About Professions Australia
Branches & NSWCOP
Policy Material
Knowledge Network
Alerts and Newsletters
Membership Information
Office & Contacts
Search
Member Login
Logout
Home
Constitution
Young Professionals
Ethics Resource Centre
History
Vision and Role
Board
Committees
Media, Speeches
Professional of the Year Award
Archives
NSWCOP
Victoria
Queensland
Western Australia
South Australia
Tasmania
ACT
Competition Policy
Insurance
Higher Education
Other
Knowledge Base Sample
Knowledge Base
Knowledge People
Knowledge Talk
Submit to Knowledge Base
Submit to Knowledge People
Alerts and News Sample
Alerts
Newsletters
Alerts and News Subscription
Criteria
Membership Rates
Member Associations
Knowledge Base Manual
Definition of a Profession
Knowledge Base White Papers
Value Statement
Apply to join
Constitution continued
Participant reports Roundtable Nov 2003
Latest Newsletter
Bankruptcy legislation
What's New
Ethics Action Plan
Definition of a Profession
Codes of Ethics
Ethics Education
Ethics Forum
Related Sites
Reading
Ethics Case Studies
Ethics Research
Competition Policy Submission (1998)
Submission to Economics References Committee (May 2002)
Structured Settlements - Why support them through tax reform (May 2001)
Submission to the Review of the Law of Negligence (August 2002)
Media Release: Professions want broader indemnity agenda (June 2002)
Policy on Risk Management (November 1997)
AGM 2001 Presidents Address
Professional Liability - A fair go for all - 1998
The Professions, Public Interest and Competition Policy (2000)
Australia's Professional Services under threat 1997
National Competition policy & the professions 1997
Dealing with risk. Managing expectations 1996
GM 2002 Presidents Speech
AGM 2002 Presidents Address
Ipp Media Release
Professional Indemnity Insurance Crisis - media Release
AGM President Address 1999
Submission to SCAG-MINCO 9 Dec 2002
John Castles CV
Barry Grear CV
David Thomson CV
Victorian market failure in Professional Indemnity insurance
Coonan's view a shock to professionals
Peak body urges liability cap
Liability decision rouses anger
Proportionate liability is not Holy Grail
Government position appears to be shifting
Professions urge ministers to act now
TPA 'undermines capping'
Market 'too small and too much trouble'
PI market failure needs a package solution
Call for national cap on lawyers' liability
Policy on Professional Self-Regulation (1990)
Role and Duties of an Expert Witness in Litigation (1998)
Alert No 107 (29 May 03)
Alert No 107 Attach 0ne
Alert No 107 Attach Two
Alert No 107 Attach three- Implementation paper
Alert No 107 Attach Four
Paul Meiklejohn
Monica Persson
Contacts
Objectives
Professional Standards Legislation
Events
NSWCOP Newsletters
Nelson reforms miss the main point, say professions
NSW PSC June Seminar
Vic CPA professional indemnity seminar, 28 July 2003
John Hand Brisbane PI Paper, 30 July 2003
Brisbane ICAA PI paper
Professions Australia learns lessons on political campaigns
Ana Govan (information technology)
Brigette Hall (minerals)
Nikki Brennan (architecture)
Nina Quinn (audiology)
Luke Fraser (construction)
Philippa Thomson (dentistry)
Kate West (engineering)
Professionalism, competition policy and the public interest: Issues paper (2003)
Senate TPA inquiry briefing notes March 2004
Insurance Contracts Act review key documents
ACCC insurance market pricing reviews
Senator Coonan website
Insurance Council website
Letter to Coonan on timing July 2003
Letter to Ministers on timing March 2004
Letter to Ministers against contracting out (March 2004)
Update 12 March 2004
Senate Committee inquiry into Trade Practices Act amendments
AGM 2003 Presidents Address
Ordinary Meeting November 2003 Presidents Address
Comments on Hobart Insurance Ministers meeting Feb 2004
February 2004 professional indemnity surveys
Higher Education letters 25 Sep 2003
Higher Ed media 8 October 2003
Higher Ed letter 6 Nov 2003
Higher Ed letters 26 Nov 2003
Higher Ed letter 30 September 03
Higher Education AFR Op Ed piece 13 October 03
National Competition Policy Review - PA Submission (2004)
Announcement of 2004 Professional of the Year
Examples of Member Codes
Code Principles
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
This pamphlet is an attempt to spell out some of the difficulties flowing from the prevailing social attitudes towards risk acceptance and the effect the difficulties have on professional practice. It is primarily directed to practising professionals, and is intended to encourage and assist them to develop a broad community discussion about one of the most critical issues of our time. That is the yawning gap between the expectations which communities have of systems and the abilities of those systems to deliver.
The pamphlet is based on the theme that the task of managing expectations is central to the achievement of improvement in the risk acceptance environment, and it draws to the attention of professionals the pressing need they have to understand that societies and technologists construct their attitudes to risk acceptance differently; they march to different drummers, and neither seems to hear the other's drums.
It is also apparent that the difficulties related to risk acceptance with which modem societies are grappling affect almost all those who provide services in an attempt to satisfy community demands. In a very real sense, identified by Arthur Koestler in the mid-fifties (see opposite page), humans are struggling to reconcile the power available to them with their value systems (which Koestler refers to as spiritual insight, awareness, charity and related values). The issues are global, and humans the world over are trying to come to terms with them.
What we need is a calm and reasoned debate which faces the issues squarely. It should be a debate conducted in the broadest possible terms and with a minimum of random noise.
The Australian Council of Professions hopes that its member associations and their members will join it in an attempt to stimulate such a debate; this pamphlet is a potential catalyst. You, as an individual, can use it to assist the process.
Central to it must be the realisation that no action can be absolutely safe and nothing can be absolutely certain, least of all the future; and that efforts to improve safety cost money, cost time, cost people and even (if robots are the way to safety) cost jobs.
There is a common core to the liability issues. This pamphlet seeks to identify that core, and make it available as a reference and support for discussions set in areas of specialisation. Thus such discussions may be properly seen as particular cases of a general proposition, and avoid the dilemmas associated with charges of special pleading.
The document had its genesis in publications of The Institution of Engineers, Australia. I thank it for its permission to adapt the document to serve a general purpose. In doing so, I gratefully acknowledge the research and authorship contribution of Dr. Peter Miller.
SUMMARY
The pamphlet suggests a framework within which professional practitioners should consider risk, and examines a number of areas of special interest.
- The Issues
which are important to the ability of practitioners to deal with risk are canvassed. The dominant issue is the need to understand the gap between the expectation which demanders have of providers and the ability of providers to deliver. It is important to found our actions in Codes of Ethics, but there are difficulties in a complex society with the concept of the common good. This flows from the nature of the arrangements under which the professions practise. Practitioners will need to take part in much wider discussions than they have in the past, and be prepared to enter the wider debate about policies for societies.
- The Social Construction of Risk
is a new field of study which examines the way societies at large consider risk. It is clear that individual and collective decisions about the acceptance of risk consider both objective and subjective inputs, and in most cases the subjective dominates. It is important that practitioners should not only become familiar with the way societies and individuals construct concepts of risk, but also enter into the activity directly and influence the outcomes.
- The Technological Construction of Risk
traces the way professional practitioners consider risk and construct risk models. As part of this process the concepts of technology and design are examined and the pervasiveness of the concepts discussed.
Although the technological construction of risk appears to be objective, and is usually interpreted by society in that way, its objectivity is flawed by the inherent inadequacy of technological models; and some practitioners who elevate their models to infallibility seem to lack confidence in the subjective power of experience and judgement, when they should realise that both are inherent and dominant in professional practice and should be used with pride.
It seems to the community that practitioners command models which are both objective and absolutely predictive, but in reality the ability of individual technological models to predict outcomes is very limited. The models, however, are very useful to assist the formation of judgements.
When practitioners try to explain risk in technological terms, such as "the risk associated with this medical procedure is 1 in 14,000" or "the annual probability of a failure is 1 in 1000" or "this land will be flooded by a 1 in 100 year flood" , few people understand and the situation becomes more confused. Practitioners must rethink their approach to risk acceptance, and the paper examines how to begin that process.
- The Human- Technology Interface
is where most accidents occur. Many in the community who have to deal with post-accident trauma believe that professional practitioners have not been sufficiently interested in this interface, particularly in the physical, physiological and psychological implications; and such people are beginning to see this lack of interest by practitioners as negligent. A mismanaged conveyance or a mistaken diagnosis is an accident as potentially devastating as a building collapse or a mechanical failure, as is a faulty audit or an erroneous survey. The issue is pervasive to all professions. Practitioners must address this question, and some suggestions are canvassed.
- Professional practitioners need to change their image in some respects
because their present image does not properly convey the uncertainties which attend upon their work.
- We need to understand the technological method
properly, and there are many signs which indicate that we have seconded judgement and are giving primacy to mathematical and other models, despite their limitations.
- We need to understand perceptions of risk
, particularly the enormous range of risks which societies accept, or appear to accept, and the role which standards play in this process.
- We need to understand some things about the legal process
, particularly that it is a technological system which is also fallible.
- We need to manage expectations
, because the gap between the expectations people have of systems and the ability of those systems to deliver is unrealistic and misunderstanding of the gap is already counterproductive.
- Managing Expectations
can be a process by which we might improve understandings of the acceptance of risk; not only the expectations which the community has of practitioners, but also the expectations which surround the practice and organisation of the professions themselves. The current trend to criminalise behaviour surrounding accidents and procurement adds a new imperative. A struCture for attempting this process is suggested, by way of a six-point plan.