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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3552 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

definition of "practise psychology" and inserts a new definition that states that a person is taken to practise psychology if the person practises psychology on their own account or the person practises psychology as an officer or employee of someone else.

This new definition means that government employees who were not previously taken to practise psychology will now be included. These employees will be subject to all provisions of the act, including the requirement to be registered and pay fees for that registration. Only those persons holding prescribed qualifications may be registered. I note that the scrutiny of bills committee did not make any adverse comment on the bill.

The Labor Party does not object to the amendment. It is essential that professionals operating in such sensitive areas are properly qualified and subject to regulation by their peers. However, members are reminded that this is the first time that the act has applied to government employees. The government employees deliver psychology services in a range of fields. For example, they may be teachers who act as school counsellors, Centrelink employees, court counsellors or hospital employees.

For a limited period after the act was introduced, private sector psychologists were able to obtain registration on the basis of their experience only or on the basis of a combination of experience and academic qualifications. The Labor Party believes that the same opportunity should be extended to government employees, some of whom may find it difficult to obtain registration because they cannot immediately meet the board's registration requirements.

I believe that it is only fair to give them a transitional period similar to that extended to their private sector colleagues when the act was initiated to continue practising while they sort out their status with the registration board. I honestly cannot understand why the government did not include such a provision in the bill, instead of attempting to discriminate against them, vis-a-vis the situation that the private sector psychologists found themselves in when the act was introduced.

Some of them, although they are competent practitioners in all other respects, may need additional time in which to upgrade their qualifications to meet current standards. I have circulated an amendment to this bill to achieve the same and will be moving it in due course. I hope that other members feel the same in relation to this issue and will support the amendment to ensure fairness and equity to the government employees caught up by the bill who cannot immediately satisfy the registration requirements.

MS TUCKER (4.47): The Greens will be supporting this bill. We will also be supporting the amendment to be put to the bill by Mr Stanhope. We have consistently argued for consumer protection. The role of the Psychologists Board in the registration of psychologists and control of the practice does provide that protection.

Evidently, after this act was introduced in 1994 public sector employees were found not to be subject to the provisions of the act. The ACT Greens support the government's intention to bring these employees under the same regime. The 1994 act, however, included transitional provisions in order to allow people employed at that time to adjust to the new circumstances. Whilst public sector employees may have been aware of the government's intention, it was inevitable that many of those public sector employees

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