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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3918 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The basis on which the board registered them was that they provide a psychology service, and the board registered 40 of them. It is therefore clear that the other 23 counsellors will be required to register, unless the government changes their duties to exclude anything which may be considered a psychology service. The government will have to rewrite their duty statements or sack them. As only the Psychologists Board has the power to determine what is or is not a psychology service, that will again take time and cause unnecessary disruption. It is up to the board; those 23 people must apply to the board.

In essence, this discrimination will create a two - tiered system of school counselling whereby only registered counsellors will deliver the psychology services and the unregistered counsellors will perform what would be seen to be the less professional duties. We all know that that is what the government is heading for. There are industrial implications for that as well as implications around plain, basic fairness. Those are the facts of this matter. The government's arguments in relation to this matter are a furphy. They are a sham designed to achieve some other agenda in relation to the school counsellors; there is no doubt about that.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Care) (9.26): There is no other agenda. It has been neatly pointed out by Mr Stanhope -

Mr Stanhope: How many times are you going to speak?

MR MOORE: I can speak as many times as I like as it is my legislation. Mr Stanhope suggested that of the 23 people outstanding, 13 may be qualified to be registered and that 10 of them, to use my words, are unregistrable within the area. But what is the criterion on which he said that they would be registered? It was on the ground, effectively, of grandfathering that they provided psychology services, not on the ground that they were qualified to provide them. That is what the transitional arrangements provide.

We are interested in protecting our children. It is really important, wherever we can, to protect the workers; but when you have a choice between protecting the workers and protecting the children from somebody who provides psychological services without the proper qualifications and experience, there are problems.

Mr Stanhope: Why did you employ them? What are they doing now? Are they a danger now? Is that what you are saying?

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will come to order. The minister has the call.

MR MOORE: Yes, that is why it is that we wish to protect the public. We want to protect our children and that is why it is that we should take this action that is required. It is not a furphy.

MR BERRY (9.28): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, there was an interesting revelation in the course of that debate. Mr Moore responded to the interjection, "Are the children in danger now" by saying yes. What! You are saying in here that these school counsellors are endangering children. What do you think about that, Mr Minister for Education?

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