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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3911 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

We cannot be expected to know the whole content of their jobs. That is a matter for the board to determine in relation to each person who applies for registration. The amending legislation is not limited to school counsellors, as Mr Moore and Mr Stefaniak seem to think. Commonwealth departments employ psychologists to practise psychology. Of course, there might be this concentration on school counsellors because it was the school counsellors' success in the AAT under the old transitional provisions that prompted their removal from the act.

The fact that a person is employed by a government under some title other than psychologist is immaterial. The important question is whether they are practising psychology. If so, and the AAT certainly thought school counsellors do, they should be registered. My amendment simply gives them time to do so. All the amendment does is give these psychologists, however described, time to do so.

The new part I am seeking to insert into the bill clearly defines a government psychology employee as someone who is employed by any level of government in the territory on the day before the new provisions commence. The temporary exemptions from the requirements of the act apply only to government psychology employees as defined.

Apart from any other test in my amendment, registration - this is a fundamental point - can be obtained only if the board thinks that the person is competent to practise psychology. The only basis on which persons can obtain registration is if the board thinks that they are competent to practise psychology, and only in that circumstance can they gain registration.

How can these provisions be opening the floodgates to registration, as claimed by Mr Moore in his speech, when only people who, in the mind of the board, are competent to practise psychology can be registered? That is a complete furphy. The point is that they cannot be registered otherwise, not even if the person seeking registration takes up government employment after the provisions commence. Where the board grants registration on the basis of a person's practical experience and competence rather than academic qualifications, it can impose conditions on that registration. Such conditions could include - and this is important - one that if the person ceases to be a government psychology employee their registration lapses.

The amendment is about providing equity and fairness to a group who will be affected by the need to be registered for the first time. That is what this is all about. It is to protect and to provide equity and fairness to a group of psychologists, a group of people practising psychology but not registered, who now need to be registered for the first time. The situation that is achieved by these amendments is precisely what was provided when the act was passed in relation to psychologists practising in the private sector.

All it does is transport the 1994 provisions for a transition period for psychologists practising in the private sector to next year to allow psychologists practising in the public sector to be given or granted that same transition period, that same amount of time, to achieve or attain the registration which they require. How can you argue against according to public sector employees the exact same conditions, entitlements and rights that were accorded to private sector employees? You cannot justify the distinction.

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