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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3718 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

applicants have completed the necessary qualification and demonstrated the necessary skills. This would scarcely amount to a flood.

The argument was also raised last week that the act, when passed in 1994, was intended to apply to all people delivering psychological services. As it happened, many of the ACT education department's counsellors took advantage of the opportunity to apply for registration as psychologists under the provisions of the act and were found to deliver bona fide psychological services.

Whatever the intent, it became clear that the requirement to register as a psychologist did not apply to public sector employees working in the Commonwealth or ACT public service. As I understand it, those employees who chose not to register under the transitional arrangements, terminated in 1999 - perhaps because they had no intention of practising in the private sector and were happy in the duties and responsibilities of their current positions - would reasonably believe that the matter was ended.

As far as I am aware, there has been no information campaign conducted by this government to alert such employees that it proposed to change the law and that the registration requirements, as they apply to the private sector, were to be made to apply to them. In any event, given the termination of the pre - existing transitional arrangements last year, there would have been no real opportunity for those employees to adjust to the new regime.

So this new bill, if passed unamended, would immediately disqualify unregistered psychological services employees from continuing in their work. They would not lose their employment, I imagine, but they would be deemed to be no longer able to deliver psychological services. In some instances their work duties would change. In addition, their career expectations would undoubtedly be affected.

One reasonable suspicion is that the intention of this act was to catch out a few of these employees - to redefine the workforce in the education department, for example, and establish two classes of counsellors. Over time that might create greater flexibility for the department in setting the duties of counsellors, or reduce costs. This is, however, an industrial issue. If that were the intent of the government, then it ought to be dealt with as such.

Another theory is that the government or the Psychologists Board does not wish to classify school counsellors and other public sector employees as psychologists. It can be argued that the repeal of the transitional arrangements last year served exactly the purpose of preventing any such employees from gaining registration.

It has been shown, however, that such employees do provide psychology services. Given reasonable transitional arrangements, it is clear that such employees can gain the necessary qualification or demonstrate the required skills and experience. It is unreasonable for the government to bring in these new requirements without providing an opportunity for people to take the necessary steps.

The very real concerns expressed by the proponents of the bill - to ensure people practising as psychologists have an appropriate level of training and skill - will be addressed with or without Mr Stanhope's amendments. Reasonable transitional

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