SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: HEALTH DEPARTMENT HYPNOSIS REPORT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley:

That the report of the committee be noted.

(Continued from 13 May 2009. Page 2293.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:15): I rise today to support the motion to note the 30^th report of the Social Development Committee, entitled 'A review of the Department of Health report into hypnosis.' Due to a range of circumstances, I was not able to attend the meeting at which the report was finalised and do not agree with the thrust of the report. I do not suggest that the committee acted in any way inappropriately and appreciate that, in any event, I would have been in the minority. Yet I would like to take this opportunity to briefly make a few points.

In South Australia, the practice of hypnosis is regulated by legislation, specifically, the Psychological Practices Act 1973. Section 39 of the 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. The bureaucrats in the health department do not like this regulation. Conveniently, the national competition policy provided them with the opportunity to try to rid themselves of this meddlesome responsibility.

In broad terms, I consider that the national competition policy has been a major driver of economic reform in Australia for more than 15 years. However, I do not believe that economic reform should be driving our health practice. Mutual recognition of similarly qualified health practitioners is one thing; taking things out and putting things in our health tool kit is another. An NCP review of the regulation of hypnosis found that it was contrary to national competition policy. My view is that that view is wrong on two grounds.

First, section 39 allows the practice of hypnosis by people beyond the specified registered professions as individual prescribed persons. There are currently, I understand, lay hypnotherapists who are individual prescribed persons and a more active use of this power would allow competition. Secondly, as I suggested earlier, the national competition policy is a tool of economic reform and does not presume that economic considerations necessarily override other considerations. Accordingly, the NCP process itself allows for the overriding public interest. In this case, the government is trying to take competition policy too far. For competition policy to determine health practice is not in the best interests and should be opposed.

We need to decide whether it is in the interests of the citizens of this state to remove regulation of hypnosis. I do not consider that it is. Accordingly, I disagree with the first recommendation of the committee that the current legislative restrictions limiting the practice of hypnosis to certain health professions be removed on the basis of national competition policy principles.

In recommendation 2(a) the committee recommended that the Minister for Health examine the merits of other models to regulate the practice of hypnosis and hypnotherapy to determine their appropriateness and applicability to South Australia. The Minister for Health recently provided his response to the Social Development Committee recommendations. Not surprisingly, he rejected this recommendation on the basis that he feels that the government has already examined other models and that hypnotherapy should be regulated under a regulatory framework applicable to all unregistered health practitioners.

This response is not surprising because the department has been trying to run away from hypnosis for years. It does not want to examine the merits of other models to regulate hypnosis and hypnotherapy, because it does not want to regulate the practice of hypnosis and hypnotherapy. In recommendation 2(b), the committee recommended that the Minister for Health introduce a new regulatory framework to cover the broad range of currently unregistered health practitioners and ensure that the practice of hypnosis and hypnotherapy falls within this framework.

This recommendation relates to the committee's work on bogus, unregistered and deregistered health practitioners. I support such a framework but see no reason why such a framework needs to replace direct regulation of practices. It can and it should complement direct regulation.

The committee recommended that restrictions on hypnosis should not be lifted until the new regulatory framework is in place to regulate currently unregistered practitioners. That seems to me to be an eminently sensible proposal; so sensible, in fact, that, sure enough, the minister has indicated that he does not support that comment. His response to the committee has been that there is no reason to single out hypnosis. This highlights for me a concern as to how the government is perceiving the committee's recommendations in another report, being the report in relation to the regulatory framework for currently unregistered health practitioners.

It is not my view that the framework that the committee proposed in that context will be so tight and effective that we can assume that no other regulation will ever be needed. I think it is quite conceivable that health authorities in the future, faced by unsafe practices of unregistered health practitioners, not only will want to take action against the unregistered health practitioners but they may also seek to control access or even prohibit access to the tools used by unregistered health practitioners.

If we accept that such a prospect is possible, the committee is not singling out hypnosis. It is simply the only tool used by unregistered practitioners that is currently regulated. I do not propose to examine in detail the case for regulation of hypnosis. I have made my position on it clear, nonetheless. The fact is that we have a law that provides regulation that this government is currently trying to remove and we will have that debate when we consider that bill. I simply note, however, that the department report acknowledges that there are known harms from hypnosis.

Nobody is suggesting that the practice of hypnosis does not involve a risk of harm particularly when, disingenuously, the department report puts to one side the use of stage hypnosis, an area which the report itself refers to as having a particularly high potential for harm. In conclusion, I indicate that, while I support the motion that the report of the committee be noted, I do not support a number of the recommendations and do not support the deregulation of hypnosis.

Motion carried.