I read the August Chalkeyes column, 'Self-preservation masquerading as professional protection?', with both great interest and dismay. Being more cognisant of the financial numbers, I believe there are conflicts of interest with the way our regulatory board operates. Also, the ODOB agenda is now no longer hidden; it has a vested interest in oversupplying the profession – the more optometrists there are, the more fees the board can rake in. No doubt some of this fiscal excess funded the covering over of the recent website cyberattack, which only penalised the country’s practitioners.
In my opinion it is a double standard, because if an optometrist had their website compromised, there would have been disciplinary and financial consequences for them, yet the ODOB remains unscathed. The board should be called out on what I consider to be reckless spending of annual practising certificate money.
In another double standard, unregistered practitioners can't be regulated. Someone must be pulling our leg!
If the Ministry of Health (MoH) is the relevant authority and jurisdiction for unregistered practitioners, with which department within this large ministry should the ODOB and NZAO be following-up this unfettered business model? We need some guidance please.
Alongside this, the NZAO states its position of being unable to advocate for the optometry profession and support opposing sides of an employer/employee argument. But in not advocating, surely it is signing its own death warrant? If our professional organisation is so impotent, it needs to be closed down to make way for a new type of membership that cares about the future sustainability and welfare of all optometrists and opticians.
