Page 4288 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL: They have been tabled all day.
Mr Berry: All day?
MRS CARNELL: Yes. The first is in regard to paragraph 45(1)(b), which states that fees for services cannot be recovered unless "a period of 6 months has elapsed since that service of the account and the account is unpaid at the end of that period". Such a provision is an unnecessary restriction on the day-to-day operations of a business. Apart from this, I can see no reason for legislating for such interference in any business, Madam Speaker. Why should a business owner, or in this case a psychologist, be prevented from following up his or her unpaid accounts whenever she wants to or he wants to? Why should the owner have to wait six months? There is no point in this restriction, and the Opposition will not support it.
The second area of concern is clause 46. This clause empowers the board to review the fee which an individual practising psychologist charges if the board is approached by the person to whom the service was delivered. While I believe that the public should be made aware of practitioners who are overcharging on their fees, the responsibility for this should not be vested in the registration board. Such an issue is a matter for the psychologist, the professional body representing psychologists and a third party, such as the patient or, for that matter, the insurance company. In many cases health insurance companies are involved in these sorts of transactions. The purpose of the board is to register fully qualified psychologists in the ACT, subject to conditions, and to ensure that the registered psychologist abides by the conditions of his or her registration. It is not the purpose of the board to review the prices which are charged by individual psychologists. There are numerous other bodies which are set up specifically to watch over business practices. This activity is outside the scope, or normally is outside the scope, of a board and should not be provided for in this Bill. As such, the Opposition will not be supporting clause 46 in its entirety.
The final concern which we have with this Bill is one which could be applied to most Government Bills which are introduced into the Assembly. It relates to the amount of detail which the members of this Assembly are given with regard to the financial implications of the Bill. The Government once again has told us that this information is quite irrelevant. The explanatory memorandum states that the costs of administering the Psychologists Bill will be met from within existing resources. This provides no indication whatsoever of the financial implications of the Bill, and we believe that this practice should be stopped. It certainly would not be allowed or would not be the practice in other parliaments. If there are no financial implications, a statement to that effect can be made. If the costs of administering the legislation are to be met from within existing resources, the least the Government should do is tell us exactly how much money will come from within the department and how much money will come from the profession. Are we talking about user pays or are we not? What actually are the resource implications of this Bill, and, for that matter, most other Bills that we see in this Assembly?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .