Is the Counselling College misinforming members too?

Based on the survey results sent by a RAPS supporter, there was not a strong division among the members of the Counselling College.

I have copied and pasted their stats results below for your information. So judge for yourself.

APS College of Counselling Psychologists survey results on the current Medicare Two‐Tier System.

  • 94.53% of members do not agree with the current two‐tier Medicare system.
  •  94.82% of members believe that all endorsed psychologists who work with mental health should be on tier one. (Not just Clinical Psychologists)
  • 70.49% of members believed that all registered psychologists should be on a single tier.
  • 98.25% of members believe their skills and training equate to the Medicare requirements of practicing “Psychological Therapy”. (Currently this is only offered on the top‐tier).

Summary of disenfranchisement:

  • Most members do not believe the APS Board has advocated for Counselling Psychologists to be on the top‐tier (80.78%).
  • 75.47% would consider leaving the APS if the current two‐tier system remained the same.

Your words were heard!

  • Many members wrote in the comments section of the unjustified, unfair, and discriminatory effect the two‐tier system has had on them and their clients.
  • Many members were also concerned with the divisiveness the current two‐tier system has created amongst psychologists.
  • Many members believe their skills, education, and knowledge in helping people with mental health issues is comparable to Clinical Psychologists in regards to assessment, formulation, diagnosis and psychological therapy.
  • Many members have been concerned with the perception that the two‐tier system has created amongst psychologists, other health professionals, students, and consumers and they believe that the 2 tier system has fostered a false belief
    that Clinical Psychologists are more qualified to deal with mental health issues.
  • Members reported that this false belief has negatively impacted their referrals, employability and income.
  • A number of members also commented on the bias of the APS Board towards Clinical Psychologists.

One thought on “Is the Counselling College misinforming members too?

  1. Who is advocating for parity of recognition regarding the non-endorsed psychologist? Are we being left behind?

    I voiced my concerns and disapproval when the APS was proposing the Division of General and Division of Specialist Psychology a few years ago! I told them I did not agree and did not want to therefore support this proposal.

    In my opinion, in stating my position, I was struck off the list. They continued on their mission as it exists, they then obviously only consulted with those who supported this model to pass it through! I therefore do not know how they conducted their consultative process nor how many other psychologists such as I, the majority, received this degrading proposal and objected to it. Who makes such significant decisions? It was not put to a vote…. Perhaps voting needs to be mandatory ie all the membership needs to vote.

    Nevertheless, the APS progressed the DGPP and now by default I am defined a “generalist” with the false assumption that I have “inadequate” competencies in the field I practice within, and this implies to the wider community/stakeholders that I am of the most basic and sub-standard category of psychologist who remains “unendorsed” and isn’t even recognised on the PBA/AHPRA system.

    The APS are proposing an assessment of competencies process!! What will it mean if you are assessed incompetent? Will you be struck off the register??? How will the membership be voting on this?

    The APS in their recent marketing campaign has not redressed this error in their description of the non-endorsed to the wider public. They have not provided an explanation that is meaningful and respectful, that those of us with no endorsement are still “qualified” in our areas of practice and that our framework of practice mirrors that of other categories of “applied” psychology which utilises evidence based counselling (psychological therapy/psychotherapy) frameworks and assessment. In my opinion it’s all a play on words! I was assured by the DGPP rep, who told me they were equally shocked with this, that it would be changed! When will this happen?

    The DGPP needs to be overhauled. The word to describe our practice is offensive. We need to be able to actively take charge of this and nominate more appropriate title and practice framework for the marketing campaign! We were not consulted! College of Applied Psychology? College of Psychological Practice? I have raised my concerns to the APS Board and DGPP. No changes!

    I am concerned that the APS is proposing competency assessments! We are all registered psychologists. We have met the legislated requirements of registration! Those of us who were unfortunate to have been registered post PBA/AHPRA and not pursued APS College membership nor offered a bridging program when we applied for one HAVE BEEN IN MY OPINION DISADVANTAGED! There was NO grandfathering as the APS has purported!

    I don’t know why I should continue to support RAPS and fund another year of membership to fight the cause when I may not benefit and be instrumental in only enabling “endorsed” psychologists to be included in the privileged categories of public recognition and value.

    Are the non-endorsed yet again being used as cannon fodder?

Leave a Reply