Ms Deirdre Walsh:

I think the Senator's question concerns regulated counsellors who will be subject to all of the provisions of the Bill and who will, in their opinion, give the best advice and how we will capture a situation where, in fact, it is not the best advice. While the Act does not define the scope of a practice, each registrant signs a code of professional conduct and ethics, whether as a dietician, a speech and language therapist or a counsellor, to say he or she will work in accordance with his or her qualifications, skills, knowledge and competence. If a complaint is made against him or her, it will become part of the fitness to practise process. What the Senator is asking is how will one be able to prove the complaint in such a scenario. First, it will have to be looked at by the preliminary proceedings committee to establish whether there is a prima faciecase to be answered. The Senator is correct in saying it is difficult to define it, but let us say it goes through the fitness to practise process and it is established that the person concerned did act outside his or her qualifications, competence or skill and give inaccurate advice. The standards to be met in the fitness to practise process are high; therefore, it would be difficult to bring a case, but if it were to be proved that the person concerned did act outside his or her skills or competence, he or she could ultimately be struck off for misconduct. However, I am not saying it would be easy; rather, it would be difficult to capture. That applies to all professions.