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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3912 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I do recall arguments made by Mr Stefaniak about the need to ensure that the people that we have practising as school counsellors have the appropriate qualifications. Of course we need to ensure that, but surely the minister is not suggesting that those people who currently work as school counsellors are not appropriately qualified, that there is some risk. If so, why were they employed? They should not have been employed in the first place if there is any doubt about their competence, so any arguments about the competence of existing employees and the need to ensure that we have appropriately qualified and competent people is another furphy.

If there are any doubts about their competence, they should not be there anyway. All we are doing is allowing people practising in the public sector as psychologists, however described, the same rights to a transition period to get their qualifications in such an order that the board, in its will and discretion, will register them. That is all this amendment does.

The opposition of the ministers really does raise for me questions that I simply cannot answer in terms of why it is that the government is so vehemently opposed to this amendment. What is it about the school counsellors and what is it about other public sector psychologists that this government really is concerned about? What is the real agenda here? There must be another agenda, because there is nothing in what they have said that is not simply a furphy, a demonstrable furphy. None of their arguments adds up. The arguments which each of the ministers has put forward in relation to this issue simply do not stand up to scrutiny.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Care) (9.06): That is not correct; the arguments do stand up to scrutiny. The most important thing is that we are not saying for one minute that counsellors do not provide appropriate counselling services. They will remain as counsellors, they will be employed as counsellors and they will continue to be employed as counsellors, but they will not be able to claim that they are psychologists. Counsellors do an excellent job in our schools, a very effective job. Psychologists do a whole range of other things that are much more important.

What is the whole point of having an act like this one? The whole point of having the act is, first and foremost, to protect the public. That is what we are trying to do. In this case we have focused primarily on school counsellors. That is where the request has come from. Those people are the ones who took this matter to the AAT -

Mr Stanhope: And they won.

MR MOORE: And they won.

Mr Stanhope: And now you are trying to knock them off.

MR MOORE: That is correct, Mr Stanhope, they won, and now we are trying to protect the public. What we are saying is that school counsellors should not present themselves as a psychologist unless they are qualified to be a psychologist. If they are qualified to be a psychologist, they can go to the board right now, at this very minute, and say, "I have the qualifications to be a psychologist. Will you recognise me as a psychologist?" If that is the case the board will tick them off.

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