 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
HAIRDRESSERS (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL
Adjourned debate on second reading.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: In rising to speak on this bill I indicate that the Democrats will seek to amend the bill. However, substantially we support the second reading. To deal with the bill in two parts, first, clause 3A essentially removes two phrases from the definition of `hairdresser', those being the washing of hair and the massaging of the scalp. This will make it legal for people other than qualified hairdressers to provide these services to consumers. As the Attorney-General pointed out in his second reading explanation:
. . . under the current definition of hairdressing, nurses and other health care professionals who have occasion to wash patients' hair in the course of their duties are potentially in breach of the act.
The changes the bill proposes in this regard are sensible and supported by the industry.
The second provision in the bill sets up an arrangement that currently exists in a number of other acts, including the Building Work Contractors Act, the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Electricians Act and also, I believe, the Land Agents and the Conveyancers acts. This clause gives the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs the power to recognise a person whom the commissioner believes to be adequately qualified to be recognised under the act, even if that person does not have qualifications as set out by the regulations. As honourable members will be aware, this is the same area of concern I raised earlier in the Land Agents and Conveyancing Bills before us. It is definitely an area with which we have some concern. We understand that cases may arise that require some leeway in the recognition of qualifications. However, our concern is that giving the commissioner the broad discretionary powers the bill seeks to do is not the best way to deal with these situations. In fact, it may create more problems than it solves.
It also seems unfair on those who have taken the trouble to meet the regulated standards if others can later be excused from complying with the same. We will introduce amendments that address this and I look forward to hearing the Attorney-General's observations in his conclusion of the debate. It is clear that we will support the second reading of the bill.
