Hypnose en de wetten

A review of the
Department of Health’s report
into hypnosis
TWENTY-NINTH REPORT OF THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE THIRD SESSION FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT
Laid on the Table of the Legislative Council, and ordered to be printed 28 April 2009
Parliament of South Australia
Pp 229
Social Development Committee Parliament House
North Terrace Adelaide SA 5000
Phone: 08 8237 9416
Fax: 08 8231 9630
E-mail: sdc@parliament.sa.gov.au
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE.............................................. III
FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ................................................................................................ III
TERMS OF REFERENCE......................................................................................................................V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................1
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................3
BACKGROUND TO THE INQUIRY.....................................................................................................5
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................7
DEFINITION................................................................................................................................................7
POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF HYPNOSIS ..............................................................................................................8
POSSIBLE HARMS OF HYPNOSIS ..................................................................................................................8
PROFESSIONALASSOCIATIONS..................................................................................................................8
PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICESACT 1973....................................................................................................9
PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICE BILL2006...................................................................................................10
POLICYCONTEXT ....................................................................................................................................10
REGULATORYMEASURES.........................................................................................................................12
SUMMARY OF OTHER EVIDENCE ...............................................................................................................13
CONCLUDING REMARKS..................................................................................................................15
LIST OF WITNESSES...........................................................................................................................17
LIST OF SUBMISSIONS .......................................................................................................................17
APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE...........................................................................................19
Social Development Committee of the South ii Australian Parliament
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament iii
ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE
The Social Development Committee is established pursuant to Sections 13, 14 and 15
of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991. Its six Members are drawn equally from
the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly:
Hon Ian Hunter MLC (Presiding Member)
Hon Dennis Hood MLC
Hon Stephen Wade MLC
Mr Adrian Pederick MP
Ms Lindsay Simmons MP
Hon Trish White MP
The Committee is assisted by:
Ms Robyn Schutte and Ms Kristina Willis-Arnold
(Committee Secretaries: 0.8 FTE and 0.2 FTE)
Ms Sue Markotić(Research Officer)
Ms Cynthia Gray (Administrative Officer: 0.3 FTE)
FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
The functions of the Social Development Committee are set out in Section 15 of the
Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 and charge the Committee 
(a) to inquire into, consider and report on such of the following matters as are
referred to it under this Act:
(i) any matter concerned with the health, welfare or education of the
people of the State;
(ii) any matter concerned with occupational safety or industrial relations;
(iii) any matter concerned with the arts, recreation or sport or the cultural
or physical development of the people of the State;
(iv) any matter concerned with the quality of life of communities, families
or individuals in the State or how that quality of life might be
improved;
(b) to perform such other functions as are imposed on the Committee under this
or any other Act or by resolution of both Houses.
Social Development Committee of the South iv Australian Parliament
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament v
TERMS OF REFERENCE
During the course of its Inquiry into bogus, unregistered and deregistered health
practitioners1, the Social Development Committee received an additional reference to
investigate hypnosis.
Specifically, on 7 May 2008, the House of Assembly resolved, on a motion of the
Minister for Health (Hon John Hill, MP), that a report produced by the Department of
Health be referred to the Committee for its examination.
The full title of the Department of Health report is: Report on Harms Associated with
the Practice of Hypnosis and the Possibility of Developing a Code of Conduct for
Registered and Unregistered Health Practitioners.
While the Committee’s examination of this report occurred concurrently with its
Inquiry into bogus, unregistered and deregistered health practitioners, the
Committee considered the issue separately and determined that a stand-alone report
was warranted.
1 See Appendix A.
Social Development Committee of the South vi Australian Parliament
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the course of its Inquiry into bogus, unregistered and deregistered health
practitioners, the Social Development Committee received an additional term of
reference to investigate hypnosis. Specifically, on 7 May 2008, the House of
Assembly resolved on a motion of the Minister for Health, (Hon John Hill MP), that
the Report on Harms Associated with the Practice of Hypnosis and the Possibility of
Developing a Code of Conduct for Registered and Unregistered Health Practitioners,
produced by the Department of Health, should also be referred to the Committee for
its examination.
While some of the issues raised in relation to the practice of hypnosis and
hypnotherapy overlap with those raised during the Committee’s Inquiry into bogus,
unregistered and deregistered health practitioners, the Committee determined that its
examination into the Department of Health’s report should be dealt with as a distinct
entity and a separate report produced.
Hypnosis can be difficult to define but is generally considered to be an altered state of
consciousness characterised by heightened suggestibility. Evidence suggests that
hypnosis and hypnotherapy can be a useful adjunct to psychological therapy. It can be
used to treat depression and anxiety and can assist in the management of a range of
symptoms and conditions including chronic pain, obesity and sleep disorders.
In South Australia, the practice of hypnosis is regulated by legislation, specifically the
Psychological Practices Act 1973 (SA). 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.
In September 2006, the State Government introduced the Psychological Practice Bill
to, among other things, remove this restriction. Concerns were raised during
parliamentary debate that the Bill would provide the opportunity for untrained and
unqualified individuals to carry out hypnosis and hypnotherapy. These concerns
prompted the Department of Health to commission its report.
The Department’s report notes that the introduction of the Psychological Practice Bill 2006 needs to be considered in the context of the National Competition Policy
Agreement principles. Those principles state, among other things, that legislation
should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that it is in the public interest to do so. In South Australia, the current legislative restrictions on the practice of hypnosis prevent a range of health practitioners – for example, specialist mental health care nurses – from using hypnosis to assist their patients.
The Department’s report also notes that in the mid 1990s, the Australian Health
Ministers’ Advisory Council (AHMAC) established a process for determining
whether to regulate any currently unregulated health profession. A number of core
criteria were set by AHMAC for assessing whether a profession should be regulated
by legislation. The criteria (re-endorsed in March 2007) posed a number of questions
including: ‘Do the activities of the occupation pose a significant risk of harm to the Social Development Committee of the South 2 Australian Parliament
health and safety of the public?’ In 1996, AHMAC determined that there was no need
to regulate hypnosis and hypnotherapy on the grounds that there was no demonstrable
harm.
The Department of Health’s report goes on to summarise the main reasons supporting
the removal of current restrictions on the practice of hypnosis. These include:
 the practice is not considered to pose a significant risk of harm to the health
and safety of the public, other professionals may wish to use hypnosis as part of their treatment modality but are unable to do so under the current legislation restricting the practice to certain professionals;
 as ‘hypnosis’ and ‘hypnotherapy’ are often difficult terms to define, it is
possible for similar services to be provided under a different name; and
 as the law presently stands medical practitioners and psychologists are allowed
to practise hypnosis irrespective of whether they are appropriately trained to
do so.
The Department of Health’s report also notes that in Australia and other comparable
countries, very few jurisdictions regulate the use of hypnosis and hypnotherapy.
Indeed, the Committee notes that the current restrictions placed on the practice of
hypnotherapy in South Australia are out of step with interstate jurisdictions.
The Social Development Committee’s principal task was to examine in detail the
Department of Health’s report. In doing so, it called upon Ms Kay Anastassiadis,
Senior Policy Officer, Department of Health, and Ms Lee Wightman, Principal Policy
Officer, Department of Health, to provide background information.
The Committee received a small number of written submissions which, for the most
part, supported the report’s findings. One submission, however, from the South
Australian Society of Hypnosis (SASH) strongly opposed the removal of restrictions
on the practise of hypnosis. They argued that it would open up the opportunity for
untrained and unskilled individuals to practise hypnosis.
The Committee notes the concerns expressed by SASH and – consistent with the main
findings of the Department of Health’s report – agrees that any lifting of current
restrictions on the practise of hypnosis should not occur without other safeguards
being put in place to protect the public.
The Committee thanks all those who participated in the Inquiry. The information
provided to the Committee consolidated its understanding of the key issues and
informed its deliberations.
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee notes the main findings of the Department of Health’s Report on
Harms Associated with the Practice of Hypnosis and the Possibility of Developing a
Code of Conduct for Registered and Unregistered Health Practitioners and accepts its
conclusions that while there is ‘poor scientific evidence of the safety and efficacy of hypnosis and hypnotherapy as practised by lay hypnotherapists, the evidence of a high risk of harm to the public does not appear sufficient to warrant a prohibition on practise.’2 Furthermore, the Committee notes that there is some ‘emerging and
promising evidence regarding the benefits and safety in the use of hypnosis as an
adjunctive therapy.’3
The Committee notes that in South Australia the practice of hypnosis is regulated by
legislation. This legislation restricts the practice of hypnosis to the following
registered professions: psychologists, medical practitioners and dentists. The
Committee does not consider that members of these professions are necessarily the
most appropriately qualified or trained to practise hypnosis. The Committee is
concerned that current legislation allows a number of registered professions to
practise hypnosis without requiring them to have completed any specific training in
the area.
In keeping with the findings of the Department’s report, the Committee supports the
lifting of the current legislative restrictions placed on the practice of hypnosis. It does,however, strongly support the introduction of a new regulatory framework to ensure that only those who are properly trained and have met appropriate standards of
education are able to practise hypnosis. As such, the Committee makes the following
recommendations:
1. The Committee recommends that the Minister for Health ensure that –
consistent with national competition policy principles – current legislative
restrictions limiting the practise of hypnosis to certain health professions are
removed.
2. The Committee recommends that the Minister for Health:
a) examine the merits of other models regulating the practice of hypnosis
and hypnotherapy to determine their appropriateness and applicability
to South Australia;
b) 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;
c) ensure that, as part of the new regulatory framework, proper standards
of education and training for the practice of hypnosis are established.
2 Department of Health, Report on Harms Associated with the Practice of Hypnosis and the Possibility of Developing a Code of Conduct for Registered and Unregistered Health Practitioners, April 2008,
page 2.
3 Department of Health, April 2008 page 2.
Social Development Committee of the South 4 Australian Parliament
3. The Committee recommends that:
a) the Department of Health undertake an evaluation, within two years of
the introduction of a new regulatory framework, to assess its impact on
the safety and efficacy of the practice of hypnosis and hypnotherapy.
b) the findings of the evaluation be communicated to relevant
stakeholders and made publicly available.
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament 5
BACKGROUND TO THE INQUIRY
During the course of the Social Development Committee’s Inquiry into bogus,
unregistered and deregistered health practitioners, it received an additional reference to investigate hypnosis. Specifically, on 7 May 2008, the House of Assembly resolved on a motion of the Minister for Health, (Hon John Hill MP), that a report produced by the Department of Health should be referred to the Committee for its examination.
The full title of the Department of Health report is: Report on Harms Associated with
the Practice of Hypnosis and the Possibility of Developing a Code of Conduct for
Registered and Unregistered Health Practitioners (hereinafter referred to as the
Department of Health’s report).
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
On 16 February 2008, notices were placed in The Advertiser and The Australian to
inform the public of the terms of reference for the Social Development Committee’s
Inquiry into bogus, unregistered and deregistered health practitioners.
The House of Assembly subsequently referred an additional term of reference to the
Social Development Committee. This additional term of reference called on the
Committee to examine the Department of Health’s report into hypnosis. Given the
limited scope of this term of reference, the Committee determined that it was not
necessary to advertise this matter in the print media. Instead, the Committee placed
relevant information on its website and sought input from a number of parties and
stakeholders.
Specifically, the Committee wrote to the South Australian Psychological Board
(SAPB) – responsible for the oversight of hypnosis in South Australia – seeking
comment on the Department of Health’s report. The Committee also contacted the
South Australian Society of Hypnosis (SASH), a professional association of hypnosis
practitioners whose members come from the three groups that are currently able to
practise hypnosis in South Australia, namely medical practitioners, psychologists and
dentists. SASH was invited to provide a submission to the Inquiry addressing the
findings of the Department of Health’s report. In addition, the Council of Clinical
Hypnotherapists – a peak group representing the interests of clinical hypnotherapists
in Australia – was contacted and invited to comment on the report. All of these
organisations took up the Committee’s invitation and provided written submissions.
The Council of Clinical Hypnotherapists also gave oral evidence to the Inquiry.
As part of its examination, the Committee also invited Ms Kay Anastassiadis, Senior
Policy Officer, Department of Health, and Ms Lee Wightman, Principal Policy
Officer, Department of Health, to provide background information.
Two further written submissions relating to hypnosis were received from the
Australian Hypnotherapists Association and the Hypnosis Association of Queensland.
Social Development Committee of the South 6 Australian Parliament
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament 7
INTRODUCTION
In South Australia, the practice of hypnosis is regulated by legislation, specifically the
Psychological Practices Act 1973 (SA). 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.
In September 2006, the State Government introduced the Psychological Practice Bill
to, among other things, remove those restrictions. Concerns were raised during
parliamentary debate that the Bill would provide the opportunity for untrained and
unqualified individuals to carry out hypnosis and hypnotherapy. Those concerns
prompted the Department of Health to commission a report: Report on Harms
Associated with the Practice of Hypnosis and the Possibility of Developing a Code of
Conduct for Registered and Unregistered Health Practitioners
In examining the subject of hypnosis, the Department of Health considered scientific
literature on the harms and safety associated with hypnosis. It also examined
professional and consumer protection issues related to hypnotherapy and international
and Australian regulatory approaches. The report concluded that the practice of
hypnosis should be deregulated in South Australia.
DEFINITION
The Committee notes that the terms ‘hypnosis’ and ‘hypnotherapy’ are often used
interchangeably. Evidence presented to the Inquiry suggests that the terms sometimes
lack clear definition. According to the Department of Health, hypnosis is generally
defined as:
[A]n altered state of consciousness which is characterised by increased
responsiveness to suggestion. The hypnotic state is attained by first
relaxing the body, then shifting the client’s attention toward a narrow range
of objects or ideas as suggested by the hypnotist or hypnotherapist. The
procedure is used to access various levels of the mind to effect positive
changes in a person’s behaviour and to treat numerous health conditions4.
Notwithstanding this definition, the Department of Health report states that ‘there is currently no universally accepted definition of hypnosis.’5
The report does, however, differentiate ‘stage hypnosis’ – generally considered to be a form of entertainment – from other forms of hypnosis. For that reason, the
Department did not include it in its investigation noting that its use ‘remains a
controversial area of concern [that] warrants separate consideration.’6
4 The Department of Health’s report (2008 page 8) notes that this definition is generally used by the National Institute of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, US National Institutes of Health.
5 Department of Health, April 2008 page 9.
6 Department of Health, April 2008 page 2.
Social Development Committee of the South 8 Australian Parliament
POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF HYPNOSIS
The Department of Health report notes that there is some ‘emerging and promising
evidence’ that suggests hypnosis and hypnotherapy may be a useful adjunct to
psychological therapy. For example, it can be helpful with pain management and
promoting better recovery following major surgery. It may also serve as a
supplementary technique in the management of chronic conditions such as asthma and
irritable bowel syndrome. The report also notes that while hypnosis has been used to
manage such problems as eating disorders, insomnia and nicotine addiction, ‘most
studies do not provide an adequate basis for establishing efficacy or safety due to the inadequate research design, lack of clear results and small size.’7
POSSIBLE HARMS OF HYPNOSIS
The Department of Health’s report indicates that while hypnosis has the potential to
assist in a range of health-related conditions, there is a small risk that it could also cause harm. Having reviewed the relevant scientific literature, the report concludes that while there are known harms associated with hypnosis, these ‘are not common’and can be minimised or even prevented if:
 the training and education curriculum for lay hypnotherapy properly covers these issues  national standards of competency for practising hypnosis, including scope
of practice, are established
 hypnotherapy associations establish an effective, national, voluntary selfregulation
scheme.8
The report observes that while there is a paucity of scientific evidence of the safety and efficacy of hypnosis as practised by lay hypnotherapists, ‘the evidence of a high risk of harm to the public does not appear sufficient to warrant a prohibition on practise.’9
PROFESSIONALASSOCIATIONS
The Department of Health’s report notes that in Australia there are a number of
professional bodies representing hypnosis or hypnotherapy service providers and that
the education standards and accreditation of these bodies vary considerably.
While the majority of these associations have established similar codes of
professional practice/ conduct and complaints mechanisms, the Department’s report
notes that:
7 Department of Health, 2008 page 11.
8 Department of Health, 2008 page 2.
9 Department of Health, 2008 page 2.
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament 9
 health consumers still have difficulty ‘identifying the relevant association to
which a complaint should be made’
 there are ‘limited public accountability mechanisms for investigating
complaints,’ and
 if and when ‘a hypnotherapist is found to have acted unprofessionally or
unethically,’ an association’s powers of response are limited.10
Committee Comment
The Committee accepts that some professional associations are more active than
others in establishing codes of conduct and implementing continuing professional
education programs. The Committee would be keen to see a consolidation of
professional bodies representing hypnosis or hypnotherapy service providers. The
Committee is presently examining issues related to the large number of professional
associations and variations in training and educational standards in more detail as part of its inquiry into bogus, unregistered and deregistered health practitioners.
PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICES ACT 1973
In South Australia, the Psychological Practices Act 1973; restricts the ‘practice of
hypnosis’ to registered psychologists, medical practitioners, individually approved
dentists and prescribed persons.
Specifically, Part 4, Section 39 – Practice of hypnosis states:
39—Practice of hypnosis
(1) A person other than—
(a) a registered psychologist, in the ordinary course of his (sic)
psychological practice; or
(b) a legally qualified medical practitioner, in the ordinary
course of his (sic) medical practice; or
(c) a dentist as defined in the Dentists Act 1931, approved by
the Board, in the practice of dentistry as defined in that Act; or
(d) a prescribed person, under or in accordance with the
conditions specified in relation to him (sic) by the Board,
shall not engage in the practice of hypnosis.
Penalty: Five hundred dollars or three months' imprisonment.
According to the Department of Health, as of April 2008 there were only four lay
hypnotherapists approved by the South Australian Psychological Board (SAPB)
10 Department of Health, 2008 page 36.
Social Development Committee of the South 10 Australian Parliament
practising in South Australia11. It is, however, possible that other individuals continue to provide hypnosis under various names such as trance work, relaxation, guided visual imagery or deep meditation. According to the Department of Health, such
practices would not come under the jurisdiction of the South Australian Psychological
Board should a complaint be made.
PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICE BILL 2006
The Psychological Practice Bill 2006, introduced into Parliament on 27 September
2006, aims to remove the current restrictions placed on the practice of hypnosis. The
grounds for removing the restriction include:
 The practice of hypnosis and hypnotherapy does not warrant regulation since
the nature and severity of the risk to the client group, wider public or
practitioner, based on the evidence provided does not pose a significant risk of
harm to the health and safety of the public.
 People in a number of professions and disciplines may wish to use hypnosis
for fee or reward but have been restricted from doing so by Part 4, Section 39
of the current Act.
 There are difficulties in defining hypnosis and in identifying related practices
that could be defined as hypnosis under the Act. It is therefore possible to
provide a similar service using a different name.
 The Act enables certain practitioners such as medical practitioner and
psychologists to provide this service regardless of whether they are qualified
to do so.12
The Bill has not yet passed. If passed, the Bill would repeal the Psychological
Practices Act 1973.
POLICYCONTEXT
In its report, the Department of Health noted that there are a number of other national
and state initiatives that impact on this issue13:
National Competition Policy Agreement
In 1995, the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments signed the
Competition Principles Agreement. The Agreement stated that legislation should not
restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that the benefits of restriction to the
community as a whole outweigh the costs; and the objectives of the legislation can
only be achieved by restricting competition.
11 Department of Health, 2008 page 5.
12 Department of Health, 2008 page 7.
13 For the most part, the policy context section presented here is an abridged version of the Department
of Health report (pages 5-7).
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament 11
Under the National Competition Policy Agreement, all Australian States and
Territories were required to review health practitioner legislation to ensure it was
consistent with national competition principles.
National Competition Review Panel of the South Australian Psychological
Practices Act 1973
In the late 1990s, as part of the review of all health practitioner legislation, the
National Competition Review Panel examined the South Australian Psychological
Practices Act 1973. In doing so, the Review Panel recommended that all references to
hypnosis be deleted, noting that people working in a number of professions and
disciplines may want to use hypnosis in a professional context but are restricted from doing so because of the provision contained in Part 4, Section 39 of the Act.
Moreover, the Review Panel found that the definition of ‘hypnosis’ in Part 4 of the
Psychological Practices Act 1973 had limited effect because it allows other providers
to offer a related or identical service as long as the term ‘hypnosis’ is not used. The effectiveness of Section 39 of the Act was also questioned because it allows any
psychologist or medical practitioner to use hypnosis regardless of whether they have
any specific training in that field.
The National Competition Review Panel also noted that there was little evidence of
harm resulting from the practice of hypnosis or similar practices and, in addition,
there is a continuing difficulty in defining ‘hypnosis’ and related terms such as
‘hypnotherapy’.
As a result of the findings of the review, the State Government developed the
Psychological Practice Bill 2006 and removed the reference to hypnosis in this Bill—
in line with similar legislation across Australia.
Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council (AHMAC) criteria and process
for the regulation of unregulated health occupations
In 1995, the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council (AHMAC) established a
process for determining whether to regulate any currently unregulated health
profession. A number of core criteria were set by AHMAC for assessing whether a
profession should be regulated by legislation. The criteria (re-endorsed in March
2007) are as follows:
 Is it appropriate for Health Ministers to exercise responsibility for regulating
the occupation in question, or does the occupation more appropriately fall
within the domain of another Ministry?
 Do the activities of the occupation pose a significant risk of harm to the health
and safety of the public?
 Do existing regulatory or other mechanisms fail to address health and safety
issues?
 Is regulation possible to implement for the occupation in question?
 Is regulation practical to implement for the occupation in question?
Social Development Committee of the South 12 Australian Parliament
 Do the benefits to the public of regulation clearly outweigh the potential
negative impact of such regulation?
AHMAC decision on hypnosis and hypnotherapy
In 1996, AHMAC determined that there was no need to regulate hypnosis on the
grounds that there was no demonstrable harm to the public.
REGULATORY MEASURES
While the Department of Health’s report explains why the current legislative
restrictions placed on the practice of hypnosis should be lifted, it also importantly
recommends that some protections need to be put in place. Specifically, the
Department’s report suggests that a code of conduct for unregistered health
practitioners (including lay hypnotherapists) should be considered, and could be
modelled on those which exist in New South Wales and New Zealand.
The Committee understands that New South Wales introduced a code of conduct for
unregistered health practitioners on 1 August 2008.14 The code underpins the
amendments made by the Health Legislation Amendment (Unregistered Health
Practitioners) Act 2006 and strengthens the NSW Health Care Complaints
Commission’s powers relating to:
 health providers who are not registered with a registration board, such as
naturopaths, acupuncturists, and psychotherapists
 practitioners whose registration has been suspended or cancelled, and who
seek to practise in an area where they do not need registration
 registered practitioners who provide health services that are unrelated to their
registration.
In providing background information, Ms Kay Anastassiadis, Senior Policy Officer,
Department of Health told the Committee:
[The] New South Wales code of conduct for unregistered health
practitioners was developed following a consultation process that included a
wide range of organisations and individuals from relevant health-care
professions and services. The provision for this code of conduct is found in
the New South Wales Public Health Act 1991 under the Health Legislation
Amendment Act and the Health Legislation Amendment (Unregistered
Health Practitioners) Act 2006 … Under the Act, the term 'unregistered
health practitioner' refers to any person who provides a health service and
who is not registered under a health professional registration Act in New
South Wales. It includes counsellors, psychotherapists, massage therapists,
naturopaths, herbalists, reiki therapists, homoeopaths, and other
14 Information sourced from the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission website accessed 4
September 2008 at www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/html/Code_Contuct_Unregistered_page.htm
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament 13
complementary and alternative health practitioners, so it is quite broad in its
application.15
In explaining the New Zealand code, Ms Anastassiadis, noted:
[This] code confers a number of rights on all consumers of health and
disability services in New Zealand and it also places corresponding
obligations on providers of those services. The application of the code is
very wide, and extends to any person or organisation providing or holding
themselves out as providing health services to the public or a section of the
public, whether that service is paid for or not. The code therefore covers all
registered health professionals, such as doctors and nurses, and also covers
alternative therapy or unregulated practitioners.16
The Department of Health’s report notes that the primary issue for consideration in
establishing a code of conduct is the enabling legislative framework. It concludes that the South Australian Health and Community Services Complaints Act 2004 is the
most appropriate legislation for establishing this. The report also states that there
ought to be processes in place to allow for greater collaboration between the lay
hypnotherapy professions and the medical and psychological hypnotherapy profession
to progress such things as research on national training curriculum standards,
standards of practice and on the effectiveness and safety of lay hypnotherapy.
SUMMARY OF OTHER EVIDENCE
In all, the Committee received seven submissions (five written submissions and two
oral presentations).17
One of those submissions was from the South Australian Society of Hypnosis
(SASH), a professional association of hypnosis practitioners whose members come
from the three groups that are currently able to practise hypnosis in South Australia,namely medical practitioners, psychologists and dentists. According to SASH:
[T]he practice of hypnosis should not be deregulated completely in South
Australia. Significant potential harms are likely to the public if this
technique is used by practitioners who have had no training in a healthcare
field and are not accountable to a professional body.18
While SASH supports ‘some deregulation’, it considers that the practise of hypnosis
should remain the preserve of healthcare professionals who belong to professional
bodies. It further recommends that these health professionals ‘should be encouraged
15 Ms Kay Anastassiadis, Committee Hansard, 2008 page 158.
16 Ms Kay Anastassiadis, Committee Hansard, 2008 pages 158 and 159.
17 It should be noted that the Council of Clinical Hypnotherapists provided a written submission as well
as providing oral evidence to the Inquiry.
18 South Australian Society of Hypnosis, written submission, 2008 page 4.
Social Development Committee of the South 14 Australian Parliament
to undergo formal training in [the use of hypnosis] to a standard at least equivalent to
that recommended by the Australian Society of Hypnosis.’19
In contrast, another submission argued that the resistance by some psychologists
towards lifting the current restrictions on the practice of hypnosis had very little to do
with any possible harm that may ensue, but more to do with a ‘fear of justifiable
competition and loss of income.’20 The submission also argued that over the past two
decades ‘training hours, qualifications and accreditation of hypnotherapists … exceed
by hundreds of hours the hypnotherapy training, which some psychologists choose to
study, outside of their University courses.’21 The Committee is concerned that current
legislation allows some registered professions to practise hypnosis with little to no
training in the field.
As the Board responsible for the oversight of hypnosis in South Australia (other than
for registered medical practitioners), the South Australian Psychological Board
(SAPB) was requested to comment on the Department of Health’s report and the
proposal to lift the restriction to practice. In response, the SAPB commented that it
agreed with the ‘findings and conclusion reached’ in the report and supported the
removal of the prohibition to practice from the Psychological Practices Act 1973.
Two further submissions specifically relating to hypnosis were received from the
Australian Hypnotherapists Association and the Hypnosis Associations of
Queensland. Both submissions were generally supportive of the findings arrived at by
the Department of Health and supported the recommendation that hypnosis be
deregulated in South Australia.
Committee Comment
The Committee notes the concerns expressed by the South Australian Society of
Hypnosis (SASH) and does not support the lifting of current restrictions on the
practise of hypnosis without the concomitant introduction of a new legislative
framework to ensure the public is protected from untrained and unskilled
practitioners.
19 South Australian Society of Hypnosis, written submission, 2008 page 4.
20 Mr Bruce Richardson, written submission, 2008 page 2.
21 Mr Bruce Richardson, written submission, 2008 page 2.
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament 15
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Committee has examined the Department of Health’s Report on Harms
Associated with the Practice of Hypnosis and the Possibility of Developing a Code of
Conduct for Registered and Unregistered Health Practitioners. The Committee notes
the report’s assessment that across Australia and internationally very few jurisdictions
regulate the use of hypnosis and hypnotherapy. The Committee notes that an earlier
review of the Psychological Practices Act 1973 (SA) (as required under the National
Competition Policy Agreement) recommended that current restrictions on the practice
of hypnosis should be lifted to allow other professionals to use hypnosis as part of
their treatment modality.
The Committee accepts the conclusions contained in the Department of Health report
that while there is a paucity of scientific evidence of the safety and efficacy of
hypnosis and hypnotherapy as practised by lay hypnotherapists, ‘the evidence of a
high risk of harm to the public does not appear sufficient to warrant a prohibition on practise.’22 Furthermore, the Committee notes the report’s findings that there is some ‘emerging and promising evidence regarding the benefits and safety in the use of
hypnosis as an adjunctive therapy.’23
In keeping with the findings of the Department of Health’s report, the Committee
supports the lifting of the current legislative restrictions placed on the practice of hypnosis. It does, however, strongly support the introduction of a new regulatory
framework to ensure that only those who are properly trained and have met
appropriate standards of education are able to practise hypnosis. The Committee
therefore makes the following recommendations:
1. The Committee recommends that the Minister for Health ensure that –
consistent with national competition policy principles – current legislative
restrictions limiting the practise of hypnosis to certain health professions are
removed.
2. The Committee recommends that the Minister for Health:
a) examine the merits of other models regulating the practice of hypnosis
and hypnotherapy to determine their appropriateness and applicability
to South Australia;
b) introduce a new regulatory framework to cover the broad range of
currently unregistered health practitioners and ensures that the practice
of hypnosis and hypnotherapy falls within this framework;
c) ensure that, as part of the new regulatory framework, proper standards
of education and training for the practice of hypnosis are established.
22 Department of Health, April 2008 page 2.
23 Department of Health, April 2008 page 2.
Social Development Committee of the South 16 Australian Parliament
3. The Committee recommends that:
a) the Department of Health undertake an evaluation, within two years of
the introduction of a new regulatory framework, to assess its impact on
the safety and efficacy of the practice of hypnosis and hypnotherapy.
b) the findings of the evaluation be communicated to relevant
stakeholders and made publicly available.
Hon Ian Hunter MLC
Presiding Member
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament 17
LIST OFWITNESSES
The following people provided oral submissions specifically related to the hypnosis
Inquiry:
15 September 2008
Council of Clinical Hypnotherapists
– Mr Alan Stubenrauch, President
– Mr Bruce Richardson, Vice President
27 October 2008
Department of Health
– Ms Kaye Anastassiadis, Principal Policy Officer, Policy & Legislation Unit
– Ms Lee Wightman, Principal Policy Officer, Policy & Legislation Unit
LIST OF SUBMISSIONS
The following organisations provided written submissions specifically related to the
hypnosis Inquiry:
– Australian Hypnotherapists Association
– Council of Clinical Hypnotherapists
– Hypnosis Association of Queensland
– South Australian Psychological Board
– South Australian Society of Hypnosis
Social Development Committee of the South 18 Australian Parliament
Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament 19
APPENDIX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE
Social Development Committee
South Australian Parliament
BOGUS, UNREGISTERED &DEREGISTERED
HEALTH PRACTITIONERS
This reference was referred to the Committee on a motion of the Hon P L White MP,
on Wednesday 20 June 2007 that ~
The Social Development Committee investigate and report upon the issue of
bogus, unregistered and deregistered health practitioners in South Australia,
and in particular 
a) their prevalence in South Australia;
b) the practices they use, and associated health and safety risks;
c) the methods they use to promote their services and the risks of
exploitation of sick and vulnerable people;
d) the measures, regulatory or otherwise, that can be taken to better
protect the public; and
e) any other related matter.
In addition on 7 May 2008 the House of Assembly resolved on a motion of the
Minister for Health that:
the Social Development Committee examine the report on harms associated
with the practice of hypnosis and the possibility of developing a code of
conduct for registered and unregistered health practitioners in the context of
its current inquiry into bogus, unregistered and deregistered health
practitioners.

Hypnose en de wetten

zaterdag 6 juni 2009

Hypnose in wetten: South Australia

Hypnose & de wetten in België

Volgers

Blogarchief