PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICE BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the House of Assembly's message.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I move:

That the Legislative Council do not insist on its amendments.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This bill has been on the table and neglected for several months, perhaps for even over a year. My question to the minister is: why deal with this now prior to the Social Development Committee's report into unregistered health practitioners, which is supposed to guide some of our directions in this? What is the timing for this? Has anything changed since we last debated the bill?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the report of the Social Development Committee on its inquiry into bogus and unregistered practitioners will be completed by April. The Minister for Health (Hon. John Hill) has provided a report to that committee on those matters.

The advice is that there is no need for this bill to be held up pending an outcome of that inquiry, because the outcome is likely to have very little impact on the provisions that we are considering here before us. The minister has already indicated that, if there were matters that needed to be added to this bill in future, dependent on the outcome of the inquiry, he would be happy to consider that at the time.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could I clarify the minister's advice to the committee? If the minister is advising us that the Minister for Health considers that the council or, for that matter, the parliament would get no benefit from receiving a report from the Social Development Committee on, as I understand it, particularly the hypnosis elements of this bill, why did the minister refer it in the first place?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Sorry, I missed the first part of that.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Apparently, the back bench is trying to undermine the minister. As I understand the minister's advice, the Minister for Health is of the view that there is no need to wait for the Social Development Committee's report in relation to the hypnosis elements of this bill. If that is the case, why did the minister refer the matter to the Social Development Committee in the context of this bill?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: These are, indeed, related but they are not dependent on each other. The Social Development Committee inquiry is obviously about considering a much broader context in relation to a range of alternative health practitioners. Any provision in relation to hypnosis, the matter that was mentioned, needs to be considered in relation to that context. I guess the short answer is that they are related questions but not dependent on each other.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This matter has not been discussed in this place since the last session, and it has been restored to the Notice Paper. As a member of the Social Development Committee, I understand that a report will be available in the not too distant future. Bearing those matters in mind, does the minister consider that it might be of assistance to this council to receive that report before consideration progresses? Or to put the question another way: if it is not necessary to wait now, why have we waited so long?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I consider that to be obstructive. I have already answered the questions about matters being related but not dependent. The Minister for Health has already given a commitment that he will consider recommendations from the Social Development Committee's inquiry and, if required, amend at a later time.

This matter has indeed been before us for a considerable time and I believe that it would be irresponsible and obstructive of the opposition not to proceed with it now, given the minister's commitment.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: We've been ready to do this for ages.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Well, get on with it.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You get on with it.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

The committee divided on the motion:

Majority of 7 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.