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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3553 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

brought into the system under this bill would not have gone on with gaining the proper qualifications in the meantime.

In the interests of natural justice, these employees now deserve authentic transitional arrangements, as were afforded to private sector employees when the act was introduced in 1994; so I will be supporting Mr Stanhope's amendment when he puts it.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Care) (4.48), in reply: Mr Speaker, I appreciate the support in principle of members for the bill. I will take the opportunity to make some general comments about the proposed amendment which Mr Stanhope kindly circulated earlier and gave us an opportunity to look at.

Mr Speaker, I think that there is a simple and fundamental choice for people to make here. This bill applies largely to school counsellors who wish to be known as psychologists. Do we want our children to be dealt with by people who identify themselves as psychologists or do we want the counsellors to continue in their role as counsellors but not be recognised as psychologists if they are not qualified as such?

This matter is about the interpretation of the act. The original intention of the act in 1994 was to include public sector psychologists. Indeed, many public sector psychologists registered at the time because they understood and believed in the act which would have them register as psychologists. A small number of counsellors in our schools determined that, instead of gaining the extra qualifications within the adjustment period to be registered as a psychologist, which was grandfathered, they would follow a legal route.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that there has been plenty of opportunity for people to upgrade their qualifications and that it is not necessary to go down the path that Mr Stanhope is prepared to follow. I understand on the surface of it how he has come to that conclusion, but I think that the most important thing to understand is that we are trying to ensure that psychologists employed in the public sector are subject to the provisions of the Psychologists Act as originally intended.

The reason we put registration in place is to make sure that people who are using psychologists understand that those people are appropriately trained, recognised and qualified. We need to do that now. The intention of this amendment is to clarify that and make it absolutely clear that people who are not qualified ought not to be recognised as psychologists. That is the intention of the amending bill and that is what we should retain.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

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