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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (2 July) . . Page.. 2100 ..

Mr Hargreaves: Is this the closure of debate, Mr Speaker?

MS CARNELL: Not necessarily, because I could be speaking in my own right here.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, that is correct.

MS CARNELL: If I speak as me rather than as Michael I will not be closing the debate.

MR SPEAKER: Go on.

MS CARNELL We can put some of the information on the record and then make a decision, but it really is important that this legislation go through today, and we do have one or two other things on our agenda. I think when members passed the Psychologists Bill 1999 we were very well aware of what we were doing. The transitional provisions under section 57 of the Psychologists Act 1994 allowed for the registration of persons who do not possess the qualifications and training that would now be required in order to gain registration as a psychologist under the substantive provisions of the Act. This was a transition provision, members of the Assembly, and Mr Speaker. The inclusion of such a provision was intended to ensure that persons who had practised as a psychologist for four years in the 10 years prior to the commencement of the Act did not have their livelihood compromised by the introduction of the legislation.

Following difficulties in the interpretation of the legislation by the board, legal advice was sought and it confirmed that the provision of section 57 was not finite as had been originally intended, and that persons who were not qualified to gain registration under the substantive provisions of the Act can continue to make applications under section 57.

Statutory regulation exists in the interests of protection of the public. Now, remember the reason why we passed the Psychologists Act. The reason we passed it was to ensure that only people who were properly qualified could claim to be psychologists. I think it was to protect the community. I am sure Ms Tucker would agree with that; that the whole basis of the Psychologists Act was to protect the community. People who were psychologists needed to have proper qualifications. The transition provisions of the Act as they apply do not assist the board in administrating the Act in a manner in which it can be confident of offering the public such protection. What we need to do here is to ensure that the board has a capacity to do what it is supposed to do, and that is to protect the community.

In repealing sections 57, 58 and 59 of the Psychologists Act 1994, a provision has been included in the amendment Bill which allows for all applications before the board under section 57 or before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under section 58 which have not been decided before the commencement of the Act to be taken as withdrawn. I think that is Mr Berry's problem, and the scrutiny of Bills committee's problem. It was considered inappropriate to include provisions in the amendment Act which would allow for these applications currently in process to continue to be considered and determined following the commencement of the amendment Act. It is not in the

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