Parliamentary Committees

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: HEALTH DEPARTMENT HYPNOSIS REPORT

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (15:58): I move:

That the report of the committee on the review of the Department of Health report into hypnosis be noted.

For the record, the full title of the Department of Health report is 'Report on Harms Associated with the Practice of Hypnosis and the Possibility of Developing a Code of Conduct for Registered and Unregistered Health Practitioners'. First, to put things into context, the practice of hypnosis in South Australia is regulated by legislation, specifically, the Psychological Practices Act 1973. Section 39 of this act restricts the practice of hypnosis to certain registered professions, that is, psychologists, medical practitioners and dentists and, under particular conditions, to individual prescribed persons.

In September 2006 the state government introduced the Psychological Practice Bill, among other things, to remove this restriction. At that time, concerns were raised that the bill would provide the opportunity for untrained and unqualified individuals to carry out hypnosis. These concerns prompted the Department of Health to commission its report. Last year, on 7 May 2008, the House of Assembly resolved on a motion of the Minister for Health (Hon. John Hill) that the Social Development Committee review the Department of Health's report in the context of its current inquiry into bogus, unregistered and deregistered health practitioners.

While the committee's examination of the department's report occurred concurrently with this inquiry, the committee considered the issues separately. It also considered that a stand-alone report was warranted. In addition, given the limited scope of this term of reference, the committee determined that it was not necessary to advertise this matter in the print media, as it normally would do; instead, it placed relevant information on its website and sought input from a number of stakeholders.

Before going further, I take this opportunity to thank the other members of the committee for their contribution: first, from the other place, Mr Adrian Pederick MP, Ms Lindsay Simmons MP and the Hon. Trish White MP and, from this chamber, the Hons Dennis Hood and Stephen Wade. I also acknowledge and thank the staff of the Social Development Committee for their contribution and invaluable research work.

While hypnosis can be difficult to define, the committee was told that it was generally considered to be an altered state of consciousness in which an individual has increased susceptibility to suggestion. Evidence suggests that hypnosis can be a useful addition to psychological therapy. It has also been used in the management of a range of symptoms and conditions, including anxiety, chronic pain, obesity and sleep disorders.

The Department of Health report notes that the introduction of the Psychological Practice Bill in 2006 needs to be considered in the context of the National Competition Policy Agreement principles, which principles state, amongst other things, that legislation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that it is in the public interest to do so. The department's report also notes that in the mid-1990s the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council established a process for assessing whether a profession should be regulated by legislation.

The criteria—and these criteria were endorsed in March 2007—posed a number of questions, including: do the activities of the occupation pose a significant risk of harm to the health and safety of the public? In 1996, that advisory council determined that there was no need to regulate hypnosis and hypnotherapy on the ground that there was no apparent harm.

The Department of Health's report also highlights a number of other difficulties associated with the way in which hypnosis is restricted in South Australia. For example, current legislation allows a number of registered professionals to practise hypnosis irrespective of whether they are appropriately trained to do so.

Furthermore, current legislative restrictions prevent other health practitioners—for example, specialist mental health care nurses—from using hypnosis as part of their treatment, regardless of their training. The report also notes that in Australia and other comparable countries very few jurisdictions regulate the use of hypnosis, and on that point the committee notes that the current restrictions placed on the practice of hypnosis in South Australia are out of step with interstate jurisdictions.

Unsurprisingly, the committee received only a small number of written submissions, which for the most part supported the lifting of the current restrictions. However, one submission, from the South Australian Society of Hypnosis, strongly opposed the removal of restrictions on the practice of hypnosis—again, probably unsurprisingly. The society argued that the removal of the current restrictions would make it possible for untrained and unskilled individuals to practise hypnosis.

While the committee notes that concern, it considers that there is a strong and compelling case for the current restrictions on the practice of hypnosis to be lifted. Let us be clear: in saying this, the committee is not suggesting that the practice of hypnosis should become a free-for-all—far from it. The committee is of the firm view that any lifting of current restrictions on the practice of hypnosis should not occur without other safeguards being put in place to protect the public.

To that end, the committee recommends the introduction of a new regulatory framework to cover the practice of hypnosis. It also recommends that this new regulatory framework should ensure that proper standards of education and training for the practice of hypnosis are established. Finally, the committee also recommends that an evaluation be undertaken within two years of the introduction of the new regulatory framework to examine the effectiveness of the changes and to make any modifications if necessary.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.