NSW Veterinary Reforms: The Future of Veterinary Practice

The NSW Government is proposing the biggest changes to veterinary practice legislation in more than 20 years. While much of the attention has focused on telehealth, these reforms are about far more than remote consultations. They raise fundamental questions about professional autonomy, access to care, workforce sustainability, innovation, business ownership and, ultimately, who will shape the future of veterinary practice.

The proposed reforms are the most significant overhaul of the Veterinary Practice Act since 2003. Much of the discussion has focused on telehealth.

That’s understandable. I’ve worked in veterinary telehealth since 2004 and founded Australia’s first 24/7 online vet service in 2015. My business may be directly affected by these reforms, and readers are entitled to take that into account.

However, this article is not intended as a defence of telehealth.

Rather, it is a discussion about the broader questions these reforms raise for our profession and why I believe every veterinarian should take the opportunity to contribute to the consultation.

If you’re interested in how these reforms may affect animal owners, you can also read my companion article, NSW Veterinary Law Changes: What Animal Owners Need to Know, which explores the proposed changes from a consumer perspective.

Have Your Say consultation page

Modernising The Act Makes Sense

Veterinary medicine has changed enormously over the past two decades. Telehealth exists, and now artificial intelligence is becoming part of healthcare. Mobile veterinary services have expanded.

Consumers expect more flexible access to professional advice.

Veterinary nurses and technologists are taking on increasingly important roles.

The Veterinary Practice Act should evolve and few would argue otherwise. The question is whether the proposed framework prepares the profession for the next twenty years or unintentionally reinforces models of care developed for the last twenty.

The Bigger Issue Is Professional Judgement

One of the principles underpinning veterinary registration is professional judgement.

Every registered veterinarian is trusted to diagnose disease, prescribe medications, perform surgery, certify animal health and make complex welfare decisions every day. We are accountable for those decisions through registration, professional standards and disciplinary processes.

That is why I believe one of the central questions raised by these reforms is not whether veterinarians should be regulated. We already are.

The question is whether future regulation supports clincal judgement or increasingly replaces it with prescriptive rules.

Professional judgement should never mean the absence of safeguards. Equally, safeguards should not unnecessarily prevent veterinarians from exercising the judgement they have spent years training to develop.

Regulation Should Follow Evidence

Good regulation protects animal welfare, builds public confidence and provides clarity. Few would disagree with that.

However, these are the most significant reforms to veterinary regulation in more than 20 years. Therefore it’s reasonable for the profession to ask not only what is being proposed, but why.

• What evidence demonstrates that the current framework is no longer adequate?
• What specific risks are regulators seeking to address?
• How common are those risks?
• And how will the proposed reforms improve animal welfare, access to care and public confidence?

The consultation should clearly explain the evidence underpinning the proposed reforms, the problems they are intended to solve and why the proposed regulatory approach is considered the most appropriate response.

This isn’t an argument against reform. It’s an argument that reforms of this significance should be supported by transparent evidence and proportionate to the risks they are intended to address.

Doing so would allow the profession to understand whether the proposed measures are likely to achieve their objectives, whether alternative approaches should be considered and how success will ultimately be measured.

Telehealth Is Not Competing With Veterinary Practice

One of the major misconceptions surrounding telehealth is that it competes with traditional veterinary practice. My experience has been very different.

With over 20 years of experience providing veterinary telehealth, most consultations have not been about replacing a physical examination. They have been about helping owners decide what to do next.

• Does this animal need immediate veterinary attention?
• Can it safely wait until tomorrow?
• Is this something that can be monitored at home?
• Or does it require an emergency referral?

In many situations, telehealth is not replacing veterinary care. It is directing people towards it.

That distinction is particularly important in regional and rural Australia, where after-hours services may be limited, travel distances are significant and workforce shortages continue to affect both companion animal and livestock practice.

In many of these communities, the alternative to telehealth is not an in-person consultation. The alternative is delayed advice or no veterinary advice at all.

Phone or online vet advice also has an important role to play in the current cost-of-living environment.

Emergency vet care is expensive because it requires highly skilled staff, specialist equipment and around-the-clock availability. No veterinarian wants an animal that genuinely needs emergency care to stay home. Equally, no pet owner wants to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on an after-hours consultation if the problem can be safely managed until their regular clinic opens the following morning.

A timely telehealth consultation can help owners understand the level of risk, determine whether immediate treatment is necessary and, where appropriate, avoid unnecessary emergency presentations. That benefits animal owners, emergency hospitals and the broader veterinary system.

The issue of prescribing is often raised in the same discussion. This is not an argument for unrestricted remote prescribing. Rather, it’s a question of professional judgement.

If a registered veterinarian has access to appropriate medical records, a detailed history, photographs, videos and sufficient clinical information to make a safe decision, should they have the discretion to prescribe when it is clinically appropriate? Or should regulation require a physical examination in every circumstance, regardless of the veterinarian’s assessment of risk?

These are complex questions. They deserve thoughtful discussion, supported by evidence and focused on achieving the best possible outcomes for animals while preserving access to care.

When considering future regulation, improving access for communities with limited veterinary services while allowing veterinarians to exercise sound clinical reasoning should remain one of the central objectives.

Is A VCPR The Right Measure?

Much of the discussion has centred on the veterinary-client-patient relationship, or VCPR.

Supporters argue that an existing relationship improves continuity of care and prescribing safety. There is merit in that argument.

However, it is worth asking whether the existence of a VCPR is always the factor that improves patient safety.

Within corporate or large practice groups, multiple veterinarians may access shared records despite never having physically examined the patient.

In livestock practice, a veterinarian may maintain a VCPR through an annual farm visit while day-to-day decisions rely on records and history provided by the producer.

Perhaps the more important question is this:

Does the veterinarian have sufficient information to make a safe clinical decision?

That question becomes particularly important when prescribing is considered. If regulation focuses primarily on the existence of a formal VCPR rather than whether the veterinarian has sufficient information to make an informed clinical decision, there is a risk that process begins to outweigh professional judgement.

The challenge for policymakers is finding a framework that protects animal welfare while allowing veterinarians to exercise the clinical judgement they are already trusted to apply every day.

Prescribing Is About Professional Judgement

One of the most significant questions raised by the proposed reforms is prescribing.

Every day, veterinarians make decisions based on the information available to them. That information may include the animal’s history, medical records, pathology results, diagnostic imaging, photographs, videos and, where appropriate, a physical examination.

Our role is to decide whether we have sufficient information to make a safe clinical decision or whether the patient needs to be examined before treatment can proceed.

That is clinical judgement.

No veterinarian is suggesting prescribing should occur without appropriate safeguards.

The question is whether future regulation should continue to trust registered veterinarians to make that judgement, or simply prohibit prescribing because the consultation occurred remotely.

This is also where many animal owners become confused. They increasingly compare veterinary telehealth with their own experience of healthcare, where telehealth consultations may result in prescriptions when clinically appropriate.

“If my doctor can make a clinical decision over the phone or by video, why can’t my veterinarian?”

Veterinary medicine is different, but if different rules apply, the profession should be able to clearly explain why those differences improve animal welfare.

Ultimately, the question is not whether prescribing should occur remotely. It is whether the veterinarian has sufficient information to make a safe, evidence based clinical decision.

Innovation Should Not Be An Afterthought

Telehealth is only one example of how veterinary practice is changing.

Artificial intelligence is already influencing how animal owners seek health information. If regulators are concerned about veterinarians providing advice remotely, how will they regulate artificial intelligence systems that increasingly provide health information directly to animal owners?

The consultation is largely silent on this issue, despite AI likely becoming one of the biggest changes to veterinary practice over the coming decade.

And let’s not forget other innovations. Remote monitoring technologies continue to develop. Digital records, wearable devices and clinical decision support systems are becoming more sophisticated every year.

The question is no longer whether innovation will occur. It already is. The challenge is ensuring regulation protects animal welfare without unintentionally slowing responsible innovation.

That conversation should extend well beyond telehealth.

The profession needs a regulatory framework that is adaptable enough to accommodate future innovation while maintaining high standards of animal welfare, professional accountability and consumer confidence.

Workforce And Affordability Cannot Be Ignored

Veterinary businesses are already operating under enormous pressure. Workforce shortages persist. Burnout remains common. Consumers continue to express concern about rising veterinary costs.

Every additional licence, compliance obligation and administrative requirement carries financial and operational consequences.

While those consequences may be justified, they should be weighed carefully against measurable improvements in animal welfare, public protection and access to care.

The Workforce Solution May Be Hiding In Plain Sight

Much of the discussion has focused on veterinarians. Yet veterinary nurses and technologists may represent one of the profession’s greatest opportunities to improve access, efficiency and workforce sustainability.

Modern healthcare relies on multidisciplinary teams working to the full extent of their education and training. Veterinary medicine should be no different.

Formal recognition of veterinary nurses and technologists has the potential to strengthen career pathways, improve retention and allow practices to deliver more efficient care.

However, as the standards are developed, careful consideration will need to be given to scope of practice, supervision, accountability and patient safety.

Veterinarians must retain ultimate responsibility for diagnosis, prescribing, surgery and clinical decision-making. Any expanded scope should complement veterinary practice, allowing nurses and technologists to contribute more fully while ensuring complex clinical decisions remain under appropriate veterinary oversight.

Handled well, these reforms could strengthen veterinary teams while helping practices meet growing demand for services.

Who Will Write The Standards?

Perhaps the most significant issue in the entire reform package has received surprisingly little attention.

The legislation creates the framework. The standards will determine how that framework operates in practice. Those standards may ultimately govern:

• telehealth
• prescribing
• mobile veterinary services
• VCPR requirements
• veterinary nurse scope
• future technologies
• emerging business models

Parliament will determine the legislative framework. While the proposed Veterinary Services Board will play a central role in developing those standards – the practical rules.

Those standards will ultimately have a greater influence on day to day veterinary practice than the legislation itself.

Given their significance, they should not be developed in isolation.

The process needs to be transparent and include meaningful consultation with companion animal practitioners, emergency clinicians, livestock veterinarians, equine practitioners, veterinary nurses, telehealth providers, mobile veterinarians, educators, business leaders and animal owners.

The future of veterinary service delivery is too important to be shaped by a narrow group of stakeholders.

Ownership Is Missing From The Conversation

Ownership is one issue that has received surprisingly little attention throughout the consultation.

Over the past decade, veterinary practice has undergone profound structural change. Corporate ownership and private investment have become increasingly common, fundamentally changing the way many veterinary businesses are structured and managed.

Yet the current Veterinary Practice Act already contains provisions relating to controlling interests, defining a controlling interest as the capacity to determine the financial and operating policies of a veterinary business.

If those provisions remain Government policy, then the profession deserves clarity about how they are being interpreted, monitored and enforced across all veterinary business models.

If they are no longer considered appropriate, then Government should openly consult on changing the legislation rather than allowing uncertainty to persist.

If new licensing and regulatory requirements are to be introduced for emerging models of care such as telehealth and mobile veterinary services, the profession should have confidence that existing legislative requirements are also being applied consistently across established business models.

Ownership is not simply a commercial issue. It influences governance, investment decisions, staffing, workplace culture and, ultimately, the environment in which veterinarians exercise their professional judgement.

Given the scale of corporate change across the profession over the past decade, ownership deserves to be part of the broader conversation about the future of veterinary regulation.

The Profession Has An Opportunity

These reforms are bigger than telehealth.

They are about whether veterinarians continue to be trusted to exercise professional judgement within an evidence based regulatory framework.

They are about ensuring regulation addresses demonstrated risks while preserving access to care, innovation and affordability.

And they are about who will shape veterinary practice over the next twenty years.

Those decisions deserve broad consultation, transparent governance and meaningful input from the profession.

Because once the standards are written, they will influence veterinary practice for generations to come.

The consultation process gives every veterinarian an opportunity to help shape that future.

I encourage the profession to use it.

Want To Learn More Or Have Your Say?

Read the proposed reforms and submit feedback through the NSW Government consultation process:

NSW Government announcement
Have Your Say consultation page
Consultation paper and draft legislation