Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3557 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The amendment bill was not designed to give the board additional control over a group previously exempt from the legislation. It was to ensure that the psychologists employed in the public sector were subject to the provisions of the Psychologists Act, as originally intended when it commenced in June 1995 with the appropriate possibilities and the appropriate transition periods. In this regard, the present exclusion of psychologists employed in the public sector under subsection 3(2) is seen as an inadvertent omission.

The amendment means no change to public sector psychologists as it has always been understood by the Psychologists Board of the ACT that the present act applies to all psychologists. The board has never provided advice to the contrary to public sector psychologists, which is evidenced by the large number who are already registered. Consequently, any public sector psychologist who is practising as a psychologists should already be registered with the board.

The original transitional clause in the Psychologists Act made it very easy for those who were not eligible for registration under the substantive provisions of the act to become registered. An opportunity for public sector psychologists to register under the transitional provisions of the act has been provided and many of them have utilised that provision; so this amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate.

The inclusion of Mr Stanhope's transitional provisions would allow persons not just in public sector positions designated as psychologists to seek registration. It goes well beyond that. Those people are or should be already registered. It allows persons who provide supposed psychology services, such as counsellors, career counsellors and human resource people, to seek registration under these provisions. This amendment opens up registration significantly. According to my advice, it is not restricted to the public sector.

The proposed transitional provisions would open up the prospect of registration to a large number of people whose qualifications and experience in psychology are well below acceptable contemporary standards. Members should ask themselves whether they want to do that. Do we want people who wish to go to a psychologist to go to somebody who is not up to contemporary standards or do we want those people to know that they are going to a psychologist? This provision does not take away somebody's career; it does not take away somebody's job. For example, somebody who is working in a school at the moment as a school counsellor will continue to be able to work as a school counsellor. I think that this is a very important issue.

Statutory regulation exists in the interest of the protection of the public. The inclusion of the proposed transitional provisions appears not to assist the board administering the act in a manner in which it can be confident of offering the public such protection. It is important for the Assembly to reject this amendment because it limits the amount of protection for the public.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General) (4.58): Mr Speaker, I wish to speak on the issue of school counsellors. Mr Moore's amendment to the act of 1994, which deletes subsection 3(2) and inserts a new section 3A, will extend statutory regulation to psychologists working in the public sector. Currently, only private psychologists are regulated under the act.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .