1. The Tribunal finds that the respondent, Dr Matthew Carbery, has engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition in s.5 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Vic)(National Law), being unprofessional conduct by the practitioner that amounts to conduct that is substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience, in that between 1 December 2013 and 10 April 2015, the respondent failed to maintain adequate and appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover.
2. The Tribunal finds that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition in s.5 of the National Law, in that on or about 28 November 2014, the respondent made a false declaration to AHPRA during his renewal of general registration to practice as a chiropractor in relation to his compliance with the requirements of the Registration Standard: Professional Indemnity Insurance Arrangements.

1. The respondent, Dr Matthew Carbery is reprimanded.
2. A condition is imposed on the respondent's registration requiring that he provide a certificate of currency in respect of appropriate professional indemnity insurance coverage to the Board and AHPRA on an ongoing annual basis. The review period for the condition is the period ending 31 October 2020.
3. Under s 146(4)(b) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, the Tribunal directs that no person other than a party to the proceeding or their legal advisers may inspect the Tribunal file.

These written reasons consist of an edited transcription of reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing on 1 November 2017. A request for written reasons was made on 22 January 2018, which the Tribunal was able to accommodate.

1. This case is about allegations referred to VCAT by the Chiropractic Board of Australia (Board) in August of 2017. The allegations concern Dr Matthew Carbery and relate to the conduct of Dr Carbery on dates between 1 December 2013 and 10 April 2015. During that period, Dr Carbery did not have Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) cover. He had cover prior to those dates and he has had cover since those dates.
2. The allegations are, in essence, that Dr Carbery practised as a Chiropractor without maintaining adequate PII cover in accordance with the Board's registration standard. That is the first allegation. Secondly, he made a false declaration to AHPRA on his application to renew his registration, in relation to maintaining adequate PII arrangements.
3. Prior to the hearing before us, the parties negotiated and provided an Agreed Statement of Facts and Proposed Findings and Determinations.
4. On the basis of the agreed statement of facts, we made findings that the allegations are proven and the conduct in respect of each allegation is professional misconduct within paragraph (a) of the definition in section 5 of the National Law, that is, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Vic).
5. We agree that the proposed Determinations are appropriate, namely that Dr Carbery be reprimanded; and a condition be imposed on his registration requiring him to provide a certificate of currency in respect of appropriate professional indemnity insurance coverage to the Board and AHPRA on an ongoing annual basis, with a review period for the condition of 3 years from the date of our orders.
6. It is to Dr Carbery's credit that he has not only co-operated with the investigation and the proceedings, but has also shown that he understands that what has occurred is serious.
7. Dr Carbery attributed his failure to secure PII cover to a number of factors, financial and family. Before us, he spoke of being consumed with his business and family life; about personal debt and difficult personal circumstances, including the pressures of the economy in Geelong, the downturn and the fact that he had taken a lease on a building with five rooms which were not being used. In terms of his family, he said that at the time his wife's father was ill in New Zealand and needed to go into a nursing home. He also described being in debt "up to the hilt" with no more capacity to pay. He clearly experienced a range of personal pressures.
8. As Dr Carbery has recognised himself, none of those matters are excuses. For a registered health practitioner, the obligation to ensure compliance with professional obligations, such as the profoundly important obligation to be insured, ought always to be a priority. The obligation to make truthful statements to the regulator is a fundamental obligation.
9. In considering whether and what Determinations are appropriate, the Tribunal looks at a number of features which were summarised in the submissions.
10. As submitted, the purpose of Determinations is protective not punitive although they will usually feel like some form of punishment by the practitioner. They are designed to protect the public and maintain professional standards in the eyes of the public and the practitioner's peers.
11. As Dr Carbery recognises, both allegations as serious. If we were not satisfied that Dr Carbery understood the gravity of the conduct, that of itself may well have resulted in a stronger penalty such as suspension of his registration.
12. In this case, while the conduct is serious, there is clear evidence of contrition and remorse, embarrassment, insight into what has happened and resolve, which we accept, never to let this happen again, no matter what is happening in his personal life.
13. We do not consider that there is a need here for specific deterrence and we take into account the fact that Dr Carbery has no other disciplinary history, and no current Notifications. Whilst his professional obligations, such as PII, are fundamentally important, we are reassured that this is not a case of a practitioner who does not understand their obligations to their patients, who is careless, dangerous or otherwise incompetent.
14. The evidence before us about character indicates to us that Dr Carbery is otherwise a person of good character. We accept that he has put his house in order now and is determined to maintain that.
15. We also must take into account any delay from the time the investigation started to the end of the Tribunal hearing, which we calculate at 2.5 years.
16. In other cases, depending on the complexity of the investigations, that time period has been much greater.
17. We recognise however that an investigation, and any delays in the investigation, of themselves can have a profound effect on a practitioner.
18. Dr Carbery has described that impact on himself. He also recognises, to his credit, that his Board has important obligations and investigations can take time.
19. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the proposed determinations are appropriate.
20. We agree that a period of 36 months is an appropriate review period. We will make orders to that effect.