AGY-2564 | Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Administration of the Dental Board and the Conduct of its Registrar

Full description

On 31 July 1915, John Jamieson PM. was appointed Commissioner to make a full inquiry into the allegations regarding the administration of the Dental Board of New South Wales, and the conduct of its Registrar, made by the Honourable Francis Henry Bryant in the Legislative Council during the debate on the passage of the Dentists’ (Amendment) Bill. (1) The need for an inquiry arose when Hon. F.H. Bryant MLC. made a speech in the Legislative Assembly regarding Mr Taylor’s dual role as Registrar of the Dental Board and Manager of Bosch Barthel & Co. Dental Suppliers and his conduct in those positions. (2) There had also been complaints from several students regarding the conduct of the Registrar and the handling of examination results, posting and registration of students as qualified dentists, as well as bribes and special treatment of certain students. The following deputations had been made in the years prior to the inquiry. 16 May 1909: regarding the letters LDS. to be given to qualified Dentists. 30 May 1912: representing unregistered dentists in protest against certain actions on part of the Dental Board. 7 June 1912: by the Labour Council of NSW asking for an amendment of the Dental Act to prohibit the registrar being in any way connected with any business employing dentists or dealing with dental goods. 3 November 1913: in regard to regulations prescribed by the Dentists Board under the Dentist Act be removed. (3) There were fifteen sittings of the Commission; twenty-nine witnesses were examined. (4) The preliminary sitting was held on 4 August 1915. (5) The inquiry concluded with the report the Commissioner dated 24 September 1915. (6) The purpose of the inquiry was to investigate the following allegations: 1) That Mr Palmer, Demonstrator in Dentistry at Sydney University, on applying to the Registrar of the Dental Board of New South Wales, the said Registrar proposed to the said Mr Palmer that in order to obtain such registration, he should pay to the Registrar the sum of £100 at Bosch, Barthel’s. 2) That undue obstacles were placed by the Dental Board and the Registrar against the passing of apprentices who already had vested rights under the regulations of the Dental Act, 1900 and which have been preserved to them under subsequent legislation. 3) That in the case of certain students possessing vested rights under the regulations of the said Act of 1900, and subsequent legislation, the Board’s determination was of such a hostile nature that the said students should not be allowed to pass at all. 4) That in the case of unregistered practitioners possessing rights under the dental legislation of New South Wales, the said Board had shown undue differential treatment in dealing with them in regard to examinations and registrations. 5) That the Registrar while in the dual capacity as Manager of Bosch, Barthel, & Co. showed undue consideration for unregistered practitioners who dealt with Bosch, Barthel and Co. as compared with that afforded by him to other unregistered practitioners who did not deal with the said firm - a) who dealt with Bosch, Barthel, & Co. were not prosecuted, and others who did not were prosecuted. b) Intimations were given to apprentices by the registrar that if they would deal Bosch, Barthel, and Co they would have a better chance of being registered as Dentists. 6) That the Registrar of the Dental Board of New South Wales knowingly flouted the Dental Act and Regulations by supplying unregistered operative assistants to registered dentists and also the payment of examiners and other matters. 7) Examine students from text-books not set out in the curriculum. 8) That the Registrar made a false entry in statement in the minutes that the Board unanimously expressed their satisfaction at the result of an inquiry before the Public Service Board into the conduct of the Registrar. (7) Evidence considered in the inquiry were exam results, rules and regulations set by the Public Service Board relating to the exams, setting of papers, appointment of examiners and exception of subjects. Also examined were written and oral evidence from students, registered dentists and members of the Dentist Board and the Registrar. In the concluding report the Commissioner stated the following: Mr Taylor the Registrar of the Dental Board and Manager of Bosch Barthel and Co. Dental Suppliers did not ask or accept bribes from Mr Palmer in order to register him as a dentist. Regarding allegations 2, 3 and 4: there was no evidence to suggest that one student or set of students were treated differently to other students and that no obstacles were placed in the way of persons with vested rights passing their examinations. Allegations 5, 6, 7 and 8 were also proven false. The Board’s method of dealing with all students was consistent, however, the Board violated the regulations which resulted in differential treatment by reducing the number of subjects from ten to seven. Regarding the Dental Board, the Commissioner wrote, "Their honour and integrity are beyond suspicion. Their actions were results of errors of judgement. Some actions resulted in differential treatment and special consideration should be given to the vested rights students. Only consideration that could be shown, would be to allow the students credit for any subject or subjects which they have already passed." (8) End Notes: 1) Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Administration of, and the Conduct of Its Registrar p3. In Votes and Proceedings 1915-16 vol. 5. p217. 2) 5/5327 Letter from the Chief Secretary’s Office regarding Horace Taylor late Registrar Dental Board 23 February 1917. 3) 5/5328 Explanation of Deputations made relating to the Dentistry Board. 4) Report of Royal Commission loc.cit. 5) 5/5328 Transcript Minutes of Evidence heard before the Commission. 6) Report of the Royal Commission op.cit. p.16. 7) Ibid. pp. 3-4. 8) Ibid. pp3-16.