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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3184 ..

The key difference for psychologists is that their practices range from delivering specialist health services to working as industrial or institutional psychologists, providing operational guidance to a range of enterprises. They have however, in common with more narrowly defined health professionals, traditionally being governed by an act and registered through a health professionals board.

I do not believe that this new legislation does anything to their status other than define them fairly loosely as health professionals and, in common with all other health professionals, provide stronger scrutiny and support of competence and behaviour. Setting up a regime that more accurately reflects the two different domains in which people who trained as psychologists work is a national project. I understand that the ACT government is happy to work with the psychologists’ associations to progress it, but this legislation is not the place to do it.

I think that one can become a little too suspicious in examining legislation that one does not like. It was put to me as proof of an incautious approach that the definition of a doctor and of a counsellor would preclude PhDs and financial counsellors from using those terms. That is a conclusion that can only be drawn by not referring to the amended legislation. The real work to address specific issues regarding the various professions cannot be done with ad hoc amendments to these bills, but in collaborative work on the regulations.

MRS CROSS (5.40): I rise to lend my support to the government’s Health Professionals Bill 2003. The purpose of this bill is to bring the 10 health professionals acts together into one piece of legislation. I will not go into the role that this bill will play, other than to say that this bill significantly improves protection for the ACT community. I will, however, touch on a couple of issues that the bill addresses.

The first of these is the added role that the community has in regard to health professionals boards. I am pleased to see that the community will have a much larger role in the administration of the health professions, having representation on all boards as well as ensuring that the boards have enhanced links with the Community and Health Services Complaints Commissioner.

It is extremely beneficial for the community to have representation on each of the boards as it adds a layman’s perspective that is often missing from professional boards. This is crucial. Having community representation on health professionals boards will provide each board with a different view that will ensure that not only the profession’s views but also the community’s views are heard and canvassed.

I was also pleased to see the proposal for the establishment of a health professions tribunal to assess and deal with complaints and reports about the standard of practice of a health professional. Having an independent mechanism to deal with complaints is important, but so is having a body that is easily accessible and consistent. Having a health professions tribunal achieves these aims as it provides an easy access point for those with a complaint against a health professional, whilst allowing for a transparent process that should see a consistent response across all health professions. This is added to by Ms Tucker’s proposed amendments, which I shall discuss later.

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