Page 4291 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, there are a number of amendments prepared for this Bill. The first one is to be moved by the Minister for Health and is to omit the definition of "medical practitioner". I am curious to know why that definition was originally put in there and is now going to be removed. I am sure that the Minister would be happy to provide us with that information. The amendments to be moved by Mrs Carnell deal with the finances and financial practices of psychologists. They appear to me to be rather unusual things to have in a professional registration Bill. At this stage, having heard Mrs Carnell speak to them, although not having heard the Government response, I am inclined to support those amendments. A very strong Government response, if there is something I do not understand about them, would be enough to change my mind. The issue of recovery of fees and review of accounts is appropriate to be part of the professional organisation but not part of the registration board and the responsibilities of the registration board. That is something that does need to be accounted for. We also have in place a Health Complaints Unit which will be able to deal with this sort of issue in an effective way. I look forward to some answers and to debating the issues further in the detail stage.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (11.28), in reply: I thank members for their general support for this legislation. As a number of people have said, this has been an area of professional practice where there has been some scope for sharks and operators who are not properly qualified to get out there and to prey on people who can be particularly vulnerable. For many in the community the distinction between a psychiatrist and a psychologist may not be well understood. People may well believe that in dealing with a person who is or claims to be a psychologist they are in fact dealing with a specialist medical practitioner, whereas in fact they may not even be dealing with a person who is properly qualified as a psychologist. For that reason, control has been needed for some time.
It is partly for that reason and the particular scope in this area for undesirable practices that we have taken what may seem to be the somewhat unusual step of having some provisions relating to fees in a professional regulation Bill, although it is not totally unprecedented. A Bill we put through only the other day made some amendments in another area entirely, namely, the Legal Practitioners Act. For years there has been a provision in the Legal Practitioners Act that gives you a right to get an account of fees and, if you object, to take that up the line to the Law Society. What we have here is not random thoughts; it is a thought out package. You may disagree with the package, but it is well thought out. The objection that Mrs Carnell has relates to the six months' delay in clause 45. The psychologist cannot sue for fees until there has been a six months' delay. That is because in clause 46 there is a six months' period after you have the bill where you have - - -
Mrs Carnell: That is why I got rid of that, too.
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, indeed; but I am saying that it does make sense. You may disagree with the concept. You may say that you prefer a laissez faire approach here, or use of the Trade Practices Commission for fee setting or the Health Complaints Unit for professional misconduct. The logic of the structure is essentially to say that there is that period of six months in which you can go to the board and get it to look at whether that fee structure is fair.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .