Christian Siebert get your self a real job when you complete you studies because I feel your membership of the ALP and the AFS may be clouding your thinking about regulation.
I would not employ a gas-fitter who was not registered by a regulating body to repair my gas heater. When your are in practice for while and seen the reality of your profession then your views on regulation would be of more value.

Vioutbeau or whatever your post name is, you criticise and dismiss Christian's views, but what are your own about professional regulation? Why can't there be more competition there? Is the current system a cause of shortages of professionals? Are there unfair barriers to overseas-trained professionals? Should more professions be government regulated, as are nurses and teachers, and not by monopoly professional organisations like the Bar Association and colleges of medical practitioners?

One thing for sure, the supply and quality of professionals is huge factor in our economy and society. It is quite reasonable to question whether it could be done better. My only criticism of the article is that it was superficial and could have delved deeper into the issues, benefits and pitfalls that may be encountered.

It is interesting that a push for less regulation of professional practice can get legs so soon after the Bundaberg hospital debacle.
Is the hip pocket nerve more important than the body itself?

It was inevitable that someone would bring up the Bundaberg Hospital case invlolving "Dr Death'. Newsflash, Colinsett: that occurred under the current regulatory regime. It proves is that no regulatory system can completely eliminate incompetent professionals. The lesson from Bundaberg was that health authorities have to be vigilant and take action when a problem emerges, not turn a blind eye and punish whistleblowers. The role of the surgeon's regsitration is secondary.

Also, I don't think anyone has argued for less regulation. The issue is more competition in regulation.

A law student who thinks that having competing decison-makers improves decison-making?

Being able to pick-and-choose who looks over your shoulder could very well lead to the opposite of 'stricter' regulation as some people will shop around for hte more favourable option, or poor performers could move from one to the next.

"This proposal is likely to attract a lot of criticism, particularly from regulators and current members of professions. It is obvious that they will challenge any policy that exposes them to competition, even if that policy will benefit consumers. So it will be up to federal, state and territory governments to take the lead on this issue, and the next wave of competition policy reform will provide a perfect opportunity to do so."

Competition is *not* the panacea for all ills. We are not being petulant when we argue that point. Making everything a profit-making exercise has very definately not proven to be either more effective, more efficient, nor avoids the downfalls of profit-as-motive.

If there are ills in the current systems, those ought to be identified and addressed. Handing us over to corporate boards will only increase costs and motivate the opposite of disclosure - if for no other reason than to protect the reputation of the enterprise. If you are under any illusions about this, perhaps you should pay more attention to the world outside your political playpens.