When the APS made its first submission to the government in 2006 that only a small group of members of the clinical college should be more highly paid than every other psychologist, what evidence did they offer? How did they pull off this clinical coup? How did they convince Tony Abbot to create a higher tier? What evidence did they use?
What right did the APS have to do this? Did members vote on it? How did they get away with devaluing the majority of their members in this way and still claim to represent them?
What evidence is there that clinical psychologists deserve a higher rebate than other psychologists? How does someone like Dr Michael Carr-Gregg, a world recognised child and adolescent psychologist – and Counselling psychologist – end up being on a lower rebate? How does this make sense? And there are many others in this position.
Did the APS collude with the universities (via the accreditation body, APAC, pre-2009) to convince government to gain more funding for psychology?
Just who has benefited from this clinical coup? The universities have and the members of the Clinical College. But the profession certainly hasn’t!