Racing Queensland, the regulator in that state, intends to do the same. According to RNSW, these measures are "fundamental" to gaining the confidence of the punter and the public alike, which is curious because I can't recall too many instances of racing being troubled by colourful veterinary identities. Apart from what is planned in Queensland, no analogous regime exists in prominent jurisdictions such as New Zealand, Britain or Ireland (although dual registration schemes are operated in many US states). RNSW's scheme is slated to commence on January 15 after being pushed back from the original date of December 1 because of the turbulence its intended introduction has caused in the veterinary profession. RNSW's rule changes are ostensibly simple. It will be a breach of the rules of racing for any veterinarian - except in emergency circumstances, where a horse's health or welfare is in peril - to provide any veterinary services, or to prescribe or provide any medication, to any thoroughbred in competition or training, unless the veterinarian is licensed by RNSW. Even if the vet is already licensed to practise generally. The sting in the tail is that a licensed trainer must not allow a horse under his or her care to be treated by a vet lacking a licence. The terms go much further. Licences can be revoked by RNSW at will, without reasons (which would mean that vets could no longer treat racing thoroughbreds, even if that is their speciality). Licensed vets must agree to be bound by all rules, regulations, policies and directions imposed by RNSW and its stewards, while licensees will be required to acquiesce to the exclusive jurisdiction of RNSW and its stewards for all matters connected to racing. All of this guillotines right through existing regulatory and disciplinary functions in force in NSW. By way of response, the Australian Veterinary Association has labelled RNSW's proposal "an insult." Taken at first blush, maybe you could consider this an overreaction - but the new rules are laced with potential to evaporate the professional practice entitlements afforded to equine veterinarians. Real questions exist as to whether the proposed rules are reasonable, appropriate or actually necessary: according to the AVA there has only been one RNSW complaint about a veterinarian since 2006. Veterinary science is an organised profession: not some unregulated dark art of witch-doctoring practised in the shadows of the new Randwick grandstand. Like medicine, dentistry and engineering, veterinary practice is structured around a rigorous and inflexible set of academic, professional and ethical standards. Those standards are enforced by the profession itself. The NSW Veterinary Practice Act regulates the practice of veterinary science. Its objectives are to protect animal welfare and to ensure vets adhere to acceptable standards of professional conduct. It is a criminal act for a person other than a registered vet to perform any restricted act of veterinary science, such as examining and diagnosing diseases in animals, administering any treatment or procedure requiring anaesthesia, and administering anaesthetic generally. It creates a mandatory code of conduct, the overriding principle of which is that vets must, first and foremost, provide their professional services with concern for animal welfare. Connected is an irrevocable obligation to not refuse to provide relief for an animal's pain or suffering. Of importance to Racing NSW's apparent concerns, section 14 of this code of conduct compels vets to maintain knowledge of, and to obey, the rules of racing whenever discharging their duties within racing's jurisdiction. The only exception is if racing's rules are contrary to law or inconsistent with a vet's professional obligations. Any failure to adhere to the code, and hence the rules of racing, is classified as "professional misconduct." Vets found guilty of such a breach can have their registration suspended, even cancelled. Distilled down, it is more likely RNSW's motivation is to be the regulator, not to establish a regulatory system. The AVA's concern is justified, for numerous reasons. It is doubtful the intention of the NSW parliament was to grant RNSW the power to license vets, given that a separate statutory scheme exists. However, even if RNSW does have the power to make the rules in question, RNSW's proposals raise complicated competition law and restraint-of-trade issues, leaving aside the practical problems associated with the operation of two separate, but intersecting, regulatory schemes. This is especially so in cases where the RNSW rules seek to trump the established jurisdiction of the professional body. It is hardly the case that stewards are better placed to police veterinarians than their peers. So, a solution: the Veterinary Practice Act already codifies a thorough disciplinary framework for registered vets. Any person, including RNSW, can make complaints, including where a vet fails to obey the rules of racing. The Veterinary Practitioners Board - the body with the power to sanction vets - has a greater legislative power to summon witnesses and compel the answering of questions than does ASADA (even with ASADA's new powers obtained earlier this year). The VPB could, under its Act, establish a special "racing disciplinary committee" delegated with full jurisdiction to deal with matters involving equine vets and the racing industry. There is no impediment in the Act for the VPB and RNSW agreeing on mutually acceptable committee members, and then establishing acceptable procedural rules to deal with complaints justly and expeditiously under the VPB's jurisdiction, to protect the interests of both racing and vet. It is not helpful to answer the question as to whether RNSW's intention to license vets is "insulting," and it is hardly likely RNSW's intention is to insult; however, its proposal is cumbersome and unnecessary. It achieves little for RNSW to seek to interfere in the already effective regulation of a most noble profession. A better objective would be for RNSW to seek to protect the good name of equine veterinarians, as opposed to trying to solve a problem which isn't there. Racing would cease to exist without vets. I suspect we will be racing on January 16. Twitter- @sportslawyer7