Page 5931 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The reason why I suggest that there is no definition of psychologist in the Act is that we still do not have a psychologist registration Act in this Territory. It has been a long time coming. We should have it. People can set up a shingle as a psychologist without the usual processes applicable to other registered groups. We need to attend to that matter and I commend to Mr Berry that amendment. If he would take a pause and talk to Tom Sutton and a number of clinical psychologists who practise in that area - reputable people - he would know what I am referring to.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (4.23), in reply: I have to say that it is certainly not surprising for the Liberal Party to attack longstanding conditions of workers, and I do not use the term "workers" in any pejorative way. They are entitled to maintain their conditions, and this is certainly one area where they are entitled to that. They are entitled not to expect that people like those from within the Liberal Party will attack these sorts of conditions, which are, after all, very important in the workplace as we move to a safer workplace as a result of changes in occupational health and safety practices and so on.
I know that Mr Stefaniak has an ideological position in relation to unions and, unlike Mr Collaery, I am prepared to enter into the ideological debate just by saying that my position on workers is different from Mr Stefaniak's. I suspect that the Liberal Party generally, and all of their candidates, are eagerly anticipating these sorts of changes, which, of course, help employers exploit workers or make workers more helpless under this sort of legislation. I see that Mr De Domenico, another Liberal candidate, is in the gallery and I can see in his eye a glimmer of eager anticipation that the Liberal Party might have the numbers to knock this particular provision over in this legislation. Well, I do not think they will.
Let me say, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, that the most important piece of legislation which affects these particular provisions can be found in the Workmen's Compensation Act, in the First Schedule at paragraph 12. It provides, "A weekly payment", other than a payment that arises from a worker who has departed us, that is payable under the Act, "may be varied or ended by agreement or by arbitration under this Ordinance.".
Arbitration, of course, is available through the courts. Two of the members who have spoken previously on this issue mentioned the Barbaro v. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd case, where the Federal Court found that an employer who had ceased payments to a worker had done so incorrectly. That was overruled by the courts. The Liberal Party now seeks to take out that precedent which was set by the court by changes to the legislation. Mr Stefaniak has set out to cut the conditions available to workers by a substantial amount. For example, instead of a worker being entitled
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .