HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I wish to place on the record my support for this bill. From what I have heard in this place, it is clear that all sides of politics agree with the benefits of establishing a nationwide scheme of registration and accreditation for health practitioners, and I certainly agree.

Many of us in the disability community are heavily reliant upon health practitioners, such as OTs, physiotherapists and psychologists, to name a few. I believe that we need to ensure that the people who are caring for us are suitably trained and qualified. In view of the fact that health practitioners enjoy mutual recognition and are eligible for registration in South Australia if they are registered in another state or territory, I believe that it is important to have nationally consistent registration and accreditation.

It is clear that the main bone of contention with this bill is the fact that it effectively enacts a law from Queensland as it stands from time to time, so that any amendments made by the Queensland parliament will also affect South Australia. While I understand the sovereignty of the parliament may be somewhat eroded, in effect, I consider that a corresponding model which requires our parliament to legislate its own legislation may well lead to unnecessary delays and confusion when change is required, and this is not fair to our health practitioners or, indeed, to the people of this state who are owed some sense of stability.

I doubt very much that the Queensland parliament will take it upon itself to change its bill and trust that the ministerial council will be an effective body to make recommendations for change. In view of the above, I believe that it is essential to have a consistent approach and that this bill provides the best opportunity to achieve this.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I need to correct the record. In my summing up address, I gave an answer to one of the questions asked by the Hon. Michelle Lensink in relation to state committees of the national boards. I stated that 'determining whether or not there will be a state office is a matter of the national board'. I have been advised that that should be corrected to state 'determining whether or not there will be a state committee is a matter of the national board'.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Page 7—

Line 27—Delete 'The' and substitute 'Subject to subsection (2), the'

After line 33—Insert:

(2) An amendment to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (as referred to in subsection (1)) enacted by the Parliament of Queensland after 1 July 2010 does not apply as a law of this jurisdiction under subsection (1) unless it has been adopted (with or without modification) by an Act of the Parliament of South Australia.

In relation to the amendments, I have been scurrying around consulting people because amendment No. 3 standing in my name does several things, so I indicate at this stage that I will be moving it in an amended form.

Amendment No. 2 is consequential to amendment No. 1, so this is the test clause in that the existing provisions within the bill mean that, as soon as Queensland amends its bill (Bill C), South Australia's laws are immediately amended to that effect. In my second reading contribution I talked about the fact that South Australia has very limited means of changing either through the ministerial council which would be by negotiation or by pulling out of the system entirely if it disagreed with some things that had been brought into effect.

So, what this clause means is that South Australia does not automatically adopt amendments which are made to the Queensland legislation, which would be at the direction of the ministerial council; therefore, the parliament would have an opportunity to consider those things, and I would envisage that in most instances it would agree to accept it so those changes would come into effect. There may be some delay but that would be up to the government to get things drafted and get things into the system.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. The whole purpose of the legislative model that adopts a national law and applies it as a law of its own jurisdiction is to ensure a standard approach for achieving nationally consistent legislation in an efficient manner where the constitutional powers lie with the states and territories. The national law process can only work effectively where legislation applying in each jurisdiction is the same. If essential aspects such as those concerning registration process fall out of alignment, the scheme will effectively become inoperative from a national perspective.

While national uniformity can be obtained by each jurisdiction individually passing necessary amendments, such a process obviously will lend itself to being extremely cumbersome and potentially it will create lengthy delays that, in many cases, will be completely unacceptable to the public and the professions. If South Australia were to adopt this approach, there may be situations when South Australian practitioners are not covered by the national law and their national registration could then be compromised while waiting for the South Australian parliament to pass the required amendments.

The intergovernmental agreement, which forms the basis for the national law and was endorsed by all governments, establishes a process for making future amendments to the national law. This agreement ensures that all jurisdictions can participate and reflect their concerns in any proposed changes. This process ensures amendments must be agreed to by consensus by the ministerial council before Queensland, as the host jurisdiction, can progress them through the Queensland parliamentary process.

As part of this agreement there must be a national consultation for any substantive future amendments prior to them being agreed by the ministerial council. Changes cannot proceed without consideration by all health ministers and require their consensus to make the changes; therefore, there is a reasonable and effective mechanism established to ensure that South Australia's interests are served and one that will also preserve the need for a nationally consistent approach.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: There was a fair amount of hyperbole in the minister's reason why the government is not accepting this particular amendment. In terms of her stating that it will be an inefficient process, that is a reflection on the South Australian parliament and, if the process of the South Australian parliament is slow in taking on any proposed changes, then that would be entirely in the hands of the government. So I think that is a nonsense argument.

In terms of the undermining of any form of the uniformity of this legislation making the whole scheme fall apart, I remind the committee that, as I outlined last night, New South Wales has already succeeded in undermining a large section of this bill by having its practitioners excluded from the new NRAS process. Furthermore, the Western Australian parliament has the entire set of clauses in its own parliament. So, in effect, if they are going to have to go through the whole process of amending their own statutes, I do not see why South Australia having parliamentary oversight would undermine the scheme.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Amendments thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 5 to 7 passed.

New clauses 7A and 7B.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Page 8, after line 21—Insert:

7A—Specific modifications in relation to application of Health Practitioner Regulation National Law

(1) Without limiting subsection (1) of section 115 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia), it will be taken to be an offence against that subsection if a person knowingly or recklessly takes or uses the title 'surgeon' or 'physician' unless the person is registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to practise in the medical profession (other than as a student).

(2) Without limiting subsection (2) of section 115 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia), it will be taken to be an offence against that subsection if a person knowingly or recklessly takes or uses the title 'surgeon' or 'physician' in relation to another person unless the other person is registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to practise in the medical profession (other than as a student).

(3) Subsections (1) and (2)—

(a) do not prevent the use of the title 'dental surgeon' by a person registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law—

(i) to practise in the dental profession as a dentist (other than as a student); and

(ii) in the dentist division of that profession; and

(b) do not prevent the use of the title 'veterinary surgeon' by a person who is registered as a veterinary surgeon under the law of this State.

(4) Section 141 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) does not apply—

(a) if the first health practitioner within the meaning of that section forms the reasonable belief referred to in subsection (1) of that section in the course of practising the first health practitioner's profession while employed or otherwise engaged (including in an unpaid capacity) by a designated body; or

(b) if the first health practitioner is the spouse or domestic partner of the second health practitioner under that section.

(5) The power conferred by section 245 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) to make regulations for the purposes of that Law does not extend to making a regulation relating to the safe operation or use by a medical radiation practitioner of radiation apparatus or a radioactive substance as those terms are defined in the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982.

(6) In this section—

designated body means—

(a) the Doctors Health Advisory Service; or

(b) any other body brought within the ambit of this definition by the regulations;

domestic partner means a person who is a domestic partner within the meaning of the Family Relationships Act 1975, whether declared under that Act or not;

spouse—a person is the spouse of another if they are legally married.

7B—Policy directions

The Minister must, in exercising functions as a member of the Ministerial Council under section 11 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law in relation to a particular proposed accreditation standard, or a particular proposed amendment of an accreditation standard, for a health profession, have regard to the public interest.

Amendment No. 3 does several things all at the same time. I will explain each of the subclauses and, when we vote, we will vote on them separately. On the first page of the amendments new clause 7A is headed 'Specific modifications in relation to application of health practitioner regulation national law'. Subclauses (1), (2) and (3) are a set and relate to the definition of 'surgeon'.

All these amendments, which have been tabled in my name, come from the Australian Medical Association, and I believe it circulated a letter it wrote to the Chief Executive of SA Health, along with some suggested draft amendments, which have been redrafted for us by parliamentary counsel. So, if members are familiar with those, this is the explanation that they have provided in relation to subclauses (1), (2) and (3), which seek additional protections of the titles 'surgeon' and 'physician'. The AMA has intimated that it is concerned that the legislation offers no protection around the use of titles.

As the Queensland legislation stands, non-medical health practitioners will be able to use the title 'physician' or 'surgeon'. This is dangerous and misleading as members of the public could wrongly believe that they are seeing a medical practitioner. The community must have confidence that this new national scheme will ensure safety, quality and high standards in medical training and, ultimately, in the provision of medical services themselves. A failure to protect these titles for the medical profession will not provide the community with that confidence and protection.

If we go over the page, subclause (4), which refers to section 141 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act, and subclause (6) are also a set. They relate to seeking additional exemptions for mandatory reporting. The AMA has provided advice on this as follows:

The Queensland act fails to provide additional exemptions from mandatory reporting for spouses, treating doctors and other professionals—such as doctors working in doctors' advisory health services—who provide support to doctors with health issues. Without changes, we risk instituting a system where doctors may not seek necessary and needed medical care because their treating doctors will be obliged to report them, and thus may pose a risk to both themselves and the members of the public that they treat.

Subclause (5) relates to radiation practitioners. Dr McFetridge has sought to have this particular subclause drafted because he has concerns that regulations may limit the ability of health and veterinary practitioners to continue to use radiation—X-rays and the like.

The final section, 7B—Policy Directions, is a public interest test. I apologise, because I am not sure whether I heard a response to my question of the minister last night in relation to the Senate committee recommendations whereby the ministerial council must provide some kind of public interest test. If the accreditation standards are reduced in any way and there may be a perceived risk to public safety, firstly, they must consult and, secondly, they must publish the decision as to why they have reduced those standards. I cannot recall whether the minister had a reply on that, so I hope that that might form part of her response to these amendments.

I hope that that adequately explains things for the benefit of members. I wanted us to vote on these separately, because I appreciate that some members may support certain aspects but not all of them. I did not want the whole thing to fall for the sake of not moving them separately.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government will be opposing this amendment. The amendment will immediately result in South Australia having different requirements in relation to the national law for every other state and territory. It relation to (1), (2) and (3), protection of title, the intent of title protection is to protect members of the public by ensuring that they may be confident that the person using the title is, in fact, registered under the law and therefore appropriately qualified and competent to practise the profession.

The national law creates an offence under sections 116 and 117 in relation to the use of certain specific titles associated with the health professions regulated under the national scheme. These provisions ensure that only persons who are registered under the national law may use a title associated with that profession. The proposed titles 'surgeon' and 'physician' are not protected under South Australia's Medical Practice Act 2004. This has not presented any problems that the government is aware of.

The new National Medical Board of Australia established under the national law has issued registration standards which have been approved by the ministerial council and include a list of names, with specialists including specialties describing physicians and surgeons, providing specialist title protection for professions included on the list.

The provisions in the national law are sufficient to provide adequate protection for the safety of the public without the need for specific title protection as proposed by this amendment. The registration standards listing the named specialists approved by the Medical Board of Australia ensure national consistency for the medical profession.

In relation to subclauses (4) and (6), mandatory reporting requirements under national law will ensure that patient safety is foremost and that if any issues of unprofessional conduct arise they are reported appropriately and as early as possible. The basis for such reporting is referred to as 'notifiable conduct'. Notifiable conduct in relation to a registered health practitioner provides that the practitioner has:

(a) practised while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs; or

(b) engaged in sexual misconduct while practising; or

(c) placed the public at risk of substantial harm because they have practised with an impairment (e.g. physical or mental impairment, disability, condition or disorder); or

(d) placed the public at risk of harm because they have practised in a way that constitutes a significant departure from accepted professional standards.

The intent of the bill is to ensure that all registered practitioners are required to work together to maintain high standards of conduct. All registered health practitioners and employers have a responsibility to report notifiable conduct in relation to a registered health practitioner.

The proposed amendment would significantly weaken the protection of the public by exempting persons who would reasonably have a responsibility as members of a registered profession to notify a board of such conduct. By adopting this amendment South Australia would be adopting a lower standard for health practitioners in this state than any other jurisdiction in Australia. A consistent national standard is essential for the protection of the public and the security of the profession. It is important that if someone is practising in a way that may put a member of the public at risk they should be reported.

Subclause (5) relates to the regulation of radiation apparatus or a radioactive substance by a medical radiation practitioner. The national law concerns only the regulation of health professions and individual practitioners, not the licensing of radiation apparatus and practitioners involved in using such equipment. This occurs under the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982. Any practitioners that operate such equipment are required to be appropriately trained in the use of that equipment and their licensing occurs under the Radiation Protection and Control Act 1982.

I understand that in relation to the question about accreditation standards in new clause 7B, the government is opposed to that. This amendment will require the minister, when exercising his or her functions as a member of the ministerial council in relation to issuing a policy direction to an accredited standard, to have regard to the public interest.

The government is opposing this amendment. The powers and functions of the ministerial council are broad enough for it to consider the public interest in relation to accreditation standards or any other matter on which it may issue a direction. Clause 11 enables the ministerial council to issue a policy direction relating to a proposed accreditation standard or a particular proposed amendment of an accreditation standard for a health profession. In particular, clause 11(4) requires that, if the ministerial council intends to make a policy correction to a national board concerning an accreditation standard, it must take into account the potential impact on the quality and safety of health care. Therefore, in deciding to issue such a direction it will be essential for the ministerial council to consider the public interest. So, the government believes the public interest is already protected in these matters.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Can I just clarify that the clauses the minister just referred to are in the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Bill that has been passed by the Queensland parliament?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that that is correct.

New clauses negatived.

Clauses 8 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

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

Page 10, lines 30 and 31—Delete subclause (1) and substitute:

(1) A person may be appointed to be the Registrar or a Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal on a basis determined by the minister.

This amendment changes the appointment process for the Registrar of the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal. The method of appointment for the registrar has been reconsidered in the context of the proposed administrative arrangements for the tribunal. An opportunity exists to collocate the tribunal with the Industrial Court, which will allow resources to be shared between the two bodies.

On this basis, the current Industrial Court Registrar is proposed to be appointed as the Registrar of the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal. The appointment of the Industrial Court Registrar under the Fair Work Act 1994 is not made by the Governor. To require the appointment of the Registrar of the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal to be made by the Governor would be incongruous for a position which will be held in conjunction with another position which does not require the same level of appointment.

There are many other examples where registrars are not appointed by the Governor, including the Supreme and District Court registrars. The Registrar of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal and the Guardianship Board are Public Service employees. The Registrar of the South Australian Health Practitioners Tribunal is a support staff role, and as such it is not considered that the appointment needs a high level of cabinet scrutiny and government appointment.

To change the appointment process to that proposed by this amendment will streamline the appointment process and reduce red tape. The deletion of the clause in relation to the terms and conditions of this is consequential to the proposed appointment method.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The opposition supports this amendment. We believe that the Industrial Court probably is a little idle these days, and it is an appropriate place for these issues to be dealt with.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 10, lines 34 and 35—Delete subclause (3)

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 14 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

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

Page 17, line 3—Delete 'to practise'

This amendment clarifies the definition of a 'pharmacist' as it relates to pharmacy ownership in South Australia. The definition of a 'pharmacist' is amended for the purpose of the pharmacy practice provisions as they relate to pharmacy ownership. The definition in the bill implies that pharmacists must be practising in order to own a pharmacy, and this was not the government's intention. The effect of this amendment will ensure that any pharmacist registered under the national law may own a pharmacy whether or not they are practising or non-practising.

Amendment carried.

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

Page 20, after line 32—Insert:

(8a) However—

(a) a trust cannot be a trustee pharmacy services provider for the purposes of this part unless the trust conforms with each of the following:

(i) each trustee must be—

(A) a pharmacist; or

(B) a prescribed relative of a pharmacist; or

(C) a person of a prescribed class; and

(ii) at least one trustee must be a pharmacist; and

(iii) any beneficiary of the trust must be a pharmacist or a prescribed relative of a pharmacist; and

(b) a trust ceases to be a trustee pharmacy services provider for the purposes of this part if the trust ceases to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (a) in any respect.

This amendment clarifies the definition of 'trustee services provider'. The concept of a trustee services provider was introduced in this bill as a means to restrict the ability of individuals from using trusts to increase the number of pharmacies that may be owned. However, the definition in the bill provides for others other than pharmacists to own a pharmacy through the use of trusts. This was not the policy intent. This amendment brings the trustee pharmacy services provider into line with other pharmacy services providers under the bill.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 27 to 42 passed.

Clause 43.

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

Clause 43, page 28, after line 30—Insert:

(4) In this section—

pharmacist means a person who holds a current authorisation to practise in the pharmacy profession (other than as a student) under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

This amendment clarifies that pharmacists in attendance and available for consultation by members of the public must be a practising pharmacist. This amendment is consequential to the changing definition of a pharmacist under clause 26.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 44 to 80 passed.

Clause 81.

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

Clause 81, page 48, after line 11—Insert:

(2) A National Board may, in addition to the persons referred to in section 239 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia), appoint a person employed in the Public Service of the State, or by an agency or instrumentality of the Crown, as an inspector under that Law.

This amendment allows the national agency to consider the appointment of persons employed in the Public Service of the state, or an agency or instrumentality of the Crown, as an inspector under the national law. This replicates the appointment provisions under the bill for investigators. Inspectors have a similar role to that of investigators under the international law and so it makes sense to extend the provisions to cover this group as well.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 81A.

The Hon. T.A. JENNINGS: I move to insert the following new clause:

New clause, page 48, after line 11—Insert:

81A—Restriction on administration and interpretation of certain psychological tests

(1) A person must not personally administer or interpret a prescribed psychological test unless—

(a) the person is a psychologist or psychiatrist acting in the ordinary course of his or her profession; or

(b) the person administers or interprets the test under the direct supervision of a psychologist or psychiatrist; or

(c) the person administers or interprets the test with the approval of the National Board.

Maximum penalty: $75,000.

(2) An applicant for approval under this section must, if the National Board so requires, provide the National Board with specified information to enable the National Board to determine the application.

(3) The National Board may, before giving its approval under this section, require the applicant to obtain qualifications or experience specified by the National Board and for that purpose may require the applicant to undertake a specified course of instruction or training.

(4) An approval under this section may be subject to such conditions as the National Board thinks fit.

(5) A person must not contravene, or fail to comply with, a condition of the person's approval under this section.

Maximum penalty: $75,000.

(6) If a person contravenes, or fails to comply with, a condition of the person's approval under this section, the National Board may, by written notice to the person, revoke the approval.

(7) In this section—

psychiatrist means a person registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law—

(a) to practise in the medical profession; and

(b) holding specialist registration as a psychiatrist;

psychologist means a person registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to practise in the psychology profession (other than as a student).

This is an amendment that has been tabled late but it is not a new issue for this place. The issues around the administration of certain psychological tests and, in particular, the concerns that have been raised by the Australian Psychological Association and the Psychology Board have been put on record already in this place.

What I would like to point out is that this is not a new measure that I am introducing for South Australia. However, it was not gone into bat for by the minister as were plano lenses and as were our differences with other states in terms of the treatment of medical students in this legislation. In fact, the psychologists were told, on the issue of the regulation of psychometric tests, that they should just take it to their psychology board and go and lobby them.

I do not think that is necessarily an acceptable response to a sector's concern and I do not think it is an acceptable response to a law that has been in place for many years in this state that has been heavily debated. I will not go into those debates at this point: I will only point out that it already existed, so why was it not safeguarded for the protection of the South Australian people?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. While South Australia's current Psychological Practices Act 1973 has provisions for the regulation of psychometric tests, no tests have been prescribed since the proclamation of the act.

In considering the risks associated with psychometric testing, the government has found there is no evidence that the non-prescription of psychometric tests over the last 30 years has resulted in any harm to the public. The government has also found that access to certain psychological tests is restricted by the companies or organisations that publish or provide those tests to registered psychologists.

At the first meeting of the Psychology Board of Australia on 20 September 2009, the board approved a process to prepare a consultation paper in 2010 on practice restrictions for psychological testing. This, we believe, is the appropriate national mechanism for the profession to assess the need or otherwise for restrictions on psychometric tests.

I would also like to advise members that the Psychology Board of Australia has now released a consultation paper on options for the protection of the public posed by the inappropriate use of psychological testing. The consultation period for the paper closes on 16 August 2010. It is our view that the profession itself should determine what restrictions should apply, not parliament. They are the experts, so they should determine what is acceptable. I have very little expertise in that area, and I believe that they are the appropriate professional body to determine their own standards.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Very briefly, Family First also opposes the amendment. I think the key problem for us is that this is what we would regard as a very heavy-handed way of restricting who can interpret these tests and who cannot. I think the minister said it well: it really should be a matter for the industry itself to determine, not necessarily for parliament.

As a matter of principle, restricting the supply of people who can interpret these tests will merely see the price rise and probably a less frequent use of them, despite the fact that people would probably still like to use them. For that reason, on balance, we see it as creating more difficulties than it seeks to address.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I rise to speak to this with very mixed feelings. As I said in my second reading speech, we fought very hard to ensure that these provisions were retained in the South Australian statute and that was against a lot of opposition from the government which I think had just given up on this issue entirely and agreed with whatever national organisation it was that this was somehow uncompetitive.

I completely agree with the sentiment of restricting tests of personality or intelligence to those who are properly trained in it. A few years ago, when we debated the psychological practices bill in this place, I used the example of a friend of mine who had some test applied to him in a job application situation where it was very narrowly cast. I will not go into the whole background but, needless to say, he is a scientist and the questions were framed in such a way that it was either a yes/no answer, so he came out of it looking as though he had no personal skills, which was not the case.

In fact, as a personal reference, that was what tipped the balance for him in getting his job and saying, 'No, I don't think that test result is accurate.' That is just one example, but I do not think that clerical officers should be applying these. I think they should be performed by psychologists who do not just have that base qualification but have some appropriate form of training in that area.

However, in terms of the technicality, I am very pleased to hear in the minister's response that the psychological board is taking this issue a lot more seriously than has been done in the past, and therefore I am hopeful that there may be some outcome which will make sure that this issue does have some regulation.

The other reason I am not able to support this is the timing of it. Because of our party room rules, this has not been included as one of the considerations. I am bound by those rules and so am unable to support it, but I do congratulate the Greens on having the clause brought in. I did actually think that it would be quite technically difficult to have this retained in our legislation but I am unable to support it for those reasons.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In response to the issue raised by the minister that the national board has now issued a discussion paper—if we had a dollar for every discussion paper that actually amounted to nothing, then we would all be very wealthy—my response is to say if we do end up getting some system of national regulation, then we can very simply in this place remove this section from the act if it no longer has any work to do.

The only other thing I wanted to say is that I do not know how short people's memories are, but when we debated this three years ago it was one of the most contentious issues in the bill. I need almost a separate filing cabinet just to accommodate the correspondence that we received on this clause. I think it is important as a consumer protection provision. I do not think this is about a group of professionals protecting their professional turf. It is about consumer protection and I think it is safer for all of us if we leave these tests in the hands of people who are properly qualified to administer them. So I would endorse my colleague's remarks: this is an important amendment and we will be dividing on it if the need arises.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I rise to indicate that I will also be supporting this amendment. I do not quite understand the logic of how this amendment would restrict the use of psychological testing and therefore reduce the demand. The whole idea of the psychometric tests is that, as the Hon. Mark Parnell said, having people who are trained and skilful in the interpretation of these tests, and also how to deliver the results to people, is very, very important. We have the issue of certain religious organisations out there on the street doing personality tests and telling people that they are on the verge of insanity and conning them into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on courses, and God knows what else—because this requirement is actually not solid enough. I also have mountains of correspondence from the last time we debated this in the Psychological Practices Bill. I do not think that it would do any harm at all to the bill and the intent of the bill to include the section in the bill that we are debating.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I just wanted to remind members that in supporting this amendment the outcome would be that restrictions would apply to the psychological testing only here in South Australia, no other jurisdiction. So we would have a standard that is completely out of sync with any other jurisdiction. What we are working for is a nationally consistent approach. Currently no other state provides these restrictions. I am not aware that any other state from their experience has evidence that that has caused any serious or undue public issues of concern. So currently the restrictions do not apply. In supporting this, we would have restrictions here in South Australia that would be the only state that would have such provisions.

This government is not saying that issues around psychological testing are not important. What we are saying is that parliament is not the best body to establish standards in relation to this matter. The profession itself is. I have outlined the steps that the profession has taken, and they are well advanced, in addressing those matters. The matter is being addressed. We believe it is being addressed by the appropriate body, that is the profession itself, and it would be ludicrous for South Australia to establish restrictions which would be out of sync with every other state and which no other state has identified a need for, in terms of this particular mechanism of address.

The committee divided on the new clause:

Majority of 10 for the noes.

New clause thus negatived.

Remaining clauses (82 and 83), schedule and title passed.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I want to make a very short comment. The government has just tabled a new amendment. Clearly, honourable members have not had an opportunity to consider this amendment. In light of that, I will let my colleagues know that I will be adjourning the third reading until the next day of sitting to give honourable members an opportunity to consider that amendment.

Bill reported with amendment.