Page 4087 - Week 13 - Thursday, 10 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
PODIATRISTS BILL 1994
Debate resumed.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (4.31), in reply: Madam Speaker, Mrs Carnell was a bit harsh in her criticism of Mr Humphries in her attack on the failure, years and years ago, of the Alliance Government to do anything about regulating podiatrists. This is something that Mr Berry promised at the last election that we would do, and we have done it. I am pleased that at the end of the day the Opposition does stand foot to foot with us on this significant step forward. The matter that I would like to point out in my closing remarks is a fairly significant provision which is relevant to a professional group such as this, but perhaps not to others such as psychiatrists, dentists or medical practitioners. There is a range of professional training courses and recognised academic qualifications for podiatry now, but that was not always the case. There are some persons who have been practising in Canberra for many years and who certainly know their profession very well. Everyone has total confidence in their ability to practise podiatry. They have practised successfully in the public or private sectors for many years. In fact, they came into podiatry - in some cases, not in Australia - when it was perhaps learnt more as a trade, where you undertook a form of apprenticeship as a podiatrist, rather than go to an academic institution and obtain a piece of paper.
While we would not provide for recognition of medical practitioners who do not have a medical degree but who have picked up a bit of training at some time in the past, for podiatrists, it is something which we think is appropriate; and there is a mechanism in this Bill that provides recognition for a person who has been practising for a period, provided they can satisfy the board that they have been doing so competently. I know that there is some concern amongst a very small number of people - and the health authorities know who they are - that there may be some attempt to shut them out of the system. I can assure the Assembly and those individuals - and I will make a copy of my speech available to them - that this unusual provision which you would not put in for other professional areas has been made here because we recognise the skill and competence of those people who have practised - in some cases, in Canberra, for about 10 years - very successfully, but without a formal piece of paper. Having said that I thought Mrs Carnell was a bit harsh on Mr Humphries, I would also have to say that I think Mrs Carnell is a bit harsh on her fellow Liberal Premiers throughout Australia when she says that we should be regulating some more areas. Mrs Carnell would be aware that there is at COAG a very strong deregulatory push from a lot of the conservative States; it is something that we, in the ACT, do not necessarily agree with. But there it is. Dental prosthetists have been mentioned. I thank members for their support.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .