HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICE BILL

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council’s amendments.

Amendments Nos 1 and 2:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 1 and 2 be disagreed to.

This amendment is not supported by the government. It is not consistent with the objectives of the bill. What the amendments moved by the Hon. Ann Bressington in another place attempt to do is to give the board responsibility for commenting on competition and other matters which are really outside the scope of that board.

The board, like every other health practitioner board, is established to protect the health and safety of the public by maintaining, in the public interest, a register of persons deemed competent to provide psychological services. It is not the role of the board to advise government on competition policy issues, nor does the existing board support this proposed role. It is not the role of any registration board to provide policy advice in this area to the government. It is not consistent with the functions of any of the other health practitioner registration boards recently established under their particular pieces of legislation.

Indeed, if the amendment were to be carried, it would muddy the role of the board by requiring it to provide a type of industry advice. The composition and expertise of the board is appropriate to its primary function, which is to protect public health and safety by maintaining a register in the public interest and ensuring that the profession of psychology is conducted appropriately. It would be the only one of nine boards with this kind of provision, and the types of people who would be appointed to the board would necessarily have the expertise in this area.

So, we would be asking the board to give us advice in an area where it would have no skills and that would mean either that: (a) it would have to attempt to do something which it was not equipped to do, and probably not get it done very well; or (b) it would have to pay somebody to do it for it, which would place a burden on those who are registered and who would then have to pay for that advice. Of course, it would also be the only board that would have that kind of provision.

This place previously rejected this amendment as it would not be workable, nor is it in the interests of the board or, indeed, the psychologists who are covered by the board.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have listened to the minister's position on this, because I think it is important if the amendment is inconsistent with the jurisdiction of the board and clearly outside of its remit. If that were the case, it would be a valid argument. However, the opposition supports this amendment as it has come from the upper house on the basis that it does purport to provide for expansion. It may not have been raised by the Hon. Ann Bressington when the parliament dealt with other bills and, indeed, many of the other bills relating to health disciplines were dealt with and passed certainly before my time as the shadow minister for health, and I think they predate the Hon. Ann Bressington's coming into the parliament.

We have dealt with an extensive number of these bills consistent with reforming the obligations of registration, and the like, in respect of various health disciplines and, from memory, a number of them predated 2006. Therefore, I do not think that should be used as an excuse not to accept it. In fact, if it is a valid and useful addition then it would be a matter that could be quickly cured by reintroducing the other legislation and amending legislation to expand in those areas as well.

It is important to remember that the very thrust of the need to reform and be able to ensure that there is an expansion, which is essentially what has occurred in relation to those who may be permitted to practise in whatever the health discipline is, in this case psychology, and indeed to then be subject to the level of regulation and obligation in respect of registration that is then attracted, had its origins in the directives in respect of our obligations for competition.

Whilst there have been other interests and other advantages gained by various different people practising in the disciplines, or wanting to get into the practice of the disciplines, the truth of the matter is that these have all come into the state parliaments to ensure compliance with obligations that have been issued under our competition laws. This is very much an issue that is important to the heart of this legislation and, indeed, for other health disciplines.

I applaud the Hon. Ann Bressington for bringing it to the attention of the parliament and for pursuing it in another place. I think it is a worthy amendment and I think that it should be accepted by the government as a helpful amendment. I remind the government that it does not impose any obligation on the minister, other than to receive the advice, rather than to accept the advice. So, there is no requisite from this for the minister to have to take it into account or anything else, but for the board to provide that advice. I see it as only an instrument of assistance rather than any harmful impediment to the carrying out of the obligations of the board and also the effect of the act.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 3:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 3 be disagreed to.

This amendment (which was moved in the other place by the Hon. Michelle Lensink) will establish a prohibition on the administration and interpretation of 'prescribed psychological services' by persons unless they are a psychologist or psychiatrist, or approved by the board. This amendment will require psychological tests to be prescribed by regulation. It would also require the board to approve other persons who may be qualified to provide a psychological test prescribed by regulation, and it is not supported by the government.

This amendment will require regulation to identify and list those psychological tests that psychologists or psychiatrists may administer or interpret, or directly supervise others in their administration and interpretation. It will establish a prohibition on the performance of prescribed psychological tests by any person other than a psychologist or a psychiatrist, or through their direct supervision, unless the person has the approval of the board.

The amendment moved is similar to the one put in this place and was not supported by the government in this place because:

Access to significant psychological tests used by the profession is already effectively regulated by the industry that produces or distributes these tests. The publishers make the tests available only to those persons who can present them with evidence of qualifications and/or acceptable training in a particular test. A number of medical practitioners other than psychiatrists, occupational therapists, speech therapists and some human resource practitioners may be appropriately qualified to administer one or more specific psychological tests usually restricted to psychologists by the publishers.

This amendment will severely obstruct legitimate access of appropriately qualified persons to these tests in ways that have not been applied or been necessary in the past or, indeed, in any other jurisdiction. For over 30 years, the current Psychological Practices Act 1973 has allowed for the regulation of the psychometric test by prescribing them in regulations. None of them has ever been prescribed and no evidence of harm to the public or the profession has been presented.

The amendment is, for these reasons, not consistent with the government's commitment to national competition policy.

The amendment will place additional and significant regulatory responsibilities on the Psychological Board of South Australia and government to meet the gatekeeping requirements of the national competition policy agreement. The board will be required to provide solid evidence of harm to the government in seeking to regulate any psychological test. The government, in turn, will be required to undertake a review of a regulation that will place restrictions on competition. No legislative provision would be introduced unless there is clear evidence of a net public benefit—that is, the public benefit to the community as a whole exceeds any anticompetitive detriment and that the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition.

In a letter to the opposition dated 28 August 2007, Mr Peter Vaughan, the Chief Executive Officer of Business SA, urged the deputy leader and her colleagues to withdraw this amendment and allow the passage of the original bill. I must say that the letter was copied to me. He noted that the original bill met National Competition Council's approval by satisfying national competition policy principles: minimum regulation and consistent application of regulatory restrictions throughout the nation. He also noted the amendment would limit the use of psychological tests used by employers and businesses to individuals authorised under the act or approved by the Psychology Board of South Australia. He also noted that other jurisdictions do not regulate this practice, with industry successfully self-regulating their practices.

Mr Vaughan also drew attention to the potential to harm South Australian businesses since they would not operate in an equally competitive manner with their interstate counterparts. Previously, Business SA called upon the government to reduce the South Australian regulatory burden by 25 per cent by July this year. The government agreed to commit to this target, recognising the challenges businesses in South Australia face when dealing with bureaucracy. There should be no doubt that this amendment would hinder the competitiveness of our state and add to the regulatory burden borne by businesses. Further, it is not considered wise to regulate in an act a particular test, since that test may be superseded or change its name, in which case the act would need amending in each instance.

I previously gave an undertaking to the parliament that I would examine the possibility of some sort of power to determine whether a particular individual or particular classes of individuals could be suitably registered or regulated, or allowed to conduct tests of this sort. I also undertook to provide an estimate of how much extra work would be involved and what the effect might be on the board's fee schedule should psychological tests be regulated.

I therefore wrote to the South Australian Psychology Board requesting its views on this particular type of amendment and costs of administration. The board advised that an amendment of this type would place significant administrative, as well as regulatory responsibilities on the Psychological Board of South Australia. An alternative was suggested by the board to regulate suppliers and distributors of psychological tests. This alternative was rejected on the grounds that it would place restriction on competition and would be ineffective since a state jurisdiction would be attempting to regulate national and international suppliers and distributors.

These matters were examined and reported on in the other place. I nevertheless bring to the attention of this committee that the cost of meeting this responsibility and administering this type of provision was estimated by the registrar of the psychological board to be approximately $200,000 to establish the administrative system and $125,000 per annum to maintain. This cost, if fully passed on to the profession, as it would have to be I believe, would increase their registration fee and their annual practice fee by approximately 50 per cent. That is, from currently $250 to about $375 per annum per practitioner. This cost will be primarily met by the profession since the board is self-funding. The board may charge other persons seeking to be approved to administer a specific test; however, this cost should be proportionate to the cost of administration only and not include the costs of generally regulating a practice restriction that benefits the profession.

The board also recommended that, since national registration of psychologists is proposed to be implemented, it would be better to leave this matter for the proposed national psychologists board to research and consider the need for an appropriate national policy, given the significant scale of the task to regulate psychological tests. This bill is one of only two new health practitioner registration bills yet to be passed, the nursing and midwifery bill being the other which I have also presented to the parliament. With the passage of these bills, South Australia will have updated all its health professional registration acts and will have established a consistent, modernised legislative framework that will stand this state in good stead for the future. In mentioning the Council of Australian Governments national registration scheme, it will be important for South Australia to have a consistent, modernised legislative framework so that all registration boards can operate efficiently and effectively until such time as the national registration scheme is implemented.

The COAG process will be complex. It will rely on each state and territory passing consistent legislation. We need to be mindful that progress towards the establishment of a national registration scheme will be subject to how speedily this takes place. In the interim we still need to have effective modern legislation in place to protect the health and safety of the public by providing for registration of psychologists and ensuring high standards of competency and conduct in the provision of psychological services.

In conclusion, the provision that has been put into this legislation would create an offence only in South Australia. The maximum penalty would be $75,000. In every other jurisdiction a person could conduct these tests without being supervised by the board, yet in our state, if someone were to do that, they would be subject to a maximum penalty of $75,000. Even those who advocate for this particular regime to be in the legislation—and I am certainly not one of them—would have to recognise that the fine they have put in place is absolutely disproportionate to any evil that might follow from someone not being a psychologist and applying this test.

This is really about psychologists wanting to protect their patch—nothing more, nothing less. This is not about community good. It is about psychologists wanting to protect their patch. The COAG process is about breaking down those barriers and loosening up the system so more services can be delivered appropriately by people who are properly trained. This will be a burden on the business community and a burden on psychologists themselves because, if it were to be properly implemented, it would cost them money. I have received letters from a number of psychologists who have expressed concern about this issue because, if they are part time, not highly paid or registered in multiple states, it will create difficulties for them.

Ms CHAPMAN: The opposition supports the amendment. The government's insistence on continuing to oppose what is a sensible way in which to resolve the issue and allow effective passage of the bill is a concern. It is also concerning that, for a government that purports to say that the safety and quality of health service is a high priority—which, I note, was repeated by His Excellency in the speech opening parliament—we now find it is keen to ensure that there is not a protection at this level.

Essentially, we are talking about ensuring there is a regime to protect against the use or interpretation of psychological tests that are administered in a number of different areas. They are used for the purpose of assessment in relation to mental health. They are used for the purposes of employment. Often they are used during assessment for compensation and the like. These are important areas in which psychometric tests (as they are often described) are utilised. They can be a useful tool in relation to these areas. For example, in the appointment of someone to a senior level of employment, an assessment is often sought as a prerequisite for consideration in order to assess the general character of the applicant.

However, I am concerned that the government should say, with full knowledge of a considerable dispute in the professional and public communities about concerns raised, that assessment under the test, or the use of such tests—and, indeed, the abuse of them—can cause considerable harm if an untrained person interprets a test. For example, the use of a psychometric test in an application for employment, which is poorly interpreted or administered in an incorrect way, could deny a person the opportunity for employment and/or compensation and cause considerable detriment and potential emotional harm to the applicant.

These are not things to be dealt with lightly. The government's answer to this, with an acknowledgment that there needs to be some monitoring, is that they are already regulated by the publishers or the people who supply or distribute them; that is, the people who create these things. That is true, that is the position at present, but it does not mean that it cannot change. What happens if a publisher decides that, rather than be discriminatory as to whom they should sell these tests, they can make a lot of money out of them? They are not regulated by this parliament; they are not under the control of this parliament.

We are the parliament that has the responsibility to make laws to protect people who may be the victims of a mal or poor application of these tests or the interpretation of them. That is our responsibility. We cannot say to the suppliers, 'You can only provide it.' They do it at the moment because they want to keep some control over the market. It is in their commercial interest to do that, but that could change. It is important and it is our responsibility to do this. I am concerned that the government would leave this to a body that can be motivated by its own commercial gain, ultimately, rather than accepting its responsibility to make sure we protect the public. I find it quite concerning that the government would seem to take such an approach.

I hear the minister saying that, on the advice he has received from the board, this would place an enormous administrative burden on them. The situation is that the amendment provides a restriction on the use or interpretation of these tests to either a psychologist or psychiatrist, or someone who is supervised by a psychologist or psychiatrist, or a person who administers or interprets a test with the approval of the board. What we are hearing from the minister is that in 30 years people have not sought that.

It is a little like the hypnotherapy argument, which matter has been referred off to the Social Development Committee, yet the reverse argument is used here. The truth is that if you want to apply for special consideration to convince the board that you are a person who is not prepared to be supervised or who does not have the qualifications as a psychiatrist or a psychologist and you submit that to the board for its approval, why should they not pay for that application? Of course they should. The government is trying to scare people into supporting its position by saying, 'Look, this will cost money if we have to hear these applications.'

I say, user pays. If you want to apply and it is a costly exercise to do a search on someone, to prepare training or to analyse the cost of the board's sitting fees, the applicant should pay—not all the other psychologists or psychiatrists who are under regulation. That is a nonsense. The government has said, 'Well, look, if this costs an extra $200,000 to administer, we will therefore raise the fee from $250 to $375.' That is a scaremongering tactic amongst the psychologists who say, 'Well, hang on a minute. We don't want to have that extra fee. So, minister, get rid of that idea.' That is just a complete nonsense. That is quite a furphy to this debate. What we are considering here is ensuring that, in the wrong hands by an untrained person, these psychometric tests can cause damage and harm.

We know that and the minister knows that. We cannot leave it to the commercial publishers or distributors based on whether or not they will make a profit. We cannot rely on that. We need to ensure that those who want to apply without getting qualification (as has been previously allowed), and if there is some lesser level with which the board is satisfied (because there is a whole mix on that board), they should be paying for it. It is not acceptable that we just open slather on this and then not make sure that there is proper training. The inconsistency of the minister's argument in relation to this (and he said it again today) is that it is important that this be a whole reform of the law in relation to upgrading and modernising, etc., but making sure there is adequate training.

That is exactly what this amendment does. This amendment says that a person can administer and interpret the test with the approval of the board. All they have to do is satisfy the board that they have adequate training in some other profession or that they have some other qualification, or whatever. That is a matter for the board to determine, and so it should. That gives an avenue to open up to competition but with a reciprocal important qualification to ensure that they are suitably trained. That is a prerequisite and one that will fit the original object of the act to ensure that we open up the opportunities rather than keeping it restricted only to psychologists or psychiatrists while at the same time protecting the public.

To me that is a sensible way to resolve this matter, and I am very disappointed that the government would present its opposition to it. I do note that Mr Vaughan, to whom the minister referred, wrote to me and, indeed, as I understand it, wrote to the government. A number of submissions have been put forward by various stakeholders. We do not ignore those. We have listened to those. I have met with Mr Vaughan. I have listened to his view on the matter, and I make the following observation. It is true, as he points out, that this would mean that it is different from any other state. This would be something that other states have not seen the need to address and therefore we do not need to.

Well, that is why I am a federalist, because I do not accept that just because someone in some other state or some other level of government says that it is right they will always get it right because, clearly, they do not. That is why we have the protection of a federation, and that is why we have a responsibility in this parliament to assess properly every piece of legislation and not be just forced into it and have it shoved down our neck as though we have some expectation to comply because some other donkey in some other state decides that it is a good idea.

That is not acceptable to me. It would be shelving my responsibility as a legislator of this parliament, and I will not do it. If it is meritorious it needs obviously, first, our consideration and our support. I have not, nor have members of the opposition, ignored the submissions put by Mr Vaughan, but I do say that, again, it is not satisfactory for us to accept blindly that, because this might impose some extra cost to employers, we should accept it. It is a consideration. For me the paramountcy is the overwhelming submissions I have received which say that whoever applies these tests should have the qualifications as were originally required, and they should be extended to others provided the board gives them that tick.

We are not saying, 'keep it exclusive'; we are saying that, consistent with this amendment from the other place, we broaden it but we ensure that that safety mechanism is in there. Why is it that the commercial position of a business should suddenly supersede the safety of the public—some poor person who misses out on a compensation claim, someone who misses out on a job, someone who is scarred emotionally for life or who needs further psychological therapy and support because a test has been maladministered? That is completely unacceptable. Furthermore, I make the observation that I have spoken to a number of employment agencies who currently employ psychologists to administer the tests at the request of employers (and sometimes, of course, I am sure often, consistent with their recommendation) who say that this can be a useful tool and instrument for assessment.

What I find is that the agencies, consistent with the current law, use fully-trained psychologists, generally (they do not use psychiatrists, they use psychologists), to access, use and interpret consistent with the current law. They advise me, and I accept this, that they are not used for every application for employment. If you are applying for a position which is relatively unskilled, perhaps relatively low in remuneration, these tests are not used at all. These are not used for everyone. These are used for a cost where there is a significant level of responsibility (usually) in which that person will be involved. Not even every public servant, as I understand it, is expected to do that, yet they all carry out quite a level of responsibility.

My understanding is that, in the Public Service, it is frequently used in areas such as the police department. One would expect that, because these are people who will be managing very important and responsible areas of administration on behalf of the government. They will be dealing with the people and they will be dealing with people, many of whom are in a fairly difficult state (self-imposed maybe), but nevertheless these are important levels at which the psychometric testing is administered. I support that but, again, it must be done with due care as to who should administer it.

The people who will save money by this, I suggest, are government departments having to budget for some of their senior staff and also staff in specialty areas who have to submit to these psychometric tests and, therefore, they have to be paid for. Whether they use a private agency or it is done within the department, they are going to have to pay that price, but it is not for every job. Another thing is that, out in the private sector, again on consultation with the agencies, notwithstanding Mr Vaughan's statements—which have been repeated by the minister—they do not see this as a problem because, in fact, there are two aspects: one is the seniority of the level of the employment at which the psychometric test is being applied; but secondly, there is no obligation whatsoever at any time on any employer to actually have to exercise psychometric testing for applicants for employment. It is just a complete furphy, so I am puzzled as to why the minister would suddenly latch onto this other than, of course, to try to bolster support for his position.

One of the things that is quite concerning is that in the course of consultation in this matter—which has been very long; as we know, this bill has been around for a long time—the relevant lead agencies or peak bodies, as you might want to describe them—in this case, the South Australian division of the Australian Psychological Society—during the course of this debate at one stage were completely bypassed. I would hope that, during the time that the bill has been debated, there has been at least one further consultation with the society since 2007, because Mr Jack Metzer, the president, made public on 13 August 2007 his concern that, notwithstanding numerous approaches to actually meet with the minister about their concerns as an industry peak body, that had been refused.

However, here is what is even more concerning: while this was being refused, the government chose to write individually to each of the psychologists around the state to try to get some support. As the president says publicly, he does not actually object to the members of the psychological society being contacted. That is very thorough consultation, except that, if you then ignore the peak body completely in making an assessment, then all you do is narrow the information before you as a government (as we would as opposition if we did the same), in excluding information that is not consistent with what you want.

You know what they are going to say and you think, 'I just won't see them; I just won't hear from them. I just won't accept their argument,' and, therefore, they somehow sit under a mushroom as though they do not exist. That is not acceptable. That is not consultation which is acceptable, and it is important that when any government accepts a consultation process it is thorough and that it does include the relevant peak bodies, not just the ones that you know are going to agree with you.

In another place, members of minority and Independent parties have also expressed their view in relation to this. Obviously, I do not want to reflect in any way on what they have said. Ultimately, with the support of a number of them, these amendments were supported. They have also carefully listened. The only one not listening in this debate on this issue is the government. It seems to me that, in the absence of any other adequate protection (other than hoping that the publishers will still want to make money so they will keep them fairly exclusive to protect the public), that is not acceptable and it ought to be rejected by this house, that is, the oppositional application for this amendment be disallowed.

With those words I indicate that this is a very important issue for the opposition. We have raised it previously. We thought that this would be a sensible compromise. Clearly, in another place they have debated it again at length. They see the merits of it, as have other parties; however, it still puzzles me why the government would be so insistent when there is not adequate protection and where the financial costs can be placed on the applicants if they seek it. If it is going to be so expensive and the burden not placed on the body of psychiatrists and if this is allowed, then that protection should remain.

I will say that, although it is not specifically covered by this amendment, as I understand it, progress has been made on another area of concern in relation to hypnotherapists, to the extent that the government has excluded obligations in relation to hypnotherapists from this bill, and we have accepted the government's undertaking that it would refer an inquiry into this to the Social Development Committee. Some time after April 2008 I received, courtesy of the government, a copy of the Department of Health's report on any harms associated with the practice of hypnosis and the possibility of developing a code of conduct for registered and unregistered health practitioners. It is quite a comprehensive report.

I thank the government for providing a copy of that. I understand that it has been referred to the Social Development Committee. I am a little puzzled as to why we are bringing this issue back for consideration before that process has been looked into, but I give advance notice to the government that, whatever method we resolve to protect people in relation to hypnotherapy, that we place a caveat on the application of people exercising hypnotherapy in the same way as psychometric testing.

There is potential for very significant harm, and we will be looking to the recommendations of the Social Development Committee and any government take-up of those recommendations. We will certainly be looking for some protection. The key to it will be to ensure that the level of training of someone who either applies these tests or hypnotherapy must be at a level which would satisfy the board before they can undertake that practice. That is something that we are very clear about, and we want to ensure that the government is alert to it when it brings that issue back to the parliament, and I have accepted the minister's undertaking to do that.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 4 and 5:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 4 and 5 be disagreed to.

The effect of these amendments would be to increase the board for the purpose of proceedings from three to four and require that two of those four are psychologists. The government does not support these amendments. The current requirement is for three members of the board to constitute the board for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings. One must be a legal practitioner (or deputy) and one must be a psychologist. The provisions are silent on who the third member should be, giving the board itself the flexibility to select the most appropriate board member, depending on the nature of the matter.

As I understand it, the majority of the board members are psychologists so, if the majority decided they needed another psychologist on the board, they could come to that determination. If it is a professional practice matter, the board is likely to select another psychologist. If it is a matter of professional misconduct, the board may select either a peer or another member of the board who is not a psychologist.

The proposed amendment was considered as part of a submission from the Australian Psychological Society (APS) to the department during consultations for this bill. I also met with the executive director, Professor Lyn Littlefield, and other senior officers, in April this year to discuss the bill and the amendments made in the other place.

In a letter sent by the APS on 27 June this year, Professor Littlefield disputed the capacity of the disciplinary board to inform itself by seeking expert evidence by drawing attention to the judgment made in the matter of Heywood-Smith v The Physiotherapy Board of South Australia in the District Court of South Australia. This matter was subsequently appealed by the crown and heard before a full court of the Supreme Court (The Physiotherapy Board of SA & Anor v Heywood-Smith [2008] SASC 253). The court allowed the appeal noting that, among other things, the board did not err in having regard to expert evidence. This judgment removes any doubt that may have existed about the current provisions in the bill. As I understand it, this matter was only determined within the last week or so, and I have written to Professor Littlewood to give her that advice.

This particular amendment is not supported by the government since there is clearly the capacity in the provisions to allow the disciplinary board to be comprised of either one or two psychologist members. The board can also seek to inform itself as it sees fit and it can do this by seeking evidence from other psychologists with expertise in a particular matter if required.

With the exception of the medical practice and dental practice acts, all other health practitioner registration acts initiated by the government have the same provisions as drafted in this bill. The differences arise from the need to respond to a greater number of specialities and complexity in the medical and dental professions.

There are no special requirements of the profession or the Psychological Board which warrant increasing the size of the board for disciplinary hearings as proposed by the amendment. More importantly, increasing the number of board members for disciplinary hearings from three to four may result in a situation whereby the decision of members is equally split and a majority decision of members cannot be reached. Given that the presiding officer of the board in disciplinary proceedings cannot exercise a casting vote, the board would be hung and would therefore be unable to make a decision. The situation would be intolerable for the board, the public and the profession.

Finally, I point out that a psychologist has a right of appeal against decisions of the board to the District Court under part 5 of the act. I think those explanations should satisfy anybody, including the APS, as to the merits of the original proposition.

Ms CHAPMAN: The opposition had determined to support this amendment. I have listened to the minister's explanation as to why the government is opposing it. I am not familiar with Heywood-Smith & Anor v The Physiotherapy Board. I think the minister indicated that the matter has just been determined, which may or may not relate to a question of expert evidence affecting the number of psychologists to be put on this board. However, it may be that it does lay to rest some concerns previously raised by the Australian Psychological Society on the mechanics.

Again, I think there is some merit in what the minister says. There are other ways to resolve this, of course; that is, you can exercise powers to the chairman to ensure that that is covered. So, if the move to have two psychologists in relation to the aspect of their responsibility has merit, we can sort out the machinery. I hear what the minister says. Unfortunately, for those who want a quick resolution of the bill, the matter will not be resolved here today. I am quite prepared to have a look at that issue and consider whether the opposition will take a different view. If the matters raised by the minister are appropriate, I am sure that we can look forward to supporting that; but otherwise, at this stage, I indicate the opposition's position.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I thank the deputy leader for that, and for her offer to consider it. I will make sure she gets a copy of the judgment. As I said, it was handed down just a few days ago and I was made aware of it myself only a couple of days ago. I will make sure the deputy leader sees it.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT