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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3913 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Transitional provisions are normally in place to protect the job that somebody is doing now. The job of these school counsellors is not at risk at all. They can continue to be school counsellors, but they cannot become psychologists. They cannot say to a parent bringing a child in that they are psychologists and, for example, do the series of tests that a psychologist does in order to understand what is driving the child.

I think it is worth keeping this debate in perspective. Mr Stanhope is correct in saying that he is putting in a transitional provision. It is a transitional provision and I do not disagree with it. There is some protection whereby the board still makes the assessment; but, of course, the board's decision is always subject to challenge and we have seen these people making these challenges, which is why we brought this legislation into place.

The purpose of the board and the purpose of the act is to protect the public and to protect our children. That is what this is about. It is important to understand that we are not taking anything at all from these counsellors. We are not taking away a single thing. The transition period simply is unnecessary. It is worth stating that everybody in the ACT understood not only that there was a transition period under the Psychologists Act but also that the transition period was for five years, recognising that some people would need to go to university and upgrade their qualifications, as I understand some did, to be recognised as a psychologist.

Interestingly enough, counsellors will still be able to say that they can provide psychological services, as I understand it. It is simply the case that it is not necessary to include transitional provisions in the act. School counsellors will not lose their livelihood and they will not be required to register as psychologists in order to work as counsellors because school counsellors will work in every school as counsellors as they always have. There is no intention on the part of the government or the board to change the law to regulate a group of people who have previously been unregulated. That is when you use transition periods. That is unnecessary. It is intended to ensure that those persons who are registered as psychologists and work within the public sector are subject to the same provisions of the act, which does not require counsellors to seek registration.

MR KAINE (9.11): I thought I understood the issues until the last 10 minutes, but now I am not even sure towards whom this piece of legislation is directed. If it does not relate to school counsellors, why are they even involved in the debate? If they were employed as school counsellors and are school counsellors, if they are not required to be psychologists and not required to be registered as psychologists, if this bill in no way affects their status, why have they even been included in the debate?

Mr Moore: Because they want to be called psychologists.

MR KAINE: I have listened to Mr Stanhope and I have listened to the minister, and I have not heard the answer to that question. The minister might like to tell me by interjection, but he has had the opportunity to tell me and he has not done so. Assuming that there are other people in the ACT government service who are supposed to be psychologists, have been practising as psychologists, have been paid as psychologists and have been recognised as psychologists, although they are not registered or qualified to be psychologists, and this has been going on for five years, how then in all fairness can the government say arbitrarily that as of tomorrow they are not psychologists?

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