Spill Results from the AGM

At the AGM yesterday, 7th October, the clinical majority on the board was massively increased. There are now 7 out of 8 club Clinical directors on the board.

These are:

Anthony Ciccello, Lyn Littlefield, Aaran Frost, Deborah Wilmoth, and newly elected Tim Carey, Chris Lee and Ros Knight. The only non-Clinical standing is Joe Gagliano, who won against Andrew Chua, the DGPP. 

RAPS didn’t have the numbers to spill the board and the clinical faction voted to spill all the non-clinical directors.

They wiped out all the non-clinical directors who had tried to make a more representative board.

This result makes the mockery of the principle of the majority rule. We now have the situation where the clinical minority has complete power.

Thank you to all of you who supported RAPS. We really increased our number of votes and proxies from the EGM but it was not quite enough. 

Raps team. 

117 thoughts on “Spill Results from the AGM

  1. Hi Peter,

    I agree with you that obtaining the data would be helpful to gain more clarity about what has happened.

    I also agree that everything we are discussing here is based solely on assumptions.

    For example, regarding Joe’s win:

    – we can assume he won because the Clinical cohort were unable to vote for that position; but

    – we can also assume that he won because RAPS supporters were spurred on to vote for the DGPP position, where in the past they wouldn’t have voted at all. We know that historically the vast majority of members do not engage in these elections – I was one such member, and voted for the first time in this election, after being a member for 6 years.

    However, even if we assume that the majority of voting members were Clinical, the fact that only Directors who have been associated with RAPS were spilled, still suggests that this association led to their demise.

    No previous election year has seen such coordinated and sustained effort from any college to spur members into action. Sadly, the efforts to awaken the generalists awareness of the RAPS movement, also spilled over to those in the Clinical College and others.

    It is very possible that had a higher proportion of Generalists been engaged in time, the outcome may have been different. But that does not negate the fact that the toxic side of this debate has simply been louder than the logical arguments underpinning the discussion and provided strong ammunition to motivate a higher turnout against RAPS. Have you had a chance to read the document that Matt added below from ACPA? The president states the following:

    “A new movement amongst the membership of the Australian Psychological Society (APS), termed ‘Reform APS’, has led to further rifts and divisiveness that threatens not only the APS Board, but the existence of Medicare rebates to generalist and other specialised non-clinical psychologists.”

    I can see how this type of framing could lead both generalists and non-clinical postgraduates to fear the adverse impact of RAPS.

    For the issues to be framed in the above way is a great disservice to all the effort you are all expending, as well as to all non-clinical psychologists who desperately need for things to change! And this is why I feel it is imperative that a thorough review of RAPS narrative be conducted and for it to be reframed in a way more likely to engage support, not opposition.

    But that is just my opinion. I don’t think we should give up the fight, I just think we need to fight smarter. 🙂

    Warmest Regards,

    Tia

  2. Unfortunately you are wrong Gregory. The APS rightlyor wrongly got all psycholigists into medicare, but initially it was only going to ‘mental health’ psychologists. Thusvwas then broadened at the APS insistence… get the facts right.

    1. ‘interested’ (your name??)- i think you’ll find that you are wrong. The APS advocated that only ‘clinicals’ should gain a Medicare item number. It was Abbott who suggested that other psychologists should be included, as what is the use of a system in which only 5,000 or so can service the entire population? The APS argued against ‘gen’ psychs being included at all. Abbott insisted. So the APS insisted that ‘clins’ should get a higher rebate (ie. for doing the same work, with the same population, for the same outcomes- someone has been scammed here). The APS continue to advocate for the higher rebate for ‘clins’, totally ignoring reality, against most of its members. As has been demonstrated by some of the ‘clin’ trolls on this discussion, it is quite feasible that the clinical clique (now totally in charge of the APS) next argue that ‘gen’ psychs should be removed from Medicare altogether- regardless of the damage that would do in the community. Self interests (ego/status, financial) rule the roost- not science, not fairness, not a concern for the community.

      1. Hi James and RAPS Team,

        Can someone please point me to the document that stipulates Abbott insisted on all Psychologists being included or that the APS actively advocated for the 2 tiers?

        Whilst initially I accepted the multiple assertions made here that the APS were predominantly to blame for not advocating for the rights of Generalists, I slowly began to conduct my own research to understand the framework in which all this has happened and the basis for the allegations being made.

        As you know, once I became aware of ACPA’s public denigration of non-clinical psychologists I posted what I found here, to make sure that the relevant information is being acknowledged. I also posted an APS submission to the Mental Health Review Commission actively advocating for frameworks that would protect the Internship pathway, because as I conducted my own research I became confused by some of the assertions being made here and the contradictory evidence I encountered.

        For example, there are several posts throughout this forum (including the video that was disseminated a while back) attributing the infamous quote “worst trained in the western world” to the APS, however all evidence indicates this is not the case, and these words were in fact uttered by ACPA’s president. Confused by the apparent misattribution of these inflammatory quotes, I have now taken the time to read in full the original APS submission to the Government regarding Medicare and now I am even more confused than before.

        It clearly states in both documents, that Generalists with extensive mental health experience were to be included in the register and deemed to be Clinical Psychologists for the purposes of Medicare. It also clearly states that the Government stipulated that only Clinical Psychologists who were members of the APS College of Clinical Psychologists were to be granted access to Medicare and it is evident to me reading the documents that the APS attempted to give the Government what it asked for whilst ensuring experienced practitioners would not be unfairly excluded from providing services they were qualified to provide – some clever use of semantics in my opinion. The flowchart actually included 4+2 trained psychologists with 5yrs experience!

        So, can someone please point me in the direction of what I have missed? I believe that several things with the current landscape are not right and all non-clinical psychologists deserve to be afforded the professional respect and opportunities our profession has to offer. However, if this initiative is based on a distortion of the facts, then it will ultimately fail.

      2. Provide evidence of this statement James? Post that the APS did not want Gen psychologists. post where Abbott insisted Gen Psychs should be included ( like any politician would want to spend another 50 million by allowing more psychologists onto a scheme – I think not ). Put up the evidence James for all of us to once and for all see clearly who instigated psychologists being on Medicare or your statements will be seen as fraud !

  3. I am sorry that your efforts were not supported enough by the rank and file Generalist Psychologists. I appreciate your endless effort and suspect you are disappointed, frustrated and dispirited. Please know I valued the stand you took.

    I will do like a number of my Generalist colleagues have already done and not renew my APS membership after 30 years.

    By way of contrast, I have been associated with the Australian Association of Family Therapy (AAFT) for 35 years, and therefore, in one way or another with PACFA, the peak body established in 1997 to advocate for and regulate those with Counselling and Psychotherapy credentials. I attended their AGM this weekend and, while we struggled with a number of difficult matters at their Council meeting, the respect between practitioners from many different modalities and different training experiences is far superior to the division and elitism that the APS fosters.

    I would urge any disillusioned Generalist Psychologists, who wish to belong to a professional association where their voice and views are genuinely respected, to seriously consider an individual PACFA Registration or becoming a member of one of the state PACFA Branches or a Member Association like AAFT.

    Regards and thanks again for your great effort.

    IanG

    1. Hi Ian. 2 things. RAPS appears to be adjusting their strategies so it would be worth watching this site and re-evaluating your position when your APS membership falls due. Having said that, it is pointless, if not self-defeating, to remain a member under the current clinical junta. I would also point you in the direction of AAPi. Currently, I’m a member of both AAPi and APS although the latter was paid through gritted teeth.

    2. Hi Ian

      Thank you for the acknowledgement, yes there was some initial disappointment and I do appreciate your own. However I can assure you that RAPS will be very far removed from “disappointed, frustrated and dispirited”. Your decision regarding APS membership is entirely yours to make. Change from outside the system will be far more difficult. If you are able to find some endurance and belief you could help many generalists by at least remaining with the APS for another year. RAPS is very young, these changes do take time.

      Kind Regards

      Peter

    3. Dear Ian

      Thanks for the invite, but I have had a terrible time with PACFA via a member organisation which has now left that peak body, along with others of like mind.
      I would prefer to stick with RAPS and the APS to see if we can change the situation. Splintering into other organisations will weaken our focus.

      best wishes
      Pauline Nolan
      Psychologist

      1. Pauline I appreciate how frustrated everyone feels but if we leave then it remains that the APS will still be considered the Peak Body for PBA referencing and this Associations that gain our membership will still lack relevance.

        Please everyone, can we not act with emotional irrationality. When I joined the APS 20+ years ago and served on several state executives, it was an excellent organisation.

        Let’s stick to it and, with perseverance change it back to what it ought to be. As the saying goes “this too shall pass”.

        Really though, it’s all our own fault. We didn’t respond effectively and gave up when Cicello and co pulled the stunt of elevating clinicals at the time of the inception of the two tier system. We could have developed a sophisticated strategy back then and we wouldn’t have the problem now.

        Time is on our side – so let’s act like mature professionals and steadfastly market our needs and programs to the greater group of psychologists in Australia and educate them to be onside.

        Develop our own database and move forward. I for one don’t readily surrender to coercion and bullying. So RAPS is off the ground, has done a good job with limited time and resources. Now let’s hunker down for the long haul and real reform.

  4. Thank you Peter and Betty. I agree. We were up till midnight after the AGM and we have many great ideas to push forward. We’re not finished with the APS yet! Stay tuned. We have very little time to be effective. A few months. We have better strategies to be more effective. This year’s AGM was a dress rehearsal. Stay tuned. We have more and better ways to fight!

  5. Dear RAPS,

    As I read your comments about corruption and injustice about how the clinical faction somehow ‘rigged’ the results I am left scratching my head. The voting platform was the same for everyone in the APS and the 20000 or so members (which only a small portion are clinical) had their vote and decided the current landscape. So again, can someone please explain to me how the results indicate in some way that it is part of the ‘evil’ clinicals plan to take over the world? Just curious…

    1. John Doe (why don’t you use your real name?) The problem is that there was unequal access to a) voting rights b) information c) emails d) representation e) circulation.
      Also there were problems with the proxies online. The Clinical College is well funded and organised with access to information and resources and members in ways that RAPS only dreams of, but pays for. The process was unconstittutional because the new constitution is unconstitutional because the way it was put into effect was unconstitutional because the EGM was unconstitutional.
      I look forward to the official RAPS response. These are my thoughts. I am acting independently in expresssing these views and do not represent anyone other than myself in this instance.

  6. My sincere thanks to Jenny, Sophie and RAPS in general. What the APS proved last Saturday is that the corruption runs so deep that it cannot be reformed, only destroyed. The fight against the clinicals and for all non-clinicals must continue. In my view, the best way forward is to dump the APS, starve them of funds and join and become active in AAPi. Starting off yet another psychology/counselling organisation would be a waste of precious time and resources when we already have an established and recognised peak psychology body in the AAPi. The clinical takeover of the APS puts to the lie that the APS represents all psychologists and that the governance review would make consultation and representation more fair. LIES!

    Members here have spoken about consciousness raising. This should extend to our state and federal politicians informing them that the APS only acts in the interests of the minority clinical faction and not in the interests of non-clinical psychologists or their consumers. Referrers such as doctors, other professionals and the general public need to be made aware of the falsehoods spread by the APS and clinical faction. Last Saturday the clinicals made it abundantly clear that they are acting in their own self-interest. To this end, the APS has lost a huge amount of credibility, not that I think it had much credibility anyway. It is a long haul and my view is that change can only be achieved outside of the APS. We can do this by making AAPi a larger and more powerful body that can rightly and correctly claim to represent all psychologists and genuinely act in the interests of the consumer.

    1. Hi David

      There is a large strategic problem with what you suggest … are you able to email me, I suspect you have the address?

      Kind Regards

      Peter

      1. Hi Peter. Very happy to discuss publicly or privately but preferably publicly. Your email addy? Not ringing any bells, mate. Do you have mine?

    2. Hear! Hear! The clinical faction have made even more abundantly clear their prejudiced thinking. No fairness, no equity, no access to opportunity for the vast membership not clinical psychologists. Their ascendancy puts the final nail in the coffin of the diversity of post-grad psychology offerings by introducing/bolstering so-called “free” market forces into academe! The Masters degrees in all but clinical psychology are rapidly being wiped off the map!

      1. Gregg, all the Masters degrees were exactly the same bar a few subjects out of the 8. It was pointless to have 4/5 Masters so similar re as a business model. What the Uni’s didn’t do was replace the eliminated courses with one Masters that allowed taking subjects in a specialisation within the program. That’s the way forward. I believe we need one Masters with 4/6 generic subjects and 2/4 specialities and 60/80 students who choose their stream when enrolling. …and more of this type in more Uni’s.

        All streams lead to endorsement but only mental health streams lead to Medicare.

        Let’s work together.

        1. sure Cate- lets work together to denigrate most of Australia’s psychologists- to try and have the majority removed from Medicare rebates altogether; to have the Australian community only gain access to ‘clin’ psychs and psychiatrists. Lets work together to further cement a hegemony of power in the APS & PBA. Lets work together to force most Australian psychologists out of business, and make them unemployable. Lets work together to maintain a false narrative, against the only available evidence, of only one training pathway resulting in competent psychologists. I think you’ll find that as more Australian psychologists become more aware of your and your cohorts agenda of vested financial and status self-interests, fewer and fewer will want to work together with you in any capacity. Change is inevitable as injustice and falsehood cant withstand truth and the growing need for equity forever.

          1. Not helpful at all James. Your cohort want to create anarchy. You would have no standing with Government and would lead psychology into the dark ages. Why would they listen to you compared to someone who has an AOM and life fellowship with decades of experience lobbying for psychology. APS has got us everything we have today…even a rebate for you!

            1. Cate- the APS argued against giving any rebate to ‘gen’ psychs, not for it. Ironically, it was Tony Abbott as Health Minister who could see that the benefits to the community of having ‘gen’ psychs in Better Access- the APS argued against this. The AAPi President, Paul Stevenson, has an AOM- if that were a criteria for following an organisation, consider that box ticked. You call equity and fairness based on research evidence the ‘dark ages’- that is just a tad ironic. I dont know anyone in psychology who wants (or is aiming at) anarchy. Notions of fairness and equity based on research evidence is obviously an anathema to you, or a foreign language you just cannot comprehend. You have already revealed your interests Cate- financial. Every statement you make should be predicated with an appropriate disclaimer regarding your real interests.

              1. James, don’t waste your keystrokes on Cate’s trolling. It is all uninformed or ill-informed polemical diatribe aimed at upsetting us. My advice is don’t reinforce her attempts to get a rise out of us. The level of analyis and lack of evidence in what she writes is not deserving of a response in this forum. Just saying. I won’t grace her slurs with a response from now on. I know you will do what you think is best. And that is OK. Good luck to you mate.

                1. Words of Truth Gregory Goodluck! RAPS’s brave efforts were sabotaged by APS trolls presenting undermining views. Because of inexperience, we gave these lies weight by discussing them. Now we know better, such unsubstantiated slurs are best left ignored, so that we can focus only on those posts that support what we are all fighting for. NON-CLINICALLY ENDORSED LIVES MATTER!

                  1. reading Iain McGilchrist’s book,”The Master and His Emissary: the divided brain and the making of the Western world” last night when i came across his dystopian description of a world in which the left brain has even more influence over the culture than it already has. “Knowledge that came through experience, and the practical acquisition of embodied skill, would become suspect, appearing either a threat or simply incomprehensible. It would be replaced by tokens or representations, formal systems to be evidenced by paper qualifications. The concepts of skill and judgement, once considered the summit of human achievement, but which come only slowly and silently with the business of living, would be discarded in favour of quantifiable and repeatable processes. Expertise, which is what actually makes an expert, would be replaced by ‘expert’ knowledge that would have in fact to be based on theory, and in general one would expect a tendency increasingly to replace the concrete with the theoretical abstract, which would come to be seen as more convincing. Skills themselves would be reduced to algorithmic procedures which could be drawn up, and even if necessary regulated, by administrators, since without that, the mistrustful tendencies of the left hemisphere could not be certain that these nebulous ‘skills’ were being evenly and ‘correctly’ applied.” (p429).

                    Sounds familiar, doesnt it? Welcome to the Brave New World of Australian psychology, as co-created by the APS, and its political wing, the PBA.

                    PS- in regards to the RAPS Poll- there is no option to nominate members could both stay and fight, and leave for a new society. I think these are not mutually exclusive options.

      2. THANK YOU for saying what needed to be said Gregg. The clinical clique plotted and succeeded to vote out all the non-clinical board members – how is that democratic?

        1. Tanya, The clinical click did not vote out non-clinical board members. APS members in general voted to do that including a majority of generalists get your facts straight.

  7. We should all unite to lobby Gov for higher funding for all psychologist thereby saving government revenue squandered on ineffectual and debilitating overmedication of mental health clients and recirculating the funds within Australia not sending revenue offshore to big Pharma. We should collectively promote Psychology as more tgerapeutic and economically rational than pharmacology. We should unite and stop kissing butt.

  8. Dear RAPS – IN MY OPINION

    There is only so much that Jenny and Sophie can do as self nominated and self disclosed facilitators of this ENTIRE process.

    In my view, RAPS is not an organisation headed by Jenny and Sophie, it’s an internet FORUM for psychologists to share their concerns and experiences to unite psychology in Australia! Those who have contributed in confidence fear being sued.

    There is no funding allocated for pursuit of justice. There is no funding for Jenny and Sophie’s time or travel or accommodation, or food allowances, or travel insurances or loss of business, etc etc, nor any funding allocated to resource this whole process. They have relied on the goodwill of the forum participants but not all have been in a financial position to contribute…. ITS TOUGH (AND GETTING TOUGHER) OUT THERE FOR THE NON CLINICAL NON ENDORSED IN PRIVATE PRACTICE

    I wonder why the majority of APS members sharing these concerns did not send proxies for the spill? Was it THAT THEY WERE UNAWARE? IGNORANT? FEAR? COMFORT? FLYING UNDER THE RADAR HAPPY WITH THEIR SMALL NICHE? JUST DON’T CARE? Are we sure that those proxies sent were received?

    Now it’s the ACPS – the AAPi are recruiting……. if the majority of APS members transferred to the AAPi (now recognised by government) would they achieve a united profession? Why hasn’t the AAPi already done more to influence this agenda? Why is the AAPi not vocal? Why is there no media coverage? How many of the current AAPi members are also APS members? PEOPLE DO TEND TO TREAD CAUTIOUSLY

    I wonder how many members will actually resign from the APS? What do we stand to lose if we do? The fear of the unknown is greater for the non college APS member ie the non endorsed psychologist, who I am lead to believe form the SILENT majority. Sitting on the fence watching and waiting for something better but not becoming involved!

    In my opinion based on my experience, many in private practice work within small but ever expanding private business structures with clinical directors (ie owners) and with clinical collegues embedded within GP, public mental health, psychiatric and organisational referral pathways. Many of these practices are now recruiting based on “post graduate qualifications” (once upon a time POST GRADUATION equated to the 4th academic year of study ie the Post Graduate Degree, the Diploma Degree BUT NOW this equates to the MASTER’S degree…. TIMES HAVE CHANGED….. so if a non college member is already embedded within this “system” they would not dare leave! So we find ourselves within in a very difficult position.

    Do you think Joe as a facilitator of the DGPP will be able to have any impact surrounded by a clinical board? He has a Masters degree so perhaps for him things may change. In my opinion, the DGPP is not a member group it is a FORUM chaired by the president and exec dir. No member network. No advocacy.

    In my opinion, the APS non college members will remain the “non endorsed” “generalist” focussed strategies psychologist. The non-psychologist. With this emerging stepped care model we will remain at the lower rung of the hierarchy.

    As I said from the beginning of this journey, in my opinion the APS non-college members have been disenfranchised for so long – they have given up – a sense of powerlessness prevails – parallel to their non endorsed non psychologist status…. flying under the radar ….. seem to sit on the fence happy with their small niche of anything they can have (enough to pay the bills – some in private practice other a mix of different work – many looking forward to retirement) watching and waiting for something better if it comes along.

    I can’t speak for the non clinical college members of the APS who have a structure of “communication” and “advocacy” linked with access to APS funding and who may be hopeful for a brighter future of “specialist” recognition by virtue of their “endorsement” status – something that the APS is lobbying for. The State Branches of the APS who should be serving the entire state membership were silent throughout this whole process! I am not surprised. APS colleges have funding for provision of conferences, meetings etc for their membership…. lots of money!

    The Minutes of the AGM of the APS College of Clinical Psychologists held on 2/7/17 in Brisbane

    http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/College%20of%20Clinical%20Psychologists%20AGM%202017%20minutes.pdf

    reports they are approx 4806 members of the 22,842 APS total members and 3869 full members of the 7744 PBA endorsed clinical psychologists…they report that there are 34,414 total registered psychologists in Australia with only 23% endorsed.

    They seem to be a sub organisation within the APS, they have a committee membership of 16 people allocated different positions/responsibilities, plus state committee chairs and 7 sub committee members.

    They have a huge marketing and communication strategy including facebook, reporting over 3800 likes … a twitter account… health reform strategies, submissions, public debates, their own journal, etc etc and a huge budget over one hundred thousand! with a stated ongoing investment in college marketing strategy and funding of such….

    Im sure that the same can be found for the other APS Colleges……

    Unfortunately, it seems that perhaps the chairs of these colleges, and perhaps the majority of their members, did not share the concerns identified via the RAPS forum, particularly the NON COLLEGE/NON ENDORSED ISSUES, but supported the APS “position”…. FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL

  9. Take it all up to the Courts. The entire AGM was unconstitutional as the new constitution is unconstirutuonal as the process for creating the new constitution was unconstitutional as the EGM process and proceedure was unconstitutaional and illegal. A legal battle must now be fought to rectify the undemocratic processes that have occurred. The AGM was invalid because the new constitution was invalid because the EGM was invalid.
    The new constitution should never have been allowed. Atleast now those nonclinicals who voted for it believing the lies of improved democracy and proportional representation can see how they were hoodwinked now! Now there is proof that it wasnt just Paranoia on the part of RAPS. There must be a real hubris party going on somewhere now. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely so we better fight it while we still can.

    1. Isn’t that what the AAPi are supposed to be doing? Raising funds to go to court? Why have they been so silent in all this and what have they done with all the money they have raised? They are a part of RAPS re reform of APS yet raise money supposedly for a court challenge but they don’t seem to be made accountable!

      Maybe you are right Gregory and power corrupts all organisations!

      1. Cate: I understand AAP, Inc need over $100,000.00 to take them to Court, but perhaps if they get an influx of new members they will reach that target.

        1. Harold Hanlon, it is interesting that AAPI are telling their members they need $100,000 to initiate a legal action against the APS given Maurice Blackburn are renowned for representing class actions on a no-win no-fee basis, most recently in September against Aveo. Why would Maurice Blackburn refuse to do the same for the AAPi and instead require an astronomical payment of $100,000 before they will represent the AAPi against the APS?

          1. because they are proposing a different type of legal action, not a class action (which apparently they evaluated the prospects of and decided there was a better legal remedy through a different type of action). You would have to contact the AAPi for details.

            1. But James you are a founding member and ‘Fellow’ of the AAP, surely you can tell us something. Also how do you become a Fellow grade?

              1. Good point, IP! I have noticed that many of the posters who make the most divisive and uncompromising comments here seem to be connected to the AAPi. Perhaps we should follow the money trail as they frequently advise, and look more closely at how the AAPi might benefit from discouraging any actual progress by RAPS, for example by intentionally alienating students and early career psychs through offensive comments, in order to encourage more donations towards their mysterious “court action”.

              2. dear “interested” (your name??)- if you want to focus this discussion on me personally, please feel free to privately email me where i will happily provide you with any pesonal information that seems reasonable. But, as stated on several occasions, i will not waste this space with distracting side issues. I am not in a position to provide legal advice, or even a synopsis of the legal advice obtained by AAPi, nor to speak on behalf of that organisation. If you are genuinely interested, i suggest you contact AAPi- they would be happy to hear from you. But beware- they may actually want to know your name, just as a matter of mutual courtesy and respect.

              3. Yes, if we are to consider a move to AAP it would be good to know more about this organisation. The most recent update on their website appears to be from 2013/14? How is the leadership decided? How will we be confident in the association’s openness and transparency?

            2. Dr Alexander, That does not preclude Maurice Blackburn from accepting the case on a no-win no fee basis, regardless of the nature of legal action pursued. It also seems odd that Maurice Blackburn are advising that there was a “different type of action” which was a “better legal remedy”, given the nature of the complaint, that the APS are causing material disadvantage to the majority or all non-clinically endorsed psychologists in Australia through their actions. In my personal opinion, the fact that Maurice Blackburn are requiring such an extraordinarily large sum to even file a claim shows a lack of confidence by MB in any such action. In light of queenmaeve’s comments regarding the quality of legal care afforded RAPS which contributed to the disastrous result over the weekend, perhaps the trustees of the monies already paid to AAPi over the last couple of years to fund this action should consider seeking advice from an alternate legal firm to confirm what they have previously been advised?

              1. all valid comment and speculation. Perhaps you should direct your queries to the AAPi who are in a better position to be able to answer them.

  10. Just a friendly warning to be careful about making accusations without commensurate evidence as this is a public post. Claims of fraud or anything else suggesting unscrupulous means re-the election need to be made in writing to the APS or other organisations not on a public post as these claims could undermine the competency of psychologists in general to the public!

    1. could you possibly be serious Cate?! The APS have done nothing but systematically and consistently undermine the good name and credibility of the majority of Australia’s psychologists for the last 15 years- all in order to promote just one cohort. Nothing anyone else could do could possibly undermine the name of Australian psychologists better than the APS have already done.

      1. James I think you are confusing APS with ACPA re undermined statements. Show me one public statement from the APS disparaging Generalists. Not from PSYCH BOARD, AHPRA or ACPA, but from the APS board and I’ll stand corrected- show me the evidence James?

        1. just read the APS submissions to the relevant Senate Inquiry- you will clearly read a narrative of ‘superiority’ of ‘clin’ over ‘gen’ psychologists in their arguments in favour of the 2 tiered Medicare rebate system- as just one example.

          1. Post the scurrilous comments please as it would be nothing that is not factual. 1)clinical psychologists have a higher Masters degree then 4+2 that is fact. They have a superior formalised course of training re Masters v. PGD or Honours..fact. Show me other evidence by APS other than the above?

            Cannot be denied. That is not defamation like all the defaming comments on here with no basis in fact i.e. Fraud, neg. comments about students and Clin Psychs in general who had NOTHING to do with any of this they just followed the rules for endorsement.

          2. Hi James. I haven’t read the APS submission yet but if they are arguing for the 2 tier system and clinical superiority this would put them in breach of the corporations Act being acting for a minority of members at the expense of the rest. I researched class actions under the Federal Court act and queried with lawyers the possibility of a class action against Littlefield and the other authors of the 2006 submission that brought about the 2 tier. The advice back was that it had passed the 6 year statute of limitations which I found a bit surprising for a class action. But then I’m not a lawyer. Now the current APS submission is well within the statute of limitations and a class action claiming damages personally against any current or previous director who signed off on this should fly. We will need members of the APS who have been detrimentally affected or who are likely to be detrimentally affected to step forward and list themselves as complainants. A class action doesn’t take many complainants. My thinking is also approach a no win, no fee law firm. A free 1/2 initial consult will solve this one way or another quite quickly.

            1. David- the AAPi have been down this road, obtaining detailed advice from one of the country’s top class action firms. All they need are the funds to run a case. Anyone interested should contact them for more details. email admins@aapoz.com

              1. James I remember that. The firm was Maurice Blackburn and AAPi were looking at the Trade Practices Act and restrictive trade. What I’m proposing here is a different action but I’ll check with AAPi again.

    2. Our complaints to the APS re the EGM fall on deaf ears and attract only scorn. The massive problems with the EGM are well documented and the problems caused by the unconstitutional new constitution are now very obvious in the clearly unrepresenrarive outcome of the AGM. Stop trying to scare people into silence. That is low. and undemocratic institutional violence of the coercive controlling variety. Scaring people into nonparticipation in democratic freedoms is really low.

      1. Gregory, whatever your having I’ll have some too!!! First of all I am not an institution. Secondly, I never told people to stop participating only to watch defamatory statements on a public post. You love the dramatics! “Undemocratic institutional violence of the controlling coercive variety” very Machiavellian.

        1. Cate you may not be an institution but you might be institutionalised by the opinions of your “superiors” in the growing institution of Clinical Psychology. Try being a little less literal and a little more literary. And name calling really doesnt help.

  11. Well, the battle is lost but not the war.

    Now is the time to redirect the energy put into directly confronting the problem by taking it out to the public generally.

    Social media is made for this. Facebook, Twitter, whatever – not just gossip but look at the sales pitches that appear on your pages.

    If lingerie and shoes, car polish and artwork can be sold from clickbaits so can Justice for Mental Health.
    But not just done individuals going silly Billy with neurotic explosive disorder.

    A steady, planned, long term campaign to reach the greater mass of psychologists. A comparative few valid APS members could not achieve it by their honesty and integrity within the society.

    Perhaps it’s time to take that energy and go guerilla. Might sound nasty. But hey at least it’s open and honest.

      1. Yes! And with you Gregory Goodluck as our Spokesman, to appeal to the everyday man with your calm logic and tell them of the non-clinically endorsed’s suffering under the clinical regime!

        1. Thankyou Tanya, I am flattered, but I am sure there are calmer logicians and orators than I who can speak to the cause(s). I am very heartened to see people talking about class actions… Far from Anarchy, true democracy will let ‘a thousand flowers bloom’, so lets encourage everyone to speak up and join together to see Justice prevail.

  12. I am an EMDRAA Accredited consultant. I have been for more than 5 years. As such I provide the consultation/supervision to new EMDR therapy trainees and those striving to attain accreditation as a practitioner or consultant with EMDRAA. However, my clients only receive the lower level of rebate, but my consultees’ clients about whom I am providing supervision receive the higher rebate. Does this make sense to any one?
    So despite EMDR being a level 1 evidenced based therapy that has involved me in much training, psychologists who have an endorsement as ‘clinical’, can offer their clients a much higher rebate and so have a higher fee structure, from their first EMDR session than I can after 11 years of experience that has been vetted by international experts.
    Not intending to be redundant, but to complete their basic training, trainees must have ten hours of consultancy. Trainees are carefully guided into selecting suitable clients for EMDR. The most simple presentations and better resourced clients are the likely candidates for the beginning EMDR practitioner. Meanwhile, the trainees refer their more complex clients onto people like me when they realise the efficacy of EMDR therapy. So even though the EMDR trainee may have decades of experience as a psychologist who has clinical endorsement, she or he recognises when it comes to integrating EMDR therapy into their practice, the need for guidance from those more experienced with EMDR. However, without my having an endorsement of clinical, my more complex clients are given a lower rebate.
    Initial qualifications are not everything.

  13. I really hope that RAPS will learn from this event. There are many issues that need to be addressed, and many clinical psychologists who understand and would want to help. However, given the large voter turnout it appears that the membership of the APS (clinical and non-clinical) have rejected the way RAPS went about trying to achieve its political objectives.

    To me it was a clear rejection of the use of vilification and negative politics. Trump got in and Brexit got up – and I am grateful that my colleagues did not succumb to negative politics.

    For RAPS to be upset that those directors who tried to spill the board to only remove one targeted section of the society because of their qualifications found themselves removed, continues the approach of negative politics. RAPS have been inflexible, unwilling to communicate in good faith with people who think differently(the posts on this site attest to this), and have in so doing – estranged those who would have helped address real problems. I was one of those people – initially agreeing with the identification of inequities, and suggesting that vilification was not the way to achieve change – and was effectively bullied off the site. The inflexible approach of trying to damage clinical psychologists themselves (both through the inflexible drive to remove the top tier of medicare, through vilification, and through the promotion of poor science and attacking education) meant that not only clinical psychologists, but obviously non-clinical psychologists were concerned enough to stop the coup by a minority using such negative politics.

    Hopefully now people can refocus on working towards sorting out problems without resorting to vilifying particular sections of our profession, and rather engage in constructive dialogue. Honestly I don’t think that will come from RAPS, but others within the profession do have an interest in addressing inequalities using more positive means.

    1. William, that is the most accurate summation of all I have seen and heard.

      For someone of the calibre of Dr M Carr-Gregg to be spilled due to his association with RAPS and the nastiness beggars belief but proves your point. He was tarnished with this venom!

      1. Cate do you know something about Dr Carr-Gregg that we dont know? How do you know that he was spilled due to his association with RAPS? I wasnt at the AGM in Brisbane… what nastiness are you referring to? What happened? Have we missed something?

        1. This post by ‘concerned psychologist’ is exactly the problem – absolute denial. Cate is spot on – i was at the AGM and Michael C-G spoke well and I think all agreed with him, however the association with RAPS unfortunately led to his dismissal. How do we know this? Facts – all the RAPS endorsed board members were spilled as well as those who have expressed negative and anti-clinical / postgrad comments – Allen, Wright, Magalotti. It was clear in MCG’s speech prior to the spill that he was trying to distance himself from the RAPS position and style – a real shame as we could have gained a lot from having him either on the Board or as president. RAPS has raised some important issues but these are lost in the negative attacking and frankly ‘flat earth’ style comments by some who side with RAPS. You unfortunately have shot yourself in the foot and the good that could have come was lost. But already the same types of comments are coming up again by the same people regarding this all being unconstitutional, illegal, conspiracy, follow the money, etc etc.; plus denial of facts and basing arguments on flimsy evidence with no acknowledgement of reality and concerns re training, 4+2 etc (eg 4+2 is valid and reliable!).
          You have legitimate arguments which many agree with – but dont get them lost in the madness and frankly ludicrous comments of some on here.
          Im now waiting for the unhelpful comments to come … from the northern parts of some states and territories. Regards I P.

          1. Totally agree IP. Through the sensible comments on here I have gained a better understanding of some of the issues facing my colleagues but most empathy has now been lost by the scurrilous accusations and carrying on post-AGM. Many of the representatives of Raps vocal on this site are turning people off and it obviously had that effect on both generalist and clinical voters at the AGM.

            Maybe that is why the AAPi have kept so quiet and virtually distanced themselves from raps as MCG was trying to do. I thought he would’ve made a very good board member.

            APS members must’ve looked at the Raps site and the goings on and thought we don’t want them representing us to government bodies!

          2. Hi IP,

            I must say that I agree with you. I wasn’t at the AGM, but it’s obvious to me that the non-clinical directors paid a high price for being associated with the negative side of this debate.

            It is also evident to me that lessons need to be learned here, if there is any hope of effecting some of the change we hope for and I would sincerely hope we can all find our humility to reflect on the larger meaning of what happened and flexibly revise our stance towards working for achievable change, and not become even more rigidly entrenched in positions that clearly don’t serve us! Just my thoughts…

            1. Hi Tia

              What we know in relation to the 2017 election and spill motion is this:

              24% of members voted (which could be the highest in APS history, certainly it was very high)

              board members who supported RAPS were spilled

              board members who didn’t support RAPS weren’t spilled

              in one area that was protected against the clinical vote i.e. DGPP a candidate who supported RAPS was successful

              the clinical college used the APS mailing list to support their cause against RAPS, so presumably 100% or close to 100% contact

              State branches sent out emails to all members advocating negative outcomes of any Spill

              RAPS was only able to contact a very small percentage of generalists

              What we don’t know in relation to the 2017 election and spill motion is this:

              The breakdown of types of voters, e.g. how many clinicals voted, how many endorsed voted and what their endorsements are, how many 4+2’s voted etc
              __________________________________________

              If the APS membership is roughly 22,500 then the 24% of voters number 5400

              Some assumptions which cannot be verified:

              I would expect a large voter turnout under circumstances where there has been intense lobbying and ability to contact all/most regarding the possibility of a large pay reduction.

              I would expect a small voter turnout under conditions where you can only contact a small percentage of ‘affected parties’.

              As RAPS were only able to contact a very small percentage of generalists I would consider it possible that of the roughly 5400 members who voted the majority were clinicals.

              Of course ‘different’ assumptions could be presented … but in the end without the actual data they are all assumptions.

              I would like to see the data.

              Kind Regards

              Peter

        1. Hi Matt,

          Thank you for posting this! I have been banging on about the dangers of ACPA for weeks now and that was before seeing this!

          I said it before and I will continue to say, that in my personal view ACPA presents a significantly more pressing concern to our livelihoods than the APS.

          I would not be at all surprised if the trolls on this forum were ACPA plants working to drive the wedge even further – it’s also curious to me that so many of the disparaging comments by ACPAs president have been requoted on this forum as coming from the APS…how did that happen?

          In my personal opinion, it is in our interest to heal the rift within the APS however we can and stand united to neutralise ACPAs narrative and influence….imho

        2. Hello Matt. Ive just read the Presidents address and a quick read of some marketing statements and as a humble 4+2 in my opinion what is being purported and how information is being advertised and disseminated to the medical fraternity, the wider community and international partners seems like a clear breach of National Law and our Code of Ethics. Huge penalties!

          What do others think?

          1. I haven’t seen any of the ads to see what ACPA does place however at least it shows ACPA are proactive in the promotion of their discipline which is sadly something which has lacked for a long time in the APS. The APS has rested on its laurels of having the sheer number of members, as well as its history – lack of innovation and flexibility has been the downfall of many once successful companies. In terms of political lobbying it is those with the loudest voice that wins, not those with the most numbers (think NRA – only 5 million members, hugely influential, loud voice) and ACPA has a growing voice and they are strategic – hats off to their President – APS leadership will hopefully look on what has happened over the past 12 months and learn something about the membership and be more strategic in promoting all Psychologists and working to develop bridging pathways for those that wish to upgrade their qualification while managing full-time, established career commitments, as well as continuing to raise the profile of Psychology throughout Australia.

          2. Hi Concerned Psychologist,

            I know you addressed your comment to Matt, but I hope you don’t mind me adding my 2 cents…

            These statements have been in all public materials disseminated by ACPA since it’s inception in 2010. There are media articles quoting her verbatim! It is present in virtually all relevant submissions to the PBA.

            The National Board is well versed in their narrative and their approach, so one must ask – what don’t we know that explains why they have been allowed to make such public pronouncements, that in my view have brought the profession into disrepute- without visible consequences?

            Perhaps you’re right and the Board won’t act unless formal complaints are made. I would have thought after the incident with Dr Khong that I raised here a while back, something more formal would have been done due to the serious nature of the allegations made by ACPAs president, but they’ve continued to publicise their narrative without any alterations to it, so it seems clear to me that there are larger political forces at play here…

            1. the PBA membership is primarily academic clinical psychologists- they are the same people. eg. Ms Carolyn Hunt was a member of the NSW PBA, and also a member of ACPA. I complained about a perceived conflict of interests to the PBA- nothing was done.

              1. James, isn’t Brin Grenyer, the academic you cited multiple times as an authority to support your position that a 4+2 trained psychologist is equivalent to a Masters trained psychologist, the Chair of the PBA?

                1. JW- if you paid attention, or care to look over all my posts, you will see that i not once stated the Brin Grenyer argued anywhere that 4+2 psychs are equivalent to others. I have made 1 reference to him only- some research which he and colleagues published which demonstrated that Australian psychologists (before there were any arbitrary distinctions made) were enthusiastic participants in ongoing PD training.

    2. Hi William

      I agree with you that there have been some on this blog who are a combination of emotional and passionate and sometimes this is strongly reflected in the rhetoric. Psychologists are human beings and accordingly there is great variance at play. One of the most valid measures of the psychological health of a community is the extent to which the community is prepared to accept variability within it’s members. It would be far more helpful if we could all understand that acceptance further by practising it in action.

      I am truly sorry if you feel that you were bullied off this blog, I would like to at least extend my invitation to you to be here and to be heard. You will find, as stated above that there is also great variability among those who support RAPS … and yes RAPS supporters do not always agree with each other regarding the means but we can all see the flow through effects of the two-tier system and be saddened for our sisters and brothers who are receiving the unfortunate end of those effects and want to do something, some of us something quite substantial, to help.

      With respect William, we don’t have a breakdown in relation to endorsements, of the numbers who voted. Without that we can’t claim that the “APS (clinical and non-clinical) have rejected the way RAPS went about trying to achieve its political objectives”. What RAPS can tell you is that there was, and indeed still is, significant support for it’s objective of one-tier but the support needed a lot more time to grow and to be informed etc. – that process is dynamic and continuing.

      I do truly believe in a non-adversarial approach to reach resolutions and, as I have stated in other posts, I am saddened that it has come to this. Sometimes, when you have done everything else, you need to use the approaches that a system makes available to you in order to drive a change however distasteful that approach may be as, without it, you remain powerless.

      Please keep posting William … I will keep reading.

      Kind Regards

      Peter

      1. Hi Peter,

        Thanks for the kind words. Unfortunately this is not an open forum. My posts either sit in moderation until out of date or disappear completely. I’m gone. Haha will this one appear?

        1. Hi William,
          You have had comments published today, on 9/10/17, three on 14/09/17, on 13/09/17, 9/07/17, and four on 7/07/17. I am not aware of any that have not been published. This is a very open forum for discussion.

    3. William- the result may have more to do with the APS refusing to allow RAPS access the email addresses of members. Had they allowed that, and had ‘gen’ psychs en mass learnt of RAPS and the momentum to force change, the result, i suspect, would have been much different. It appears that the APS did allow the clinical college access to their members email addresses. As such, i wouldnt conclude that most psychologists have rejected the RAPS approach- rather, it may be that most psychologists still do not know of the RAPS approach.

      1. James, why would the Clinical College need the APS to obtain the email address of their own members, something each member would have provided when joining the College? I would also assume there are privacy issues which prevents the APS from hanging out the email address of all their members to any organization that requests it.

        1. Hi JD just remember that RAPS is not actually an organisation, just a movement so it would have been illegal to give them everyone’s email address without asking APS members for their permission. But that logic doesn’t suit their own narrative.

        2. RAPS is not an organisation they are APS members. Perhaps as APS members when we renew membership we can tick a box and provide consent for our email address to be made available to APS members! Whats wrong with that??

          1. PS The APS Clinical College (and any other APS College) is not a discreet organisation it is a member “group”. Why cant other APS members have access to minutes of meetings, member contact details etc? Why the silo secret order approach? The non college APS members have nothing… the DGPP is just a forum. How is funding allocated to APS Colleges? Does anyone know? Is it based on college membership fees?

  14. To everyone who is now considering leaving the APS and joining another group (e.g. Paul Stevenson’s AAPi). I would like to suggest a reality check. To spill a board takes time, it took the ‘practitioners” of ACMA 18 months and their total membership is 5,000 and usually only 300 vote. RAPS tried to do it with an organisation that has 22,000+ members in 8 months. It was a herculean effort that RAPS was able to achieve what they did in such a short timeline, but it was more likely to be an initial learning chapter than an end result. This was like the first session or two with a difficult client but one where a beneficial outcome could still be attained for both therapist and client. That potential outcome still sits there and the client is huge – every psychologist in Australia and the consumers of their services. Yep, sure some are very resistant but we’ve all been there.

    You will all make whatever decisions you feel are appropriate. Now is an acute phase. it’s probably not the best time to make that decision. RAPS is learning from this initial cycle, it will take longer. I’d ask you all not to give up on the APS just yet, many of you are the APS. Unfortunately a minority has been pushing you around for quite some time and that minority has now made itself even more visible to you. But there is more to come from RAPS and RAPS needs all of you who supported these initial two very difficult sessions to stay the course and to recruit others of similar inclusive values. A very few at the AGM spoke of the wider effects upon the psychology landscape of the strategically myopic two-tier system. I’m sure we will be hearing more from RAPS about the wider concerns, those of psychologists who don’t work in the Medicare fee for service areas, and who are experiencing what some of them describe as the slow march to extinction of their passionate areas of interest in the broad field of the discipline.

    Take a breath .. how much do you want this for yourself, for all psychologists in Australia and for the consumers? I personally believe that the best chance of reform still lies within.

    Kind Regards

    Peter

  15. Thank you Sophie, Jenny and everyone else who have worked tirelessly to bring front and centre the concerns held by many ‘generalist’ members of the APS. I have been inspired and humbled by your effort and influence. In less than 12 months you have acheived so much!

    I think it was around 24% of the membership that voted. Keep RAPS going and it might be 50% voting next time!

    A tune that reminds me of the goal 🙂 No one should ever stop having a voice!

  16. I’m sorry to hear that and no doubt you are all probably feeling disappointed and dejected after all the energy and effort you have all expended this past year!

    It’s particularly disheartening to hear that even once it became clear the clinical directors could not be spilled, a decision was still made to spill the non-clinical directors. Evidently the divide has widened…

    The new president will certainly have their work cut out for them if they wish to fulfil the campaign promise of healing the rift!

  17. Hi Raps Team,
    Despite the outcome going against you at the AGM I think you can feel proud of your persistent fight to bring to every-bodies attention the extremely negative impact of the Two Tier system on many non-clinically endorsed APS psychologists.
    I am a inimical psychologist and proud of it – I worked hard to attain my qualification. However, I am ashamed that I had not realised just how insidiously and profoundly the Two Tier system had disenfranchised many wonderful psychologists -clinical expertise is only one part of psychological expertise, and in no way makes one better than another.

    Thank you RAPS, because it was only the threat of some of your claims, in particular , that more training does not make a better psychologist (I think Oren Griffith outlined a sound set of reasons about this – I previously circulated it), that mobilised me to be a candidate and get feedback from many non-clinically endorsed psychologists.

    If it was not for you, I would not have become aware of the enormity of the unintended negative effect of the Better Access initiative that I worked so hard to get. Yes, it has brought psychology to so many more Australians which is great.

    There have been too many excuses for not fast tracking the range of possible initiatives to enable all psychologists to demonstrate their competencies and over time have the current Tier One bubble of about 8000 sitting over the top of about 24000 on Tier Two to e slowly inverted.

    Hopefully the process of specialization, in which the “broad church” of psychological endeavor (e.g. the knowledge and skills of all the colleges and of new and emerging areas, in particular, from the Neurosciences) will work in parallel with the process of “attaining-equivalence” and all psychologists can rightfully feel valued and an integral part of the overall psychological community.

    Psychologists know that we have so much to contribute to the well-being of Australians. Somehow we need to mobilise all Australian psychologists to come together so a truly unified approach can effectively advocate to the Australian Government to utilise our skills and knowledge to attain an improved Quality of Life.

    Well done RAPS team – feel proud of your effort and let us try and work together and robustly discuss the best way to reach our shared goal.

    1. Hi Hugh

      A question for clarification please. You say, “If it was not for you, I would not have become aware of the enormity of the unintended negative effect of the Better Access initiative that I worked so hard to get”.

      Does that mean that you worked hard to get the two-tier system without any awareness of the ‘negative effects’?

      Kind Regards

      Peter

  18. This is dreadful news. What now? Let s leave the APS and form a group for non clinical psychologists. Take our money from them and put towards a group that will fairly represent us.

    1. While I agree with you in theory Linda, no new organisation will be able to offer what the APS offers nor will it have the same reach and impact. I’m afraid we are trapped (I call it involuntary unionism for a union that doesn’t even represent me) and must effect change from within.

        1. and under-informed (thanks to the APS refusing to provide RAPS with the email addresses of said members).

      1. This is a good example of an unhelpful comment. Please think Gregory before writing and consider the impact of your words. Valid points get lost in the unhelpful sea of comments like this.

            1. Once again you speak the unvarnished truth Gregory. What more evidence do we need that the spill was illegal and the clinicals had no right to spill the non-clinical board members?

              1. Tanya, you have an interesting way of viewing what happened. RAPS pushed for and brought the spill on, not the ‘clinicals’. The spill was not illegal. Every member had the right to vote and without seeing the fata all we can say is that the ‘membership’ voted to spill certain board members. The clinical vote, largely, was likely to spill Wright et al in response to the RAPS push to spill only clinical members. You cant have it both ways – demand a process then be unhappy when that process doesnt get you what you want, abd then view the outcome as a conspiracy. The spill was an unfortunate action in the first place. Interestingly Jill Wright at the AGM in her statement said not to spill anyone as did Michael C-G.

    2. Linda I agree. Take our m/ship and our money away from this dishonest organisation. They will be severely disadvantaged if we take swift action. Disregard negative comments that say “Nothing can do what the APS can do, and, nothing else has their reach.” That pussy cat approach is shameful yarlclark.

      1. Linda I agree. Take our m/ship and our money away from this organisation which has failed to represent us. They will be severely disadvantaged if we take swift action. We must dsregard negative comments that say “Nothing can do what the APS can , and, nothing else has their reach.” call our new organisation AUSTRALIAN PSYCHOLOGISTS.

  19. What are our legal options? Dr James Alexander, Dr Clive Jones and others had proof that over 30,000 psychologists and the scientific evidence were on the side of RAPS; this must be the result of fraud by the clinicals. How can it be legal or moral to blanketly remove board members on the basis of their endorsements? We must not give up! Remember Gregory’s warcry – Non-Clinically Endorsed Lives Matter!

    1. i suspect it is the result of massive manipulations of the situation to result in a non-representative makeup of the Board. The APS withheld the email addresses from RAPS of all the non-clinical members to ensure not enough were able to learn of the spill; and it looks like they ensured the Clinical College were able to access the email addresses of all their members to ensure their votes. Blind lust for power; utterly corrupting. I urge all non-clinical psychs to keep resisting and objecting at every possible opportunity- in conversations, in supervision groups, on-line, at trainings- this is a slow consciousness raising exercise. We cannot be silenced- truth will ultimately win out. I also urge all clin psychs of good conscience to state their objections as well- i know there are some out there who are simply embarrassed by what has been done in their names- we welcome them as genuine colleagues. There are a thousand ways we can object to what has been done- we need to spread this movement and make it grow. There will be more elections. Chin up people- the struggle for justice will continue.

    2. Sorry what proof is that? Could you elaborate as its important to start sorting fact from opinion / fiction if RAPS is going to achieve any changebin the future.

  20. maintain the rage RAPS- you have put in a magnificent effort which will eventually bare fruit. Corruption cannot last indefinately. Bit by bit, psychologists around the country are waking up and realising what has been done to them. When sufficient numbers have had this realisation, the force for change will be unstoppable. Keep up the good work and dont lose heart.

  21. We are all very grateful to you indeed and I think you did a great job under very difficult and trying circumstances. I can’t honestly see things ever improving for non-clinicals under the A.P.S and am just totally over all their inaction and talk, so I don’t intend to renew my A.P.S. membership. The Australian Association of Psychologists only charge $250.00 pa for membership and they are there for ALL psychologists, so I will be devoting more time to them. Many of my colleagues have told me they intend to do likewise. Thanks again.

  22. I think it’s a shame any of the board were spilt/spilled (?). All brought something. I especially think it’s a shame Michael C-G was lost, I was there and he spoke well and everyone agreed with what he said. He could bring greater recognition to the work of psychologists through his media profile and savvy. Is there any word on the president elect vote?

  23. Thanks for all your efforts, hope and optimism.

    Unfortunately, as I’ve previously tried to post following the constitutional vote farce this year, and as I have been predicting for a while, we have reached the end of the line in terms of any form of diversity for applied psychology representation in this country.

    For what it is worth, I will repeat my mantra of the last six months: the APS will not have the satisfaction of ousting my critical voice or practice, despite the escalating and exhorbitant costs; but my energies are now directed toward exploring other non-clinical psychology ruled organisations, such as those promoting psychotherapy and counselling, etc. The intention is to promote collegiality, collective membership, professional support and representation via alternative channels.

    1. Those values, collegiality, collective membership, professional support and representation via alternative channels are sadly missing in the APS. We need consciousness-raising and more readiness to action to find them again in the APS.

      1. Thank you RAPS for your blood, sweat and tears. You have done your best. There are no words to describe what I am feeling right now. Perhaps, one can say it feels like I have just been told of the death of a dear friend.

        I think it is gracious of Hugh Woolford to pass on his condolences and kind words.

        How can it be possible that the clinical votes outnumbered the non-clinicals if there are supposed to be significantly more non-clinicals than clinicals.

        The action of the APS to spill all the non-clinical directors unnecessarily clearly demonstrates their intentions. I guess the APS will now rename itself the “Australian Clinical Psychological Society”. I echo the view of Harold Hanlon – I, too, can’t see things improving for non-clinicals (whether endorsed or non-endorsed) under the APS. Maybe now they will make all non-clinicals become “psychology assistance” as they initially proposed.

        1. an interesting dilemma now for APS members- do you continue paying membership fees to an organisation that clearly is against your interests (trying to create reform from within), or do you jump ship to another organisation which will promote your interests? The frustrating thing is that the direction of the APS and the makeup of the Board is not the will of most members- through withholding email addresses, they have ensured that most members dont even know what is going on. Utterly corrupt conduct.

        2. Hi Betty,

          It wasn’t the APS that said generalists should become psychologist assistants, it was ACPA. ACPA is also at war with the APS (as seen on the ACPA’s president address) and we are all caught in the crosshairs of that conflict.

          I agree with Peter that it’s in our interests to persevere and continue to spread the message and to strive for change from within. I know it’s disappointing but the battle will be 1000% times harder from outside.

          Let’s regroup and rest to regain our strength, but then dust ourselves off and keep charging ahead! Now we go to plan B 😊

          1. Hi Tia

            Thank you for your clarification on the matter regarding “psychologist assistants”. I stand corrected.

Leave a Reply