The respondent acknowledged that her conduct fell substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a nursing practitioner in a managerial role with her experience and training. The Tribunal found that each of the six grounds pleaded by the Board were made out to the requisite standard. The Tribunal gave careful consideration to the agreement between the parties, the evidence provided and legal authorities in determining the level of conduct and the appropriate sanctions.

• The respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct;
• The respondent is reprimanded;
• The respondent is disqualified from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of ten (10) years;
• The respondent is prohibited from providing any health service until such time she is granted registration as a health practitioner.

Health practitioners - Complaint by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia - Professional misconduct - Inappropriate patient management and care - Reprimand - Disqualified from applying for registration for ten (10) years

Health Practitioner National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 ss 3, 5, 11, 41, 193, 195, 196, 222

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 4, 33, 39, 57, 60

Mental Health Act 2009 s 96

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336

Craig v Medical Board of South Australia [2001] SASC 169

Medical Board of Australia v Fox (Review and Regulation) [2016] VCAT 408

Medical Board of Australia v Gruner (Review and Regulation) [2023] VCAT 273

Medical Board of Australia v Singh [2017] WASAT 33

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Little (Review and Regulation) [2020] VCAT 687

Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Meek (Review and Regulation) [2021] VCAT 68

Roylance v General Medical Council [1999] UKPC 16; [2000] 1 AC 311

Mr A Schatz appeared for the applicant on instruction from the Australian Government Solicitor

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

1. By application dated 23 December 2022, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia (the Board) has referred Julie Harrison (the respondent) to the Tribunal under s 193(1)(a) of Schedule 2 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (SA) (the National Law), on the grounds that the Board reasonably believes that the respondent has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct as defined in s 5 of the National Law.
2. The respondent was born on 24 June 1951 and is presently 72 years old. She obtained her qualification as a Registered Nurse on 1 November 1976 from the Hilcrest Hospital and was first registered as an Enrolled Nurse on 14 March 1977 with the former Nurses Board of South Australia. From 1 July 2010, she held registration as a Registered Nurse with the Board under s 222 of the National Law until 9 April 2018 when the respondent voluntarily surrendered her registration upon retirement from the nursing profession.
3. The respondent held the following roles at the Older Persons Mental Health facility at Oakden between 24 December 2007 and July 2015 which is the relevant period in respect of these proceedings (the Relevant Period):

3.1. Acting Aged Care Director of the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service (CNAHS) from late December 2007 to July 2010. Her responsibilities included the clinical governance of inpatient services at Oakden which on or about 11 June 2009 was gazetted as an Approved Treatment Centre (for mentally ill older persons) under s 96 of the Mental Health Act 2009 (SA).

3.2. Service Manager with responsibility for Older Persons Mental Health Service, which included Oakden from July 2010 to January 2013. Her responsibilities included the shared clinical governance with the Director of Nursing for the Older Persons Mental Health Service (including Oakden inpatient services).

3.3. Service Manager for Older Persons Mental Health Service and the Forensic Mental Health Service from January 2013 to October 2014. Her responsibilities included the shared clinical governance with the Director of Nursing for the Older Persons Mental Health Service (including Oakden inpatient services).

3.4. Acting Director of Strategy and Operations for the Northern Adelaide Local Health Network (NALHN) Mental Health Directorate from October 2014 to February 2015 while other personnel acted in the role of Service Manager of Older Persons Mental Health Service. Her responsibilities included the strategic oversight and leadership of clinical governance for the Older Persons Mental Health Service (including Oakden inpatient services).

3.5. In February 2015 the respondent's role changed to Community and Strategic management. In or around mid-2015 her responsibilities no longer included the clinical governance of the Older Persons mental Health Service (including Oakden inpatient services), but instead, included the responsibility for strategy and community components of the Mental Health Service (rather than operational management).

3.6. A member and later Chair of the Clinical Governance Committee until September 2014.

1. From July 2015, following an extended period of sick leave, the respondent held the position of Service Manager Community Services and Strategy for Older Persons Mental Health Services and no longer had the formal responsibility for the clinical governance of the inpatient units at Oakden. She took long service leave from January 2016 to March 2017 and formally resigned without retuning to work at Oakden in March 2017 before surrendering her registration and resigning as previously stated.
2. During the relevant period, the respondent was subject to the following professional codes and standards:

5.1. Code of Professional Conduct for Nurses in Australia - in effect from on or about 26 June 2003 to 2 November 2008 (2003 Conduct Code).

5.2. Code of Ethics for Nurses in Australia - in effect from on or about 26 June 2003 to 2 November 2008 (2003 Ethics Code).

5.3. Code of Ethics for Nurses in Australia - in effect from 3 November 2008 to 30 June 2010 (2008 Ethics Code).

5.4. Code of Ethics for Nurses - August 2008 - rebranded: in effect from 1 July 2010 to 6 May 2013 (2010 Ethics Code).

5.5. Code of Professional Conduct for Nurses - August 2008 - rebranded: in effect from 1 July 2010 to 6 May 2013 (2010 Conduct Code).

5.6. Code of Ethics for Nurses - August 2008 - rebranded: in effect from 7 May 2013 to 29 February 2018 (2013 Ethics Code).

5.7_. Code of Professional Conduct for Nurses_ - August 2008 - rebranded: in effect from 7 May 2013 to 29 February 2018 (2013 Conduct Code).

5.8. Registered Nurse Competency Standards: in effect from 1 July 2010 to 31 May 2016 (2010 Standards).

5.9. Nurse Practitioner Standards for Practice: in effect from 1 January 2014 (2014 Standards).

These Codes and Standards are admissible under s 41 of the National Law and accordingly accepted by the Tribunal as evidence of what constitutes appropriate professional conduct or practice for the nursing profession during the Relevant Period.

1. On 20 December 2016, the Chief Executive Officer of NALHN contacted the Chief Psychiatrist raising concerns about the level of clinical care provided at the Oakden Older Persons Mental Health Service. As a result, the Chief Psychiatrist undertook an external independent review of the facility and on 10 April 2017, the Oakden Review Team published the 'Oakden Report' in which they made relevant findings about understaffing, the quality of care provided to consumers, poor workplace culture and practices and the use of unauthorised restrictive practices. The report concluded that: Oakden must close and that it must be replaced by a range of contemporary services that aspire to excellence in care to the most vulnerable people in South Australia.[1]
2. Oaken was for a period of about 34 years, a specialist older persons mental health service for South Australians with severe mental illness including those suffering from dementia.
3. Following the release of the Oakden Report, an enquiry was undertaken by the Hon Bruce Lander QC, the then Independent Commissioner Against Corruption,[2] resulting in the publication of his report entitled: 'Oakden A Shameful Chapter in South Australia's History' on 28 February 2018 ('the ICAC Report'). Findings were made regarding the shortage of nursing and allied health staff at the facility including at times, the absence of social workers, dieticians, physiotherapists and the lack of a pharmacist to the point where the facility was medically unsafe. There were also findings regarding patients being assaulted by staff resulting in criminal prosecutions, large numbers of patients being left restrained in chairs for the majority of the day, and some locked in corridors. The use of restraints were not authorised by law[3] and were generally found not to be the last resort (in the proper interests of patient care), but rather for ease of patient management for staff convenience. There were further findings about a poor culture amongst staff resulting in derogatory and disrespectful behaviour towards patients and a lack of professional development training and programs for staff by those in charge of the facility. There were also findings about the inadequacies of the facility building and essential appliances such as working air conditioning. The Commissioner considered that Oakden did not meet best practice in providing for the care of the patients in that facility. The Commissioner stated that: The consumers who resided at Oakden were some of the most frail and vulnerable persons in our community. They did not have a voice. They were obliged to live in a facility which could only be described as a disgrace, and in which they received very poor care. The process and procedures were such that they were forgotten and ignored. The State did not provide them with the level of care that they deserved. Every South Australian should be outraged at the way in which these consumers were treated. It represents a shameful chapter in this State's history.[4]
4. Notifications were made to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) about the respondent's conduct in allowing these practices and failing to rectify and prevent the situation in her various roles as a manager of the Oakden facility over the relevant period. Following the resultant investigations, the Board referred the matter to the Tribunal by initiating application dated 23 December 2022 alleging six grounds of conduct which the Board submits either jointly or severally constitutes professional misconduct.[5] The application in our view is unnecessarily prolix and it is not necessary that we repeat all of the allegations against the respondent especially as she does not dispute many of the allegations against her, however, we identify the main complaints as follows, namely:

1. Ground 1-Failure to ensure safe and competent nursing care

During the Relevant Period, it is alleged that the respondent failed to ensure safe and competent nursing care was provided to consumers at the Oakden facility in accordance with the professional responsibilities she held through her various management roles. It is unnecessary for us to repeat all of the particulars set out in the Initiating Application before us but of particular significance, these include:

• Failing to account for the coordination, delivery and operation of appropriate and quality mental health services.
• Failing to work collaboratively with the Clinical Director, Nursing Director and other senior health workers to ensure appropriate services were provided.
• Failing to provide effective strategic leadership and to ensure efficient and effective human resource management, a safe working environment and adequate staff training to achieve appropriate care standards.
• Failing to ensure that from 11 June 2009 until the end of the Relevant Period that the mental health service provided at Oakden, as an approved treatment centre under the Mental Health Act 2009 were provided in the least restrictive manner, in the least restrictive environment and that the use of mechanical restraints were a last resort for the safety of the consumer and not for staff convenience, a form of punishment, an alternative to adequate staffing, equipment or facilities, or a substitute for adequate surveillance, workers, resources or facilities to provide safe care to consumers.
• Allowing a poor standard of nursing care at Oakden resulting in poor clinical outcomes including consumers being left unobserved and unattended for hours at a time, consumers being allowed by nursing staff to lie on the floor, being treated with disrespect and little personal dignity, being left soiled and unbathed, not having their teeth cleaned, not being adequately fed and hydrated, not being adequately dressed and being confronted with a "show of force" to undertake activities of daily living.
• Failing to provide a positive workplace culture.
• Failing to ensure that clinical documentation and medication charts were fulsome and properly kept.

2. Ground 2-Failure to ensure the workforce at Oakden was developed

During the Relevant Period, the respondent failed to ensure the workforce at Oakden was developed with a view to ensuring staff practices were consumer centred and recovery oriented.

It is unnecessary to repeat here all of the particulars set out in the Initiating Application but the allegations include the following findings of significance in both the Oakden Report and the ICAC Report:

• There was a reliance on and a shortage of trained mental health nurses.
• The respondent did not ensure "the efficient and effective human resource management of the service"
• The respondent was aware of many of the issues at Oakden but did not comply with the responsibilities of her role.
• Many of the failings at Oakden were the respondent's responsibility either by their own admission or by reference to the Job Specifications and she would or could have known through clinical governance and quality processes what was happening at Oakden and ceased the nursing practices of consumer neglect, abuse and inappropriate seclusion and restraint immediately.

3. Ground 3-Failure to take adequate action in response to issues

During the Relevant Period, the respondent failed to take adequate action in response to issues raised with her including, in particular, concerns about staff conduct, morale, inadequate staffing, and resourcing at Oakden by:

• Recognising her responsibility to prevent harm to consumers at Oakden.

• Identifying any alleged behaviour detrimental to receiving optimal care.

• Identifying appropriate interventions to prevent care being compromised.

• Taking appropriate action against the relevant staff complained about

• Adequately following up incidents to prevent recurrence

• Escalating the issues to senior levels within NALHN, where appropriate.

The respondent failed to take adequate action in response to issues raised with her to the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of equivalent training and experience, and that resulted in consumers at Oakden receiving nursing care that was not safe and competent.

In particular, there were issues raised concerning not only the alleged (and in some cases proven criminal) conduct of a number of staff members regarding the treatment of Oakden residents, but also the care or lack thereof, of a number of those residents. These were all matters that were examined in detail by both the Oakden inquiry by the State Chief Psychiatrist's Office and the ICAC investigation.

4. Ground 4-Failure to ensure effective utilisation of resources

During the Relevant Period, the respondent failed to ensure effective utilisation of the limited resources allocated to Oakden.

This ground principally involves the level of nursing staff, the insufficiency of resources needed to ensure an appropriate level of nursing care and the maintenance of clinical documentation.

5. Ground 5-Failure to effectively manage the strategic direction of Oakden

During the Relevant Period, the respondent failed to effectively manage the strategic direction of Oakden by taking adequate steps to:

• Develop and implement a specific model of care for Oakden;

• Implement mental health reform processes at Oakden;

• Provide an inspiring, relevant vision for staff at Oakden.

This ground centres around the Oakden and ICAC findings that there was no model of care developed during the respondent's tenure, for the provision of services at Oakden.

6. Ground 6-Failure to ensure open and transparent communications

During the Relevant period, the respondent failed to ensure consumer, carer and community needs were addressed by establishing and maintaining positive working relationships with consumers, employees, families and other key stakeholders through the use of open and transparent consultation and communication approaches.

1. The respondent has filed a Response in which she pleads guilty to professional misconduct. By and large, she acknowledges the failures of conduct particularised in the Initiating application with the exception that she does not accept that her conduct was entirely due to failures on her part but rather was partly due to failures by the State Government to adequately fund the Older Persons Service and further, because there were insufficient supports provided by both NALHN and SA Mental Health Services in general due to budgetary issues during the Relevant Period. We note that the ICAC Inquiry in particular was alert to and critical in its findings of these problems.
2. This matter proceeded before us for hearing on 17 August and 19 September 2023. The Tribunal received the following documents without objection:

11.1. Book of Documents (including the Oakden Report, the ICAC Report, the Initiating Application and Response a Statement of Agreed Facts and Proposed Minutes of Consent Orders): Exhibit A-1.

11.2. Minutes of Order concerning Geoffrey Alan Smithson (one of the nurses under the control of the respondent who aggravatedly assaulted a patient at Oakden on 28 November 2015): Exhibit A-2.

11.3. Letter from Julie Harrison to Ahpra dated 13 April 2018: Exhibit A-3.

11.4. Letter of reflection from Julie Harrison dated 18 September 2023: Exhibit R-1.

1. The Tribunal has also been provided with detailed written submissions from both parties. These were supplemented with oral submissions at the hearings.
2. In short, the common position is that the respondent's behaviour should be characterised as professional misconduct within the definition of s 5 of the National Law and that the following sanctions should be imposed to reflect that conduct in accordance with the guiding principles, objects and paramount considerations of the Act,[6] namely that:
   1. There be a finding that the respondent behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law.
   2. The respondent be reprimanded pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law.
   3. The respondent be disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for a period of eight years pursuant to s 196(4)(a) of the National Law.
   4. The respondent be prohibited from providing, whether as an employee, contractor, manager or volunteer, and whether directly or indirectly, any health service until she is granted registration as a health practitioner under the National Law, pursuant to s 196(4)(b) of the National Law; and
   5. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to these proceedings, to be agreed or assessed in default of agreement, pursuant to s 195 of the National Law and s 57 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (SA) (SACAT Act).
3. We remind ourselves that notwithstanding that the respondent acknowledges that her conduct falls substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a nursing practitioner of her experience and training in a managerial role, we must be satisfied on the evidence before us that that is so according to the civil standard of proof having regard to the comments of the High Court of Australia in Briginshaw v Briginshaw.[7] The Codes and Guidelines to which we have been referred are admissible in assessing the respondent's conduct under s 41 of the National Law. The 2013 Nurse Conduct Code in particular refers to nurses involved in planning, policy development, project management and regulatory activities.[8] Mr Schatz, Counsel for the Board, has submitted that there is common law authority for the proposition that a registered health practitioner in a managerial position has a duty of care for the safety and wellbeing of the patients of a facility within the control of that practitioner and that the care, treatment and safety of all patients must be the principal concern of all workers within that facility. We accept that submission.[9] Here, Ms Harrison shared the responsibility for the care of a very vulnerable group of members of our community and there can be no doubt that she must have been aware of their appalling neglect and abuse at the hands of the health workers at Oakden over whom she had control. If not, then she ought to have known. It is simply no excuse that she could not provide proper care because of budgetary restraints or rundown and inadequate facilities, buildings and amenities. It was her responsibility to agitate with the powers that be to remedy those inadequacies. In any event, that is only part of the picture. There can be no excuse for health staff neglecting and abandoning the Oakden consumers or worse, abusing and assaulting them including the unauthorised and inappropriate use of mechanical restraints and subjection to inhumane treatment. These were some of the most vulnerable members of our society afflicted by age, mental illness and mental incapacity and who deserved to be treated with respect, humility and empathy and not just for the convenience of the Oakden staff. We add, that whilst we are acutely aware that we could adopt the findings of the Oakden and the ICAC inquiries under s 11(2) of the National Law and ss 4, 33(3) and 39(1) of the SACAT Act, we decline to do so on the basis that the respondent does not accept all of those findings[10] and as we have not heard evidence from her directly on any points of contention, it would not be appropriate for us to do so as a matter of natural justice and procedural fairness. We do however, place considerable weight on those findings and we do accept the ultimate criticisms levelled at those in charge of the Oakden facility during the Relevant Period as stated in the conclusions of each report as summarised herein. Accordingly, we have no hesitation on all of the evidence before us and the respondent's admissions that her conduct fell substantially below the appropriate professional standards. We record a formal finding that each of the six grounds pleaded in the Initiating Application are made out to the requisite standard and that they satisfy s 5 of the National Law to amount both severally and jointly to professional misconduct.
4. We turn now to the question of sanction. In professional disciplinary proceedings under the National Law, it is well established that a sanction will be imposed on a health practitioner who has been found to have engaged in professional misconduct or unprofessional conduct not as a form of punishment, but primarily to ensure the protection of the public: Craig v Medical Board of South Australia.[11] Disciplinary action may be imposed for a number of reasons relating to the public protection by regulating the conduct of health practitioners. The Full Court in Craig stated[12] Orders can be made by the Tribunal to:
   • Prevent practitioners from practising if they are unfit to do so.
   • Secure the maintenance of professional standards.
   • Ensure both the public and the profession that appropriate standards are being maintained and professional misconduct and unprofessional conduct will not be tolerated.
   • Make the practitioner aware of the seriousness of their conduct.
   • Deter the practitioner from departing from appropriate standards in the future.
   • Deter other members of the profession from engaging in unacceptable conduct; and
   • Impose restrictions on a practitioner's registration to ensure that the public is protected.
5. In considering what is an appropriate sanction in a particular case it is appropriate to adopt the 'twelve matters for consideration' approach of the Western Australia State Administrative Tribunal in the matter of Medical Board of Australia v Singh.[13] We have had regard to those considerations that are relevant to the circumstances of this matter, in particular:
   • The need to protect the public through general deterrence of other practitioners from similar conduct.
   • The need to protect the public and maintain public confidence in the profession by reinforcing high professional standards.
   • The practitioner's disciplinary history.
   • Whether or not the practitioner understands the error of (her) ways, including an assessment of any remorse and insight and;
   • The practitioner's personal circumstances at the time of the conduct and at the time of imposing the sanction.
6. We turn now to the status of joint submissions in disciplinary proceedings. In Medical Board of Australia v Fox,[14] it was recognised that:

"There is now a well-established line of authority in support of the proposition that, where a regulatory body and respondent have reached a negotiated settlement and the penalty proposed is broadly speaking within the permissible range having regard to all the circumstances, a court or tribunal should not depart from the agreed sanction without a clear or exceptional reason for doing so. In terms of professional disciplinary proceedings, it nonetheless remains the duty of VCAT to determine the level of conduct and any appropriate sanctions, and no agreement between a regulatory body and the professional person under review can supplant that duty. Nonetheless, it is also now established that an agreement between the parties in such a case is a highly relevant matter for VCAT, will largely govern the manner in which the proceeding is conducted, and is an extremely important matter for VCAT to take into account in forming its own view on relevant matters. This is particularly the case where it is clear from the face of the agreement that it does not represent an arbitrary outcome but reflects a carefully and extensively negotiated outcome that has proper regard to all relevant facts and circumstances."

7. The Tribunal has been referred to a number of comparative cases of varying relevance to the matter before us. The most significant of those are the following:
   • NMBA V Meek:[15] The Director of Nursing of a perinatal centre during a period of higher than average perinatal mortality, was found to have engaged in deficient governance by failing to ensure adequate education and training for nursing and midwifery staff. Ms Meek was 63 years old at the time of the Tribunal's decision, had surrendered her registration and had no intention of applying to be re-registered. She was reprimanded and disqualified from applying for registration for a period of 10 years.
   • NMBA v Little:[16] The nurse and manager of a maternity services facility over a period of about four years, admitted to engaging in professional misconduct by failing to properly supervise and monitor other managerial staff including the Assistant Nurse Unit Manager which resulted in the inadequate clinical care of patients, the review of patients, the disclosure of adverse outcomes and documentation failures. Ms Little had retired aged 67, surrendered her registration as a health practitioner and indicated that she did not intend to return to practice. She was reprimanded and disqualified from applying for registration for a period of 10 years.
   • MBA v Gruner:[17] This matter involved the Consultant Director of a medical services facility who was found to have failed to provide proper clinical governance. The Tribunal also found that the respondent failed to avail herself of multiple opportunities to raise concerns about the nature and scope of her role. She was reprimanded, her registration was cancelled and she was disqualified from applying for registration for a period of 10 years.
8. When this matter first came on for hearing before the Tribunal, we had grave reservations about whether the respondent genuinely possessed insight concerning her professional failings at Oakden. As the matter progressed however, she has provided us with a written letter of reflection[18] in which she states the following:

I have considered the issues raised in these proceedings and I am very distressed and feel a high degree of shame, not only about the conduct that has been levelled against me but also about all that has come to light with the services at Oakden. > > I am appalled and remorseful to think that I have been a part of a service that may have caused harm to others. > > I do not seek to discount the effect the failings at Oakden have had on families, residents and patients. There is also a personal cost and following a career that I was proud of, this is a distressing end to it. > > With insight and upon reflection, there are many learnings from this that would influence how I would do differently if I were to work in management again. I think I was too focussed on the long term goals and failed to advocate and push forward with changes for more immediate outcomes. I should have stood up more for staff and residents. > > I take responsibility for my failings. > > I have read the list of authorities provided by the NMBA. Similar governance failures seem to get sanctions of 8-12 years. Despite there being an agreement of 8 years (in relation to disqualification), if the Tribunal thinks that is not long enough despite my remorse and distress then I would accept 10 years.

We now accept that the respondent is genuinely remorseful for her appalling conduct over a prolonged period.

1. We have given careful consideration to the evidence, the submissions of the parties (both written and oral), and the legal authorities to which we have been referred. In our view, the issue of general deterrence looms large in this matter especially as the respondent has surrendered her registration and in all likelihood, given her age, will not return to practice. It goes without saying that her conduct in wilfully allowing the environment and staff practices to prevail at Oakden during the relevant period requires a severe disciplinary response, to bring home both to the respondent and to others the seriousness of this professional misconduct. The public needs to be assured that such conduct by persons in charge of a care facility concerned with providing care and protection to vulnerable members of our community will not be tolerated and that proper standards must be upheld to protect those vulnerable individuals. We consider that there are clear and exceptional circumstances which justify us departing from the parties' agreed position at least in terms of the suggested disqualification period.
2. Accordingly, for the above stated reasons, we make the following orders:
   1. We record a finding that the respondent has engaged in professional misconduct pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law.
   2. The respondent is reprimanded pursuant to s 196(2)(b) of the National Law.
   3. The respondent is disqualified from applying from applying for registration as a health practitioner for a period of ten (10) years pursuant to s196(4)(a) of the National Law from the date of this order.
   4. The respondent, pursuant to s 196(4)(b) of the National Law, is prohibited from providing whether as an employee, contractor, manager or volunteer whether directly or indirectly, any health service until such time as she is granted registration as a health practitioner under the National Law.
   5. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to these proceedings, to be agreed or assessed in default of agreement, pursuant to s 195 of the National Law and s 57 of the SACAT Act.
   6. The Tribunal being satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice and because of the confidential nature of the evidence, directs pursuant to s 60(2)(f) of the SACAT Act that the publication of the names (or anything tending to identify) any patient (or consumer) at the Oakden facility, or any witness or third party to these proceedings, other than the respondent, be prohibited until further order.

[1] Aaron Groves, Del Thomson, Duncan McKellar, and Nicholas Proctor, SA Health, Department for Health and Ageing, The Oakden Report, (The Report of the Oakden Review, 10 April 2017), p 115.

[2] From the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

[3] Either under the Mental Health Act 2009 (SA) or the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 (SA).

[4] Bruce Lander QC, Oakden A Shameful Chapter in South Australia's History, (Final Report28 February 2018), at P 14.

[5] According to the definition of s 5 of the National Law.

[6] Section 3 National Law.

[7] [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at pp 362-363 per Dixon J.

[8] 2013 Nurse Conduct Code at p 8. [2]

[9] See Roylance v General Medical Council [1999] UKPC 16; [2000] 1 AC 311.

[11] [2001] SASC 169 at [41] per Doyle CJ.

[13] [2017] WASAT 33 at [30].

[14] [2016] VCAT 408 at [6].

[15] [2021] VCAT 68.

[16] [2020] VCAT 687.

[17] [2023] VCAT 273.