The Executive Director has assured us in APS Matters that in the next few weeks APS members will have a chance to have their say on the two-tier system and Better Access.
RAPS wants to know why this hasn’t happened during the 10 years since Better Access started? Why hasn’t the APS board asked for members’ views before?
What has been the official APS position on the two-tier system up to now? What proposals, submissions and advice have been provided from the peak body in psychology to Government over the past 10 years?
We know the Clinical College supports the two-tier system and 10% of its members have threatened to leave the APS if the board doesn’t support the two-tier system.
It’s an old saying in the legal fraternity that you never ask someone a question if you don’t know for sure what the answer will be. Call us paranoid, but we can’t help but wonder if the APS thinks it already knows what answer it’s going to get. Has something changed?
We have heard that the Colleges have been seduced into accepting the two-tier system with promises of their members being upgraded to the top tier. Unfortunately, these assurances have been offered before and snatched away before. History isn’t on their side.
The current offer, as we understand it, is for the other colleges to become sub-specialities of the Clinical College. Clinical Sport? Clinical Neuro? Clinical Counselling?
We can only wonder what compromises might be involved in these deals. Will the other colleges have to swear allegiance to the medical model? Will they be able to retain their unique competencies or will they have to be under the thumb of the clinical competencies?
And how certain are they of the delivery of such promises, with the government so cash-strapped?
We know the colleges are worried about the exposure that RAPS is providing for members. They are forcing members to sign a Code of Conduct to stop them participating. They are calling it a conflict of interests for members to speak out about the discrimination against non-clinical members.
In a democracy people have a right to speak out against any issues they disagree with. In the APS it’s categorised as a conflict of interests. When did a difference of opinion become a conflict of interests?
The latter only arises when you make a decision while having a material interest in the outcome. Let’s see now … who might that apply to?