Voting has started!

RAPS is supporting the following candidates for election to the following positions.

RAPS How to Vote:
• President elect – Dr Michael Carr-Gregg
• DGPP: Joseph Gagliano
• DPRET: Dr Kevin Quin

We recommend that you place vote for these candidates and place a 1 in the box beside their names. We also recommend that you only vote for 1 candidate in each category and that you do not express a preference; that is, you do not place a 2, 3, or 4 in any of the other boxes.

It has been suggested that Dr Kevin Quin does not appear on some ballot papers. We would be grateful to be notified if any RAPS supporter finds that Dr Kevin Quin is not one of the DPRET candidates.

9 thoughts on “Voting has started!

  1. Have just voted as per RAPS recommendations – thanks.

    The package from the APS also included a proxy form for the AGM. Have you posted info on a RAPS rep. that we can nominate as a proxy for the meeting?

  2. Hi RAPS,

    as you’re aware I read Dr Carr-Gregg’s statement here several days ago with interest. I left a reply to his post asking him to clarify several issues about his policy position. That reply never made it past your moderation.

    The issues I raised are of direct relevance to the issues that have been debated here for many months and therefore of direct relevant to your members. I have included the original post below and will be very interested to see if this time my reply is allowed to be made public. If it isn’t, I’d wonder why you wouldn’t want your readership here to know the answers to some very straightforward questions about what position the potential next president will take in relation to the remuneration of his members.

    My original post from 9/11:
    It sounds like your position is:
    – in support of a one tier system
    – that the one tier would be the current Tier 1 level of remuneration NOT the lower level preferred by RAPS
    – and to work toward all ‘appropriately trained’ psychologists to join clinical psychologists on the current Tier 1 remuneration.
    Can you confirm if I’ve understood your position correctly?
    Can you outline what you believe an “appropriately qualified” psychologist is?
    Do you believe that non higher degree psychologists should receive the same remuneration as higher degree psychologists?
    Do you believe the government will agree to remunerate non-higher degree psychologists at the same level as higher degree psychologists?
    If you win the presidency:
    1) Will you fight for non higher degree psychologists to receive the same remuneration as higher degree psychologists?
    2) Will you ever agree to endorse/support a case that argues for a reduction in the remuneration of a significant proportion of the membership?

    1. Hi Interested Clinical

      Just to correct something in your post … you state:

      “– that the one tier would be the current Tier 1 level of remuneration NOT the lower level preferred by RAPS”

      This has never been the RAPS position on the tiers, that option was originally suggested by AAPi not by RAPS. RAPS position is;

      Lobby the government for a One Tier System. That is all, decisions regarding how such a system is implemented are ultimately made by the government.

      Additionally does this statement/question – “Do you believe that non higher degree psychologists should receive the same remuneration as higher degree psychologists?”

      assume that a Masters Degree form of education is superior to a 4+2 degree form of education? … if so can you please reveal your deep assumptions underlying the statement/question.

      What if the 4+2 was renamed as a Practitioner Masters and “Higher Degrees” where renamed as Academic Masters, so both are higher degrees? What if we substantially looked at the outcomes consumers are wanting, identifying gaps in current delivery of those outcomes, re-aligned education/training to better address those gaps, did this via a truly collaborative process involving equal input from academics, practitioner-academics, practitioners more involved with content, and practitioners more involved with process … what would the outcome look like? Would you then still hold to the somewhat compartmentalised view of higher degree Vs non-higher degree? Does it have to be this way? Is there a better way, more inclusive, more acknowledging, more encompassing of the whole and is it really necessary to speak of education in a divisive manner. I am certain that if we can put biases and personal agendas aside and focus upon the overall benefits for consumers and secondly for the profession that we can achieve something quite different to what we currently have. I obviously need to write on this blog (or somewhere) a lot more about this … we begin at the consumers needs, not ours, and then we ask what kind of processes for education and training can best meet those needs, we then find people who have genuine skill across the domains involved – both academic and practitioner and in equal proportion, and with recognition of domains of skill and therefore who can contribute best in which arena – we do not answer such a question by creating divisive language within our profession and arguing that this is better than that.

      Kind Regards


      1. Peter I agree!! and the model you propose was if you can recall how it use to be before PBA endorsements and Medicare 2 tier ie before clinical domination across Australia, except there was no Practitioner Masters vs Academic Masters dichotomy . This makes sense. I didnt pursue a Masters many moons ago because back then it typically lead one into research and/ teaching ie academia and the pursuit of a PhD. I am less insulted with the title of Practitioner Master than “Generalist”!

        We were united! We were mindful of consumer need and respectful of our collegues regardless of their areas of preferred practice! We were not threatened, we did not lobby for policy positions of power nor for domination. We consulted with each other and referred to each other when referrals went beyond our areas of self assessed competency. Clients paid the fee! This is how it needs to be! No more no less.

        I use to extend a high level of goodwill and refer to collegues but allas this was NEVER reciprocated so now I refer to psychiatrists for diagnostic assessments, reports etc and maintain my clients! I receive many many referrals via past client and GP recommendation and I am truly humbled and honoured.

        1. PS.. I know I keep referring to the past but in my opinion emerging psychologists with, what seems to me, discreet loyalties and alliances only to specific categories rather than the whole of the APS membership ie the profession of Psychology in Australia, need to be aware that the landscape that informed the expertise of their collegues pre PBA was very different. Dismissing us as incompetent and belittling those of us with no endorsenent is in my opinion defamatory. In my opinion APS College membership does not qualify you for Medicare tier funding it is the PBA endorsement criteria that Medicare is guided by! Correct me if I am wrong. APS membership IS NOT MANDATORY.

          Those of us who remain unendorsed or who are not clinical members can potentially leave the APS if it does not begin to advocate on behalf of ALL THE MEMBERSHIP EQUALLY. Is the APS prepared to loose its membership majority? Imagine the loss of revenue!

          Peter I dont know if you can recall many years ago the APS had a Division of Independently Practising Psychologists. There were specific requirements, resources and licensing fees you needed to purchase to advertise under the APS banner. Now its available to all as part of our membership fee. I still have my last certificate of membership. It was not a true member group because there was no member group list you could tap into as one can now as an APS College member. I cannot recall being consulted by APS pre the termination of this Division which was one of the many that members could join. This is what I had at the time decided to align with as I was working in independent private practice and engaged in clinical practice ie GPs, Psychiatrists, Pediatricians referred to me and probationary psychologists engaged with me for supervision to meet registration requirements!

          Thus I did not pursue that “academic master pathway” which in my opinion at that time was more targetted to progressing one into research and into the teaching of our trade. There was no alternative offered to me nor assistance re grandfathering into the new APS “College” framework as by default I suddenly did not qualify to apply for a masters as I had just missed out on the 10yr rule. I had commenced a Masters but I did not pursue because of personal reasons and it added NO VALUE as I had already been practicing in the area as a registered psychologist and was advanced in my application and theoretical knowledge having received direct training supervision and teaching via a state gov org invested in psychology!!!!! so I couldn’t justify the time and money just for “that piece of paper” .

          In Victoria, I dont know about other State, the APS still “funds” the Private Practice Working Party (PPWP) to present seminars for members in private practice and from time to time provide free movie tickets for screening of “topical” movies. This is not a member group one can “join” as it is not part of the APS interest group list. Correct me if I am wrong. I wonder if this was connected to the Division I mentioned above?

          Why was there no APS College of Independently Practicing Psychologists or its equivalent transitioned to PBA for endorsement of those 4+2s who at that time had undertaken a rigorous 2yr probationary period in meeting the requirements of the State registration legislation and in my case was continued accessing supervision from senior psychologists for many years beyond this as a requirement of my ongoing employment in the field; in addition to CPD offered via APS because pre PBA all PD for APS members needed to be APS accredited! A huge investment of money! The APS had a monopoly on training.

          Why did the APS not advocate for their members with no colkege affiliation to not be deemed “non endorsed” within their chosen areas of “demonstrated” practice over the many years just because they didnt have that Masters (as they had advocated for their health and community college members) because in my case I certainly had the industry based training and supervision for many years post registration? I have been a continuous member since 1992 and rendered “non endorsed”! These discriminatory and defamatory practices within our profession must be redressed. regardless of our affiliation with any APS member group which includes the APS.

          The APS has represented itself as the peak body for psychologists in Australia and as such, in my opinion, the APS needs to advocate on behalf of all psychologists in Australia!

Leave a Reply