Accreditation Council review
Accountability and transparency
As part of its obligations under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, as in force in each state and territory (the National Law), the Osteopathy Board is required to undertake wide-ranging public consultation about the content of proposed registration standards, codes and guidelines.
In general terms, the process requires that, as part of the development of a regulation, policy or guideline, there is some preliminary consultation with AHPRA, other Boards, government and some key national stakeholders.
After the preliminary consultation phase, there is a public consultation phase where members of the profession, the community, governments and other stakeholders are invited to make submissions. Except in certain circumstances, such as submissions made in confidence, public submissions are published on the Board’s website. After the public consultation phase, the Board finalises the revised version, taking into account the feedback received, or, depending on the changes involved, it may undertake another consultation on the revised version.
Items that are currently released as drafts for public consultation are:
The first three have been developed as a response to the matters the Board deals with in the area of notifications and registrations, including recency of practice.
The fourth item relates to the proposed introduction of a competent authority pathway for some osteopaths who graduated with a qualification recognised by the General Osteopathic Council in the United Kingdom after 1999, and who are seeking to practise in Australia. The Board would like to hear a wide range of views on its proposed guidelines and framework.
The Board is also participating in a review of common registration standards, codes and guidelines developed for the beginning of the National Scheme. This review will be undertaken in conjunction with the other 13 Boards that are part of the National Scheme.
All consultations are posted to the Current consultations page in the News section on the Board’s website.
↑ back to the top
Before the National Scheme began, the Australian and New Zealand Osteopathic Council (ANZOC) was assigned the role of accreditation authority for the osteopathy profession by the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council for an initial period of three years.
Following a recent review including wide-ranging public consultation, the Board has decided that ANZOC should continue to exercise the accreditation function for the osteopathy profession for a period of five years from 1 July 2013. The public consultation and submissions can be viewed on the Past consultations page in the News section on the Board’s website.
For further information on the range of accreditation work provided by ANZOC, please visit ANZOC’s website.
Osteopathy practitioners who had not renewed their general or non-practising registration by 30 November 2012 were removed from the Register of Osteopaths as of 3 January 2013. Those osteopaths are not able to practise if not on the national register of practitioners.
From 1 February 2013 onwards you will need to lodge a new application for registration. Processing times for new applications depend on many factors, including whether the documentation you submit is complete and whether you make disclosures relating to health or criminal history. You may not practise in Australia until your registration has been successfully processed and your name has been published on the national register of practitioners. The fees payable are both an application and a registration fee.
If you were previously registered but failed to apply for renewal of registration by 30 November 2012, please visit the Board’s website for more information on the relevant forms and fees.
The National Boards’ and AHPRA’s commitment to transparency and accountability continues, with an expansion of the information published about legal issues and hearing decisions.
AHPRA has now published a table of panel hearing decisions dating back to July 2010. Summaries have been provided where there is educational and clinical value. Practitioners’ names are not published, consistent with the requirements of the National Law.
Some summaries of tribunal decisions are also provided, to help share information and guide practitioners.