Comments keep coming …

Member: “Stating (they were going to create more bridging courses) isn’t going to be good enough. I need to see them materialise. They have been promised for years. They also need to be accessible. I can’t afford to take a year off work to do yet another course.”

Member:“I would welcome doing a bridging course. But as I have been a psychologist for nearly 30 years and in private practice for about 20 I would be made to go back and do placements to get my clinical hours. I’ve calculated that I have approx 250,000 clinical hours now. It doesn’t really make sense.”

Member:”I have been a registered psychologist since 1990 and a continuous APS Member since 1992 via rigorous 4+2+2 (“clinical “experience in my area of employment). I was not struck off the membership list BUT I have been devalued in many other ways!!!! Perhaps not renewing my membership meets their hidden agenda?? I will renew my membership! It is our APS. It is not the ACPS.

Member: “I was curious to find out what the ruling is for not for profit organisations like the APS in charging increasingly higher fees for memberships and now in advocating /influencing gov for fee generating certification training programs for non endorsed registered psychologists (in meeting area of endorsement requirements).”

Member: “WOW! What an excellent and outstanding history and achievements. If it wasn’t for Cichello’s “scurrilous” email I never would have known about RAPS. Of course, the first thing I wanted to do was find out all about the “scurrilous” psychologists Cichello was complaining about. I’m so glad that I did find out about RAPS and have been able to support RAPS in its fight against clinical dominance of our society. So thank you Cichello, for without your email so many psychologists never would have known about RAPS”

Member: “The desperation in the actions of those pushing the clinical barrow was confusing to me as I could not understand their agenda. Then I twigged. Their agenda must be to eliminate all 4+2 trained psychologists from the workforce. Your article confirms my suspicions. Now it all makes sense, but what a frightening prospect! And how unfair to the public.”

4 thoughts on “Comments keep coming …

    1. Thank you “Concerned Psychologist” for providing the link to an excellent paper by Dr Roger Peters. I totally agree with it. Highly recommended reading for everyone! Maybe we can send this paper along with Dr Clive Jones’ paper to all government departments, e.g. Medicare, Centrelink, etc.

  1. I remember being appalled when the ‘clinical’ snobbery started all those years ago, but felt too powerless to do anything about it. It is totally against our values and ethics as Psychologists to create a feudal system in our association.

    It is totally against Australian values to have this 2 tier system, especially one based on falsehood. I am not a ‘generalist’. The work I do is highly specialised and CBT is NOT the best modality for the trauma, abuse and the developmental issues I address every day. I can switch my approach in a moment to suit, but I am considered a lesser being because I didn’t do this precious Clinical Masters – and have no interest in doing. I have plenty of qualifications already…and over 30 years experience.

    I defy any of these so called experts to successfully do the work we ‘generalists’ do every day, with heart and scientific rigour both.

    Good on you RAPS for giving us a voice at last.


  2. Dear colleagues, BE-AWARE!

    In my opinion, if you are not an APS college member then within the current environment there’s no hope!

    I am an APS member since early 90s who is not affiliated with any College. I was a member of the APS Division of Psychologists in Independent Private Practice BUT this was discontinued. I wonder why. I can’t recall being invited to attend any meeting, being on a member list or being contacted by the Division Chair. If anyone knows anything about this please post on the blog.
    I have no area of practice endorsement. I do not have a Masters. It was not mandatory for our profession when I was an emerging Psychologist. I chose the hands on “clinical” pathway as I did not want to get into research or teaching. I worked in large organisations applying “clinical” psychology, supervising emerging practitioners and managing specialist teams and then branched out into private practice. It was a fantastic journey! I remain passionate!

    I have maintained ongoing current evidence based professional development/competencies including multiple further Graduate studies beyond that which is required and have fulfilled all legislated registration requirements, and continue to do so.
    Registration has been my licence to engage in private “clinical” practice since 1997! However, I remain disenfranchised, disillusioned and continuously subjected to discrimination and defamation.

    My curiosity has found me searching the net even more now than ever, trying to make sense, trying to work out where my profession has failed me. I have been reading historical information, including submissions, that I have sourced regarding various Senate Inquiries during that transitioning period when Psychology as we had known it post 2010 in my opinion changed.

    Peer and organisation submissions were purporting superior competencies to justify the higher Medicare rebate. I am puzzled. Were these submissions in themselves breaches of our code of ethics? Were these registered psychologists who were claiming and advertising /marketing specialisation and specialist titles also in breach of our code and national law?
    In my opinion, they were “shielded” by the very mechanisms that were established to protect the public from such claims. Even WA specialist title had to cease being used in 2013! Yet the APS still advertised/marketed college memberships as specialisations/specialists. Is this in breach of National Law?
    I have been trying to find the documented APS advocacy/lobbying strategy for those of us non-college 4 + 2 APS members to attain area of practice endorsement and comparative recognition within the Medicare system, which the APS states was their proposed policy position. I can’t find one. If anyone has such a document please post the link.
    I came across some archived APS Clinical College meeting minutes with evidence of a huge lobbying campaign endorsed by the then APS Clinical College Chair who provided detailed information via proformas and encouraged a cut and paste approach to submissions, the army was mobilised, and who also reported

    “The APS position…..
    Many of you asked what the APS position is on the two-tier system and its inclusion within the TOR. APS is finalising their public comment on the two tier system. The clinical college is fortunate in having a very good relationship with the APS Executive and, like all APS constituent units, we continue to have forthright, honest and mature discussions.”

    There are also archived APS Clinical College Minutes from early 2000s. They make a very interesting read.

    I also came across a document, a 2012 paper, formulating recommendations re changing the clinical psychology training programs in Australia to align with competencies…so once the clinicals achieved their desired goal of “specialist” title within Medicare and higher fees, it seems they needed to back pedal and make sure that the training supported their claims… so it makes interesting reading…..they talk about ‘curriculum re-imagining’

    [PDF] Taking clinical psychology postgraduate training into the next decade: Aligning competencies to the

    “The aim of this project is to better align competencies and the curriculum in clinical psychology with best practice for new postgraduates, so that they are prepared to function in the current and future health service climate. We are developing and where feasible, trialling training innovations to both extend the evidence base for best practice in clinical psychology training. These revisions to the curriculum are designed to be flexible and responsive to new initiatives, such as the continuing changes to Medicare access for psychological treatment. This challenge can only be met through a national cooperative effort involving key stakeholders: state registration boards, professional peak bodies, and major university training programs” pg 5.

    “A national survey of workforce issues and training revealed that there were approximately 700 postgraduate clinical psychology training places a year offered across 34 university postgraduate training programs (Grenyer et al.,2010). However, the authors of this study also point out that in 2008 half of psychologists undertaking training did not undertake postgraduate training at a university, but instead undertook four years of university psychology followed by a 2 year apprenticeship program.” Pg 3.
    “In order to move the clinical psychology training curriculum forward, it needs to be re-examined from a broad, national perspective, with reference to national and international standards. The existing curricula in clinical psychology need to be aligned with best-practice standards in terms of discipline content as well as best practice in teaching and learning strategies.” Pg 11

    So if such significant reform was required in the training of future clinical psychologists, does this mean that APS Clinical College members grandfathered into AHPRA attaining an endorsement in the area of practice of clinical psychology did not meet competencies?

    Where was the “investment” in the grandfathering of the 4 + 2 Psychologists into their areas of practice endorsement? We had evidence to support our “endorsements” as we were able to demonstrate competencies as obtained from “real” “industry based training” not “academic” exercises and time limited placements, and our multiple years of direct “clinical” practice, cpd and meeting legislated requirements, unlike the clinical psychology candidate whose entire training program of clinical psychologists was post “endorsement” phase needing reconstruction?

    Where was the APS Division of Psychologists in Private Practice lobbying for my survival? I belonged to this group. When was it discontinued and why? Where was our voice?

    Where was the DGPPs submission to any Senate Inquiry or public acknowledgment of my concerns and the concerns of other peers in my position? If anyone has a copy of such a submission please post the link.

    In my opinion as a 4 + 2 + 1 + 1 +1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 and beyond I have by default been condemned to the level of substandard expertise and competencies and I remain deeply offended.

    Dear APS Board, please prove me wrong!

Leave a Reply