RAPS is watching closely

Reform APS has established itself as political movement representing a very large group of dissatisfied members. Last year that anger and resentment boiled over in an attempt to spill the entire board of the Society.

That resentment made the board wake up and take notice of these members after ten years of believing they would continue to toe the line quietly. The board was in turmoil throughout the year as they struggled to find ways to quell the unrest and silence the voices. But it had gone too far for that.

Initially RAPS represented a coalition of all the non-clinical Colleges and the DGPP, but the clever clinicals quickly wooed the other colleges with promises of being on the top tier. They divided the non-clinical colleges from RAPS and undermined our support. Only a few loyal non-college members continued to support RAPS.

Divide and conquer has been the dominant clinical strategy and it’s worked. Once the colleges wavered and their Chairs supported the new governance changes and spoke against the spill, the game was over. The coalition was broken, but at least the colleges got a lot more promises than ever before. They have RAPS to thank for that.

In the election, the clever clinicals flexed their muscles again. They worked the numbers by putting up several candidates and instructing their members how to vote on preferences. Like the independent senators in the last federal election, they used an algorithm to swing the votes to favour their clever minority. They have more money, more resources and more power bases than just anyone else from being in power for 17 years. (Many ex-presidents were at the AGM!) So it wasn’t surprising.

If the DGPP had come out strongly, it could have changed the day but they didn’t. They have been too ground down for too long. However, it must have been a bitter blow to the clinicals that the Victorian candidate, Andrew Chua, was rejected by the DGPP members – and Joe Gagliano, the independent candidate supported by RAPS, won the day!

At least, Round One we was not entirely unsuccessful.

Some good may yet come out of this year. The board’s promise to introduce the one-year stand alone bridging programs to endorsement with recognition of prior learning for all non-clinicals has the power to raise everyone to a single higher tier. And let’s face it, it’s better to go up than down.

RAPS will be watching closely to see if the board will fulfil its promise next year – not ten years down the track. We need to see some real action after ten dry years. If not, there’s always Round Two!

By the next AGM Nick Xenophon’s bill may have gone through parliament and if members bring on another spill, they will have to give us the email addresses too.

Concerned Psychologist



156 thoughts on “RAPS is watching closely

  1. well, they did say that they would be vetting ad hominem attacks, slanderous statements, and posts that appear to be an attempt to drag the discussion away from the topic which is of interest to most of Australia’s psychologists, ie. reforming the APS. It appears they are following through with this wise stance.

    1. Ha ha, Well Said James. No more will we tolerate the defamation and slander of the Calculatingly Clever Clinicals and their Minions as we Fight to achieve equality for the hard-working real psychologists who make up our profession.

  2. As a young female clinical masters student, I wish J Dwyer would stop pretending to represent our views. I have the maturity to know that my sex and age already gave me an unfair advantage for being accepted by the clinical Brahmins presiding over admissions committees, while they reject far more experienced and competent 4+2 psychologists. I also can see through the transparent attempts to play the man and not the ball by making false claims of sexism against highly respected psychologists. I am embarrassed by J Dwyer, and by the attempts by my own clinical academics to maintain the status quo when the only research that has been conducted in Australia argue against the assertion of clinical superiority. The onus of proof is on those asserting anything other than the null hypothesis, that there is no proven difference, and these clinical academics fail time and time again to disprove this null hypothesis. I am even more embarrassed by the fact that J Dwyer feels the need to denigrate the AAPi, a highly established organisation well known for fighting for all psychologists. Rest assured that my fellow students and I reject J Dwyer’s views, and fully support the AAPi and RAPS’s fight to overturn the unfair two tier system.

    1. Rebecca- what a breath of fresh air you are! It is extremely encouraging to hear such views from within the clinical cohort. It gives me hope for our profession- there may be a way forward after all (Informed by facts, not self-agrandising rhetoric); hoping your views are more prevalent than others. best wishes.

    2. Hi Rebecca,

      Thank you for sharing.

      Given your proclaimed appreciation for the ‘real world’ application of practice, would you mind sharing with us why you elected to complete a Clinical masters instead of one of the internship pathways?

      I think hearing yours and Emma’s perspective on why you both selected the clinical masters despite having such high regard for the internship pathways would give all of us great insights that RAPS may be able to utilise in their efforts to attain the objective of greater respect for these pathways.

      Thanking you in advance,


      1. Thank you for your question Tia. I chose the clinical pathway for a number of different reasons, including finances, interests, employment prospects and the current climate in psychology but the internship pathway has been found to produce excellent psychologists that have equally good treatment outcomes, according to the existing research. I suspect anyone claiming otherwise has their own agenda with no regard for the good of the profession.

        1. Thanks for your candour, Rebecca.

          It is a real shame that you, Emma and other Clinical students who have expressed strong allegiance to RAPS had to deny yourselves the training pathway you seem to most value due to the practical realities of our current professional climate.

          As you know, the APS President has accused RAPS and its followers of being self-serving and as I read yours and Emma’s post, I couldn’t help but think that you both could add great value to RAPS by providing a fresh perspective on how to target things to the new generation.

          Would you be open to having a more active role in helping RAPS to demonstrate to the APS Executive that there are those who support the initiative strongly despite not having any obvious vested interest in changing the status quo?

          If so, do you have any ideas for how you and your fellow students could assist RAPS with this?

            1. Thanks for clarifying Greg – I was under the misapprehension that they had only just joined the discussion and thought it would be helpful to gear the conversation towards something more productive, like solutions, rather than more of the same… my mistake!

            2. thank you for your support Gregory. James Caulfield had set out a well thought out plan for promoting the values of practical over academic training. I think he would make a fine representative for the majority of students not driven by ego and greed who support AAPi and RAPS.

              1. Rebecca, that sounds really interesting. Can you tell us more about the Caulfield Project? Can we hear more from James?

                1. Hi Rebecca, thank you for your vote of confidence but I would like to clarify that I do not promote the values of practical over academic training, I simply do not privilege one particular pathway to registration over another and see them all as equally valid.

                  The biggest problem in any campaign is division, as it is exploited by our opponents, and so it is incumbent upon us to promote unity and inclusiveness in the campaign for equality. This also extends to clinical psychologists that support a one-tier system. It is important that we welcome their participation and input into the campaign as they may become our strongest allies.

                  I would like to suggest that once the unified purpose document is finalised that we call for local area campaign coordinators interested in running meetings. Having regular local RAPS meetings is vital to sustain the campaign momentum, share information, broaden our base of supporters and take action. It may also be useful for professional networking with colleagues from different areas of practice that in itself promotes diversity and understanding. Participants also have more invested by virtue of showing up, are more likely to self-identify as RAPS supporters and to take action to further the campaign.

                  I suggest mass letter writing as it is a simple yet effective method of campaigning for political and social change, as Amnesty International can testify. Individual letters mailed through the post typically have more weight than emails, particularly if MP’s are getting swamped by them over a sustained period of time. En masse letters from individual psychologists can also be more politically influential than APS representatives. As the saying goes, “when ordinary people organise together, they are capable of extraordinary things.”

                  Key stakeholders are also important to identify. Perhaps we can enlist the services of Health Economists to support our cause as they have a key role in contributing to health policy and evidence based practice in the health system. There are undoubtedly other groups and associations that may have common cause to support our campaign objectives. I am happy to hear other suggestions people may come up with.

                  1. Great suggestions.
                    I agree that division is a problem and one that was compounded by the imposition of the label of Division of General Practice Psychologists (DGPP) upon fully registered psychologists by the APS. Seems quite divisive to me.
                    Also, for registered non-clinically endorsed psychologists and students to confront their own employers and prospective employers with the injustice of the apartheid and srand up and be counted takes immense courage verging on the reckless. Self Employed Privately Practicing Psychologists are in a unique position of not having to Kow-Tow to our bosses and therefore soeak openly about the inequity.
                    Also small town politics snd social action can be very fraught with economic and social blowback, so traditional ‘critical mass’ type models of social action might not work so well in small cities and towns.
                    Online activism is important for thesr readons and for time management also.
                    Its all good.
                    Let’s keep the respectful convertsations going and let “a thousand flowers bloom”.

                    1. Gregory, could you pleeeaaassseeee not use the word apartheid when referring to non endorsed clinicians as it means to ‘discriminate according to race’ and really is an injustice to all indigenous peoples around the world!!!

                      You are being discriminated against based on academic qualifications- please don’t be so dramatic and disrespectful to the suffering of the indigenous.

                    2. Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning “separateness”, or “the state of being apart”, literally “apart-hood”. Apart-hood can be viewed as an appropriate term to the ‘clinical’ exceptionalism which some within your cohort, Cate, want to maintain. For Gregory to use this term is a literal reference to the ‘apartness’ in both status and pay bracket which the APS & PBA ‘clinical’ leaders have created for themselves and their protege, despite the evidence. If the apart-hood was working in the other direction, against the ‘clin’ cohort, i suspect you may be upset about that, and would use any language you saw as appropriate to challenge it as well.

                    3. Cate. Sorry, my answer is “No” and please read Dr Alexander’s explanation of Apartheid while I go make a Rooibos tea, or should I say “red bush” tea… it’s Afrikaans too. I used to work part time FIFO on Groote Eylandt in Arnhemland in North Australia. An ignorant CEO of the QANGO I also worked at concurrently in Darwin tried to shame me in front of colleagues for spelling it correctly in the Dutch way until I quietly pointed to a map. Any map. Try it. The world is s bigger, wider, more interlaced and mysterious tapestry of lives and lore than any Masters of cognobotics could ever hope to prepare one for. Do not assume difference = ignorance. “The greatest thing you will ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.”
                      Have you got anything constructive to offer to the disunity problem herein discussed? Or would you prefer to maintain the apartheid or literally aparthood we suffer having been designated the “Division of GPPs” by the APS when actually what we are is Psychologists pure and simple. Fully registered 100% well seasoned and battle hardened specialists in the discipline of Psychology within the broad school of Social Sciences. We belong to the highest specialisation of Psychology and deserve the same respect and remuneration as any other Psychologist irrespective of subspecialisations. We are just as special as you, just as we are all individuals just like everybody else. So Cate my answer to your plea is “no” and I ask that you change your plea and that of the “Masters” to “guilty as charged” so we can get on with cooperating in the healing and move forwards to unity for the APS before it is too late. We are disadvantaged and held apart from the rest. When will the APS publish the truth and release press statements saying all registered psychologists can provide clinical services? It is true!

                    4. Cate, having slept on it and returned I can offer this to the sidelining conversation about choice of word ‘apartheid’ then return to more fruitful pursuits.

                      Google “apartheid definition” an you will read, “segregation on grounds other than race.”
                      is a valid definition for common usage in the English language.


                      I can start using the word, ‘segregation’ too now, but I am sure you or someone else will again try to subvert the conversation by pretending to be concerned with compassion or political correctness and stretching connotations to racial divides. The analogy is obvious.

                      It is not a black and white world Cate. There are many colors and shades and nuances. The rigid education that imposes linguistic structures on people to the point of being afraid to express themselves at all, is oppressive.

                      Let a thousand flowers bloom.

                      It is time to get past the apartheid. It is so 1980s. It is so last century. It is time to celebrate the pluralism in our society and encourage expression of many different points of view.
                      I am sorry that you feel the need to get bogged down in side issues of matters of linguistic Form and overlook the importance of matters of Content and Function.

                      I hope your psychology training not only teaches the importance of fastidious observation and recording and expression, but the flexibility to read between the lines and understand the underlying meaning and purpose of forms of expression in a fully expanding range of contexts. To be pedantic is only one part of the skill set of a psychologist, but we have to learn to move beyond it. Especially when dealing with a full range of social groups and cohorts in the real world. One of the problems with classic CBT is that it gets so hung up on words and their meanings and connotations. Try a little ACT and see that using contextual psychology informed by Relational Frame Theory, you can liberate yourself and others from the oppression of over-signification.

                      And by the way Apartheid is alive and well in Australia in all its forms and I am a staunch ally of all oppressed people, and in this context of the oppressed psychologists. But that is another story.

                      And also by the by the way way, I saw an advertisement last night for a “clinical psychologist” at Danila Dilba an Aboriginal Health and Wellbeing Service in Darwin, and when I read the Job and Person Specifiications, they were essentially seeking a registered psychologist, but in the ‘desirable’ section had ‘masters in clinical psychology’. Why? I presume it is because the government will give them more money per session under medicare. It was clear the job does not require a masters in psychology, but they would like the ecclectic and flexible incumbent to have an MPsych for some other reasson. Probably financial, and would probably take a less experienced and less capable MPsych over a seasoned Registered Psychologist, for the dollars.

                      This is how it works… Insidious.

                      Can you actually see the points we are making? It is creating a system of discrimination against fullly qualified psychologists regardless of level of academic training or experience based on one subspecialisation being elevated above all the rest.

                      Personally I think someone with a degree in social work and registered psychologist with mental health and cross cultural experience would be far better suited to a role within an Aboriginal Health and Social and Emotional Wellbeing environment than any recent graduate of an MPsych program. But the Government has created a situation that favours the least equipped over the more equipped, by an apartheid that segregates and pays more to a minority of MPsych Graduates. So if someone has three PhDs in Psychology including Masters in counselling, forensic and health sciences and other allied qualifications and experience in trans-cultural issues etc. they may be viewed less favourably than a ClinPsychM due to budgetary reasons.

                      Get used to it. The world is complex, not simple.

                      There are too many ramifications of promoting MPsychClin as the bees knees and the APS should be ashamed of itself for having fostered this injustice for the sake of lining the pockets of their Clinical Elite and Academia who are the only ones to benefit by the Brahmanisation of Academic training in Clinical Psychology profiting from fees for degrees.
                      It is time the APS started becoming more socially aware and better corporate citizens and promoted the competency of all Registered Psychologists to deliver Psychological Services.

                    5. Gregory- you may already be aware of it, but if my memory serves me correctly, Dr Clive Jones wrote an excellent article on the treatment of depression, called (i think?) “Depression: do we really know what we are doing?”- in which he presents a great deal of evidence demonstrating the limitations to the ‘gold standard’ CBT; and the evidence in favour of practitioners facilitating the meaning making needs of the sufferer (supporting non-CBT type approaches). A great read for anyone interested in this topic, and one which our profession needs to attend to. Correct reference Dr Clive?

                    6. my mistake- it was Dr Robert King’s article, “Treatment of Depression: Do we Know What we are Doing?” in Psychotherapy in Australia. Vol 5 No 3 MAY 1999. An excellent article, which challenges the hegemony of CBT as the only sensible treatment approach for psychologists to take. Anyone can email me if you want me to send you a copy.

                  2. thank you for the clarification James. All existing evidence shows that both 4 + 2’s and masters students after a 2 year registrar program produce equally good outcomes. We must not lose sight of that. Excellent suggestions also. With so many young students supporting the RAPS movement, the toppling of the corrupt APS Junta is inevitable.

  3. Clive, there are a number of issues on this site, one of them being the impact of the 2 tier system for example on training options and on the status of some more experienced psychologists with expertise. No argument there. You say the more experienced have been worse off under the 2 tier system – how? Can you please explain this. Do you mean tier 2 v tier 1 income or do you mean prior to the introduction of medicare?

    The problem with the ‘all are equal’ argument is that it is not true. There are some very experienced 4+2 psychologists who should be on the upper tier, but not all. Just because you may have X years experience does not mean you should get the upper tier.
    The problems of the 4+2 process are well documented here and while for some it has been ‘great’ and ‘valid’ (to use your words) for others it has been far from this with no formal assessment of skills apart from a supervisor saying ‘yep, i reckon you can so it’ – ive certainly heard of that happening and to deny it is to have your head in the sand and be ignorant of the demands and factors involved in assessment processes.
    The board introduced the curent peer supervision process because of these issues and no one knowing what some have been doing in the secrecy of private practice for years.
    But now the argument here seems to have turned to challenging masters training, framing it as something for those that require ‘ a more structured approach’, or in some bizarre way saying the masters + registrar years is needed to meet the content of the 4+2. Seriously???

    An ‘all in’ approach is not the answer. We need a system for recognition of experience and expertise – but, we have already been through this to an extent years ago when people had the opportunity to apply – i agree we should have a new system but what will the criteria be? Not just number of years practicing. For some a bridging course may be the answer, for others it could be RPL type arrangements.
    The challenge we face is the ludicrous number of pathways we have to becoming registered in Australia. We are now trying to sort through the mess thats been created.
    I could say a lot more but will leave it there for now.

    1. Hi Interested Psychologist,

      The answer is very simple – when clearly understood.

      After gaining registration to practice as a psychologist, we then simply and very straight forwardly go about practicing as a psychologist.

      It really isn’t that complicated.

      The bizarre thing is; this is the very literal way it does still currently work in Australia today.

      Regardless of the pathway undertaken, once registered to practice in Australia, we still can, theoretically, practice in any chosen field of our profession. Unfortunately, this process is under direct threat. Hence the rumblings channelled through such movements like RAPS.

      While the Medicare Rebate system does introduce a systemic bias of funding to one very specific form of training over another, GP’s have and still do refer mild, moderate and severe clinical caseloads to psychologists across ALL training pathways whereby the outcomes of such referrals are very successful indeed.

      We cannot ignore the evidence of this. Even though some do.

      Psychologists in Australia today, across all training pathways, are working across all endorsed areas of practice very successfully. No one should be making allegations to the contrary without any evidence. To do so is literally making statements that are ill informed.

      Psychologists across all training pathways do a great job in treating clinical cases. That is a fact. Psychologists across all training pathways do a great job across all endorsed specialities. That too is a fact.

      Allegations of inherent deficiencies in the 4+2 training pathway is unfounded. I have addressed such allegations on the 4+2 pathway in previous comments and posts. I will not go in to that here.

      Many students thrive through this style of training. Just like therapy; different approaches work differently on different people. Some students thrive in the +2-provisional pathway while others thrive through the post grad masters pathway. Matching teaching style (i.e. training pathway) to student learning style is basic stuff.

      The different pathways we still currently have on offer in Australia today shows quality and savvy in our capacity as a nation to educate psychologists well. It is not a deficiency. It is a strength.

      Education needs this sort of flexibility whenever and where ever it can be mustered.

      I agree that the ‘all are equal argument’ is not true in terms of the ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘when’ and how of expert practice. But research shows it’s what we do after training, rather than the specific training pathway we take, that will determine the height of the ceiling in our capacity as practitioners.

      The fact is, it is the practitioner and the strategies they use in the pursuit of actualising their potential as experts AFTER training that is the real deal clincher.

      Training has a responsibility to set the student on the right trajectory that’s all. There comes a time when the practitioner is responsible for their own growth and development. Restricting how the practitioner can grow and develop only serves to stifle that growth and development. It does not enhance it.

      I’m intrigued by the perspective you hold that expert psychologists had an opportunity to ‘apply’? … Really? Expert psychologists who were trained, registered and in practice up to the eyeballs, successfully fulfilling their responsibilities and potential as practicing psychologists suddenly had to ‘apply’?

      We all really do need to accept and respect the expertise of our colleagues and promote a system that stems from such an attitude.

      The loaded ‘spooky’ statement you make re: “no one knowing what some have been doing in the secrecy of private practice for years”, cuts across psychologists from all training pathways and, while serving the purpose of being provocative, is void of any fact re: % of convictions against practicing psychologists compared to all other health and allied health professions who also practice in the “secrecy” of their private practice,

      While it is important to focus on the ongoing refinement and improvement of training pathways, supervision requirements and PD hours; I cannot escape picking up on the underpinning vibe of 4+2 trained psychologists being ostracised and told, by innuendo, to ‘buggar off’.

      The key to moving on from this current gridlock in the APS and our profession across Australia more broadly is to uphold a system that overtly accepts and respects the quality of expertise in our colleagues irrespective of the training pathway undertaken; while upholding the commitment to continually improve and refine our systems of training.

      A simple process of walking and chewing gum at the same time, but unfortunately, we’ve tripped over the pavement and swallowed the gum!

      Kind Regards

      1. Clive, thank you for your tesponse, the condescension was unnecessary.
        No not bugger off as clearly some 4+2 psychologists are experts in thier particular area of work. And yes, while psychologists do work across all areas fhere are areas that require specific advanced comprehensive training. This should be acknowledged.

        Post hoc justifications for the 4+2 dont however cut it (your horses for courses argument), nor do broad statements re the greatness of 4+2. And on reviewing your posts you have never, despite saying you have, adressed the challenges and problems of the 4+2 pathway. You just keep repeating its great, valid, matches teaching style, same outcomes etc. This is not addressing the problems Clive. Attempts have been made to close this pathway for years, going back to at least the late 90s.

        The issues we have today are the result of the failure of our previous leaders to adapt and modernise training as other professions have. Your statements unfortunstely aeem to reflect this legacy view of psychology, training in Australia, and justifying a bad system, however this just doesnt work anymore.

        1. dear “interested”(your name??)- by what criteria can you assert that the 4+2 is a “bad system”? Surely the validity of a training system must be judged by its outcomes- and the research evidence is clear. 4+2 trained psychs get at least as good results as masters trained psychs. There must be some other agenda that you have, other than a concern about the quality of psychological care that the Australian public currently gets via the Better Access scheme.

        2. Hi Interested Psychologist,

          Apologies if I came across as condescending. Certainly not my intention.

          You have asked me to offer an address of the problem… But what is the problem that needs to be addressed?

          I agree fervently with you that quality improvement in all training pathways is critical and should always be a key focus. I have communicated often through several comments on this blogsite that ALL training pathways should be continually refined and improved.

          But that’s not a problem nor evidence of a bad system. That’s just a part of normal business in the field of education.

          I am repeating myself from previous comments from a few months ago but to state again, the criteria required for the +2-pathway, including the most recent amendments of this pathway as of June 2017 – that is accessible for anyone to read through the PsychBA website – provides a very robust learning experience for students.

          Should our training pathways – all of them – be refined and updated when needed? Yes of course. Should any glitches be ironed out when they appear? Yes of course.

          Can and should ALL training pathways be reworked, remodelled, reshaped, updated and even superseded if necessary? Yes, of course!

          The real problem, as I see it, is why does this normal and very standard process of training program evolution result in so much angst towards colleagues practising exceptionally well under previous training models and pathways? That, to me, is the real problem we face.

          So, to reiterate; the starting point of a solution is to uphold a system that overtly accepts and respects the quality of expertise in our colleagues irrespective of the pathway undertaken; while upholding the commitment to continually improve and refine our systems of training.

          As I’ve already stated, it is being able to chew gum (i.e., uphold a system that overtly accepts and respects the quality of expertise in our colleagues irrespective of the training pathway undertaken) and walk (i.e., uphold a commitment to continually improve and refine our systems of training) at the same time.

          Kind Regards

      2. “GP’s have and still do refer mild, moderate and severe clinical caseloads to psychologists across ALL training pathways”

        So in other words, non-clinically endorsed psychologists have not been as handicapped by the $40 difference in Medicare rebate as some groups have claimed?

        “Psychologists across all training pathways do a great job in treating clinical cases. That is a fact. Psychologists across all training pathways do a great job across all endorsed specialities. That too is a fact.”

        That may be true, but that does not constitute any sort of argument for a one-tier system. Having previously taught at Bond University, you would be well aware that as in many industries, employees are paid at higher rates for having particular qualifications. The repeated demands by RAPS that people be tested by outcome on an individual basis seems to simply be an attempt to avoid having to earn certain qualifications while still enjoying the benefits.

        ” I have addressed such allegations on the 4+2 pathway in previous comments and posts. I will not go in to that here.”

        No, you haven’t. You posted an “analysis” of a study on your own Linked-In profile, which the authors of the study specifically stated could not be conducted using their results. You have repeatedly refused to submit your “analysis” to any form of legitimate publication and peer-review. You have posted your “analysis” on a Facebook group for high school and university students multiple times, and characterised this as “peer review”. When the students point out the numerous issues with your “analysis” (most recently, when a second year student contacted Pirkis herself, who again confirmed the type of analysis you claimed to have conducted could not be performed using the data from their study) you then delete your posts. This use of junk science only makes all psychologists look bad, by suggesting that we are all practitioners of such dubious scientific method.

        1. Hi J Dwyer,

          I encourage you to take a step back and realign the approach you have chosen to take with your colleagues on this blog site.

          Regardless of the goals you have for the various comments made, I would like to offer two very different goals for you to pursue.

          These are:

          1) intentionally go about building your understanding of how others in our shared profession have become experts in their field. Please, broaden the horizons of your understanding on this.

          2) accept and respect the qualities and expertise of your colleagues irrespective of the pathway they may have chosen.

          We have a rich resource of quality practitioners across Australia who have achieved a high bar in a range of practice domains (including clinical practice) that have been trained through a range of different pathways.

          We need to build on this rich resource; not tear it down.

          Kind Regards

  4. Ah Gregory… youve discovered my/our secret. Well done. There’s someone on here named Gregory/ Gregorski/ Gregory the Great / Gregory the @#$#, surely not the same person. How could one person spend so much time on here…. must be multiple people. What do you think Cate?

    1. Gregory Goodluck AKA Gregory, Gregorski, Gregarious, Gregorious, Gregarious Donatious, Gregort, Greg, GG, GG of GC says:

      All the same JD. No attempt to befuddle or obsfuscate on my part. I credit psychologists with more sagacity than to think the same icon/avatar with the same first name beginning (Greg) could be different people. No attempt to hide my identity was made. On the contrary they are all my names and nicknames derived from my true name. By the way, what does the J stand for Ms Dwyer? Sincere Regards, Gregort.
      PS can you answer Dr. Clives James’ question or are you just here to troll?

        1. Thanks Interested Psychologisit or who-ever you are… nice to see you are paying attention. That’s great!

      1. My last post in this thread is directed to “interested psychologist”, but I am not entirely sure that J Dwyer is not the same person anyhow. It would be much more helpful if people used their real names instead of hiding behind pseudonyms and half names.
        Yours Sincerely, Gregory the Gregarious Goodluck

      2. Oh JD. Give it a rest. You are really off beam there. I have no idea where you get such persecutory perceptions from. Just try to get on topic and make a contribution to improving the situation that disadvantages non Clinically Endorsed psychologists despite their/our competency. I will not engage in any further namey shamey blamey gamey …. silliness any more.

      3. i dont have much of an idea about how this or any other blog site works, but i have not seen one post from people named Henry or Hugh- obviously, i dont get all the posts for some reason. But i am very happy to debate them (or anyone else, regardless of age or gender) as long as they are able and willing to stick to the topic at hand and not try to side-track the discussion into ad hominem attacks.

        1. Hi Dr James,
          I have done a search of the comments, and Henry Luiker mad several around 26th October and 30th October. Hugh Woolford made some comments on 13th October and 8th October. I am sorry if you do not get these posts and would like to know if you find this happens in the future. I wholeheartedly applaud your suggestion that posters stick to topic and not descend into ad hominem attacks.
          Kevin Quin

        2. If newcomers have come in with old arguments that have already been debated I am afraid I don’t really have the time or interest in debating them. I am especially grateful to Dr Clive and Dr James who are more than capable of tackling any tired old arguments presented by fresh new contributors. I will put my energy into cheer leader type activities for now.

      4. I am quite astounded that the criticisms have gone into gender and age issues. I was unable to see how that was raised, from where it was deduced that the commenter was a young female. If commenters do not identify themselves accurately, then to assume that those attempting to debate the issues with facts, as opposed to making accusations to misdirect, are mind readers is absurd. Making accusations is thus a waste of time.
        But while we’re here. If a majority of the profession is female, then we could thus assume that many of the male members of the APS Board in the past did not have the interests of a majority of the profession in mind when they supported the two tier system being introduced. Rather than take pot shots at those attempting to benefit the interests of ALL psychologists (female, male, younger or older), have a look at the Board of the past, when the 2 tier was tinroduced, and the current, who wish to keep the status quo – and not support the majority of the profession – non-clinicals.

  5. Has anyone else noticed how the AAPi promoters on this site, who seem to be predominantly middle-aged and male, are openly and repeatedly dismissive of M.Psych (Clinical) students, a cohort who happen to be predominantly young women? It is particularly obvious in contrast to the same promoter’s apparent fear of making similar comments to (the male) Henry Luiker, despite the fact he is directly connected to the APS and a far more logical target for them. I know I have become a lot more open to RAP’s objectives, now that it is obvious that it is the same handful of (middle aged male) AAPi promoters who are the ones bravely attacking the efforts of (predominantly young female) clinical students while it seems other RAPS Contributors are far more reasonable in their concerns.

    1. Can I suggest that contributors stick to the problem. Its not about older white males and younger females with Masters clin Psych. How ridiculous can this be… I am an older white female – also tall. maybe its the tall people who have a problem…or the people with green eyes!!!

      BUT maybe its just that those of us who have been working in this area (pre Medicare) for 20+ yrs are angry at the state of play and believe in fair pay and fair recognition for the SAME work.

      1. Hi JD, I’m not trying to dismiss it and don’t agree with it. Just trying to bring it all back to basics and not let it get lost in the “he said, she said”. I, and most other psychologists (hopefully 99.999%) want equal pay and equal recognition for the SAME work!!

        1. Thank you for your respectful and empathetic response, Maria. I am sure as with many female trailblazers in a field, you would have unfortunately faced similar patronizing and dismissive responses from (hopefully) a minority when first attempting to establish yourself as a female psychologist. The issue for RAPS is that some of the most vocal contributors are older males repeatedly making comments denigrating the competence of a group of predominantly young women, and directly tying their accusations of incompetence to the age/experience of such young women. They frequently label this group “arrogant” and “cold”, labels known to be selectively applied to marginalize women trying to establish themselves in a workplace. These same contributors also quite noticeably shrink from engaging in a similarly aggressive manner (or even at all) from experienced male contributors, like Hugh Woolford or Henry Luiker, despite the fact that as APS representatives and/or clinical psychologists, Hugh and Henry would be far more appropriate people to address their concerns to. This paints RAPS in a very unfavorable light, one which I believe does not reflect the beliefs of the majority of actual RAPS supporters, and in my opinion, has caused RAPS to not enjoy the support it otherwise would have. The fact that this same vocal minority also use the RAPS site to promote membership of the AAPi, a group whose persistent panhandling from psychologists would be affected if RAPS were to succeed in achieving equality for psychologists, should make everyone stop and think whether this group are intentionally trying to undermine RAPS to preserve the AAPi’s revenue stream.

          1. Hi J Dwyer,

            Thank you for sharing your frustrations around this debate. I sincerely am not aiming to point the finger at anyone on this forum except to confirm that passionate conflict can unfortunately end up becoming hostile (i.e., primary intent to cause harm rather than discuss and resolve the issues of concern).

            Sometimes the intent of comments in conflict can be misconstrued as hostile when they genuinely are not meant to be; while at other times comments and replies will most certainly end up simply wanting to put the ‘boot in’.

            As a poignant side note, well, more a cryptic analogy to raise a concern; I played Rugby League for about 12 years before I competed internationally in triathlons. On quite a few occasions when playing in the ‘footy’ matches, fights would break out on the field of play. It wasn’t uncommon for these fights to turn in to all in brawls with just about everyone on both teams forgetting about the game and turn to throwing punches at each other instead.

            I can honestly say that I did not throw a punch once, albeit being in the thick of it. I would usually just run in and stop those I assessed as being the most hostile and likely to cause the most damage to others.

            Why the analogy? Well, apart from it relating to this blogsite, on a more pressing matter it’s unfortunate to say that our own team Captain, (the APS President) in his most recent message to his team via InPsych has come out swinging at his own players by calling RAPS sympathisers, associates, supporters as self-serving.

            By the tone of his message it is no wonder the negotiations with RAPS did not bear any fruit.

            The fact is many thousands of psychologists who are APS members are gravely concerned over the growing developments in our profession that undermine their credibility to practice across many areas of expertise.

            But in his formal written public address of the matter the APS president could only swing a punch rather than speak to the concerns to offer a valid solution.

            What are the concerns?

            Well, there are quite a few but one primary concern raised by RAPS is that many thousands of Mr Cichello’s colleagues, who he formally represents as president of the APS have been impacted greatly by the two tier Medicare rebate system and the growing promotion of clinical psychologist endorsement through a master’s program that ignores and/or underplays the clinical expertise established by many thousands of his colleagues through other legitimately recognised and formally legislated pathways to registration and practice.

            Mr Cichello did not address this at all. He simply chose to put the ‘boot in’ instead.

            As I have posted previously, if we were serious about a unified voice through the APS shouldn’t Mr Cichello be openly and overtly promoting and selling the expertise of ALL his APS colleagues as they present in their expertise regardless of the pathway they may have chosen to get there?

            Well it seems no. He would prefer to swing a metaphorical ‘punch’ instead at those who raise such concerns.

            Sincerely disappointed but not surprised,


      2. JD, when you point out people’s age and sex and discredit their opinions because of it are you are being Age-ist and Sexist? Why not discuss the ideas instead of talking about the person’s age and sex?

      3. Maria. Your post made me laugh. (Or was ot my cognitions about your post made me laugh?! Eek! The professors are watching! I better get it right! or.. or… or……nothing.) Let me rephrase that. In my opinion there is a high probability that reading ypur last post triggered an image of a tall greeneyed woman being judged mercilessly by a non-greeneyed non-tall person that generated a stress relieving release of tension via the interplay of limbic system, frontal and parietal lobes of the cerbral cortex and the autonomic nervous system, flooding the brain with hormones like oxytocin and neurotransmitters like Dopamine in response to the realisation of the absurdity of the ironic comment and by metaphoricsl extension, the notion of white older men being the sneaky driving force behind RAPS (which we all know was started and led by Women) called mirthful. ROTFLMAO
        And, to pay homage to our illustrative President Micaels recent comment, I wonder if you were using Socratic Irony?

  6. Long time RAPS supporter, first time commentator.

    What strikes me about all this posturing by the APS and APAC regarding bridging programs is that they all seem to place the cart before the horse. Any questions about competency should not be directed at experienced psychologists with fifteen or more years of experience in the field. Rather the focus should be on the well-intentioned but young and inexperienced clinical students that are being churned out by degree mills, more interested in student fees then producing competent psychologists. How can any university claim to provide experience equivalent to what a 4 + 2 gains from real life experience, especially in light of the research findings of Dr Jones et al.?

    Accordingly, I have a proposed model which RAPS is free to adopt as an alternative proposal to ridiculous bridging programs that forces well-respected and experienced psychologists to “go back to the classroom”. This is taken from the Australian medical model, where newly graduated doctors are expected to spend a number of years working within the hospital system before being provided with their own Medicare provider numbers.

    I propose that after graduation, Masters or Doctoral students are not automatically given a Medicare Provider Number to practice as psychologists. Instead, they would be expected to complete a certain number of hours under the supervision of a registered psychologist with fifteen or more years experience. I think the current 4 + 2 model requiring 3200 hours of supervised practice is a good start, although perhaps 4000 or 5000 hours would provide a more solid learning base for these students. Those psychologists generous enough to spend their time to supervise these students would be automatically provided with a clinical endorsement in recognition of their contribution. Furthermore, to avoid any possible undue financial burden being created by such scheme and to keep supervision fees to a minimum, these supervisors would be permitted to bulkbill any clients seen by such students under their own Medicare provider number, to compensate such supervisors for the time spent sharing their knowledge and experience with students. Once the students have completed their 4000-500 hours to the satisfaction of their supervisor, they can then be provided with a Medicare number to practice privately, with the Australian community being reassured that such psychologists have the necessary training beyond university lectures to perform at a competent level. I myself have a thriving private practice with an extensive waitlist – such a learning program would allow me to provide more people in need of mental healthcare with assistance who otherwise could not afford it, while also helping the next generation of psychologists by passing on my decades of experience.

    While I do not have the business acumen of my clinical brethren, I think my proposal will address the issues of both not unduly penalising established psychologists for choosing a different path to becoming a psychologist thirty years ago, while also helping the next generation of psychologists benefit from the diverse experience of mentors in the field of psychology. This approach makes far more sense then the nonsensical “bridging programs” which only diminish our collective skill set and inconvenience the majority for the financial benefit of the few.

    1. yes, just one of many viable alternatives to the bridging course model- the alternatives are many, but they will never be given a chance as long as the ‘clin’ psychs are running the APS. The only sensible way forward is a clinical skills assessment by.a body other than the APS.

      1. Gregory Goodluck AKA Gregory, Gregorski, Gregarious, Gregorious, Gregarious Donatious, Gregort, Greg, GG, GG of GC says:

        James. What sort of external bodies? AQTF or AQF? Are their any people reading this blog can recommend and educate us all about the industries, frameworks and organisations that could undertake such an external accreditation role as James has suggested.

      2. Gregory Goodluck AKA Gregory, Gregorski, Gregarious, Gregorious, Gregarious Donatious, Gregort, Greg, GG, GG of GC says:

        James. What sort of external bodies? AQTF or AQF? Are there any people reading this blog can recommend and educate us all about the industries, frameworks and organisations that could undertake such an external accreditation role as James has suggested.

      3. I think someone should award Dr Clive James and Dr James Alexander with honourary doctorates in Clinical Psychology in recognition of being eminently sensible, eclectic and wise, and for their steadfast commitment to Truth, science and humanity.

        1. correction Jones not James. But a posthumous award to Clive James might be sensible too, given his acutely incisive observations and analyses of human behaviour when he did walk this mortal plane.

          1. Actually despite his terminal illness Clive James still lives on with newer medications despite announcing he was giving up the ghost some years ago. He is reported as saying he was embarrassed to be still alive in 2015. Very funny guy. Glad he is still alive to receive an honourary doctorate in Psychology should anyone agree to award him one.

    2. Fantastic Idea! Real Thinking outside the Box! I have a private practice part time, and I would be happy to Supervise under such a program. This makes much more Sense then pushing psychologists with our experience back to university to be Taught by Those Who Can’t Do.

    3. Well said “Defiant 4+2”. Be careful pointing out that recent graduates might not be as competent as psychologists with many years of experience. Opponents might cast aspersions on your ethics and honour, no matter how true your statement is, or hoow elequently, colourfully or poetically you put it.

      “While I do not have the business acumen of my clinical brethren, I think my proposal will address the issues of both not unduly penalising established psychologists for choosing a different path to becoming a psychologist thirty years ago, while also helping the next generation of psychologists benefit from the diverse experience of mentors in the field of psychology. ”

      Well written. What do you mean by, “the business acumen of my clinical brethren.”?
      Can you elaborate please or explain what that points to specifically, because I don’t think it follows that Clinical Endorsement brings business acumen or that non Clinically endorsed = no business acumen. I think you mean something different. Please explain.

      I thoroughly enjoyed your calm and sensible post.


      1. Thank all of you who provided constructive feedback.

        James, I most respectfully disagree. I feel any sort of skills assessment is not only redundant but even disrespectful once a psychologist has more then fifteen years of practice. An automatic clinical endorsement after fifteen years of practice seems to be a more logical path, perhaps even with a title of Doctorate of Psychology (Clinical) awarded after twenty five years to recognize the skills gained through a lifetime of mental health care. However, the skills of less experienced members of our profession are through no fault of their own far more likely to be limited or non-existent. Perhaps an individualized clinical skills assessment as you suggested applied at the five and ten year mark after graduation to all Masters and Doctoral graduates in order to ensure that such graduates are fit for practice would help raise standards of psychological services offered and increased community faith in psychology.

        Tanya, yes, I thought this was a model that would allow we experienced practitioners to share our knowledge with bright students without imposing an unreasonable financial burden on we generalists who already suffer tremendously under the yoke of the two tier system.

        Gregory, I have already noted that emotionally insecure reactions are sometimes triggered by pointing out such harsh realities as the fact that masters or doctoral graduates with less then fifteen or twenty years experience will naturally display inferior outcomes to those psychologists who have this invaluable experience. I have already been falsely accused of perpetuating fraud for suggesting an appropriate means of ensuring supervisors are adequately financially compensated by allowing them to bulkbill for their supervisee’s client work under their own provider number, when I made it clear that I was suggesting an amendment to Medicare requirements to make such bulkbilling legal. Also, please do not take my comments as any aspersion on the business skills of non-clinically endorsed psychologists: I am fully aware as generalists, we are forced to be renaissance men, balancing our concern for the mental well-being of the community with the mundane financial realities of running a practice. I was merely highlighting that our clinical brethren are obviously motivated to enter the College more by the monetary benefits, and the increased status and power accorded to them as a result, then any real concern for the less fortunate members of our society. Accordingly their time and energies are more likely to be spent on devising new strategies to maximise their income then treatment plans.

        1. Department of Health
          What are Focussed Psychological Strategies (FPS) services?
          A: A range of evidence-based strategies has been approved for use by allied mental health professionals utilising the FPS Medicare items. As outlined in the MBS book, these are:

          1. Psycho-education (including motivational interviewing)
          2. Cognitive-behavioural therapy including:
          • Behavioural interventions
          • Behaviour modification
          • Exposure techniques
          • Activity scheduliling
          • Cognitive interventions
          • Cognitive therapy
          3. Relaxation strategies
          • Progressive muscle relaxation
          • Controlled breathing
          4. Skills training
          • Problem solving skills and training
          • Anger management
          • Social skills training
          • Communication training
          • Stress management
          • Parent management training
          5. Interpersonal therapy (especially for depression)

          source: Dept of Health Website….

          Please explain: How are these “strategies” different to what a clinically endorsed psychologist would provide?

          1. Why not post the psycholigical treatments allowed for Clinical Endorsed under medicare. Then we will see very little difference if any.

            1. the only available Australian research showed that there is in reality no difference in terms of what psychologists do by their training route.

            2. 1.3 What are Psychological Therapy services?

              Psychological Therapy services offer a full intervention package for the patient’s condition. Clinical psychologists registered with Medicare Australia are able to provide Medicare rebateable Psychological Therapy services to eligible patients. In addition to psycho-education, it is recommended that cognitive behaviour therapy be provided. However, other evidence-based therapies, such as interpersonal therapy, may be used if considered clinically relevant.



              What is a psychologist?
              Psychologists study the way people feel, think, act and interact. Through a range of strategies and therapies they aim to reduce distress and to enhance and promote emotional wellbeing. Psychologists are experts in human behaviour, and have studied the brain, memory, learning and human development. Psychologists can assist people who are having difficulty controlling their emotions, thinking and behaviour, including those with mental health problems such as anxiety and depression, serious and enduring mental illness, addictive behaviours and childhood behaviour disorders.

              All psychologists are legally required to be registered with the national registration board, the Psychology Board of Australia, in the same way medical practitioners must be registered. This means that they must be competent and follow a strict Code of Conduct.

              Not all counsellors or therapists are registered psychologists. Seeing someone who is registered ensures you receive high quality ethical treatment.


              The conditions classified as mental disorders for the purposes of these services are informed by the World Health Organisation, 1996, Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care: ICD-10 Chapter V Primary Care Version. For the purposes of these items, dementia, delirium, tobacco use disorder and mental retardation are not regarded as a mental disorder.


              SO NO DSM MENTIONED!

              The referrer i.e. the GP, Psychiatrist or Pediatrician undertakes the assessment of eligibility for accessing medicare mental health items…. NOT the clinical psychologist….. so diagnosis already provided. The purpose of referring to psychologist is for “treatment” not diagnosis…. within the course of provision of such all registered psychologists working in mental health undertake ongoing CPD to maintain skills in delivering competent assessment and evidence based therapeutic services! Otherwise those who train us ie provide workshops seminars university modules of training are otherwise deemed by APS and PBA as inadequate hence this need of a magic masters.

          2. they arent different- just a house of straw which has been cleverly constructed by the APS/PBA junta in their attempts to justify the pay and status differential. The only relevant research conducted in Australia demonstrated that ‘gen’ psychs and ‘clin’ psych do the same work- with the same populations, utilising the same strategies; with the same outcomes.

            1. Dr Alexander (financial ties to AAPi???), I note that you continue to use the RAPS website to repeat the same inflammatory comments about the APS and the PBA, when it has been noted that such extremist views being associated with RAPS appears to have contributed to RAPS losing support during such critical periods as the Spill and the EGM. I also note you have avoided responding to questions about how much the AAPi, an organisation you are a “Fellow” of and whose sole activity appears to be soliciting funds from psychologists to supposedly fund a mysterious “court action”, would lose financially if RAPS is successful in their objective to have the APS more adequately represent all psychologists. I again urge RAPS to carefully consider which organisations would most benefit if RAPS was unsuccessful in achieving their objectives.

              1. dear ‘Bemused Forensic (your real name??)- please rest assured that my only financial tie with AAPi is that i pay annual fees to them. But if you insist on trying to play the man and not the ball (i.e ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the issues), feel free to contact me directly and i will happily address any issues you have with me personally, rather than waste this space with side issues. At least i have the conviction of my position to state my real name, and therefore open myself to scrutiny- you should try the same.

                I suspect the RAPS spill failed because the APS refuse to release ‘gen’ psych member’s email addresses to RAPS. The reason why they do is is that they know full well that if around 20,000 psychologists had access to information about RAPS, most would express their outrage about what has been done to them at the APS ballot box- something the APS leadership must prevent at all costs. What you consider to be inflammatory comments may very well be what most Australian psychologists are currently feeling- well and truly inflamed. I will leave it up to the moderators of RAPS to decide whether any of my comments are beyond the pail, or whether they reflect the views of their natural constituency.

                Re the AAPi- i think you will find that not only the President, but also many of their members are also members of the APS. They are not against the APS, but would alos like to see reform there, and in the PBA. Their sole purpose is to create the changes in Australian psychology which most Australian psychologists want- i dont see how there could be any financial loss to AAPi or its members were RAPS and AAPi were to succeed in that shared goal. I dispute that i have evaded answering questions about AAPi. I am a Fellow (no need for ” “)- not a paid employer, nor a Board member, nor an authorised representative. I cannot possibly speak on behalf of an organisation when i have no authority to do so. I have several times suggested you contact AAPi in order to have any queries answered. By the same token, i will not hold you personally responsible for the APS, nor will i expect you to speak as a representative of the APS (unless, beneath your pseudonym) you are either an employee, Board member or authorised spokesperson of the APS??

                  1. Truth v perception management and diplomacy Some say we should bury the truth because it might upset the ruling caste and therefore it is divisive. I say the Truth will set you free. (someone else said it before me. It is a Truism that happens to be true…and Free.)

                1. James could you explain the “Fellow” grade? Is this the same as “Fellow” of the old Australian College of Clinical Psychologists? I still see “FACCP” on some resumes.

                  1. no idea- i was never a Fellow of any other organisation, and the only other psychology organisation i have been a member of is the APS. You really want to make this about individuals, and ignore the issues facing most Australian psychologists? Email me and i’ll waste time with you privately.

                2. James, i also meamt to ask, does AAPi procide endorsements as ive swen some say they are “AAPi endorsed”. As a “Fellow ” could you tell us about this endorsement process, whats the supervision and PD requirement
                  Thanks IP

            2. Let’s see the blurbs side by side describing focussed psychological strategies and psychological treatment or whatever it is dressed up as.

                1. and yet…. the only relevant research shows that ‘clin’ psychs and ‘gen’ psychs actually do the same work- not greater breadth shown by anyone. Evidence is both relevant and important.

                2. What do you mean? Where is your evidence to purport this belief? How can you measure your definition of greater breadth?

                  Target group, entry criteria and psychological models of therapeutic practice/intervention/ frameworks for Medicare psychology services IS THE SAME.

        2. Yes, lets give people a doctorate of psychology when they havent actually done anything to earn a doctorate in psychology. Great idea! So i could work at earning over 4 years at uni with everything required to earn a degree at that level, or i could work and expect to be gifted the degree/ title… because…. well…. i deserve it! Good one.

          1. well…. it makes as much sense as giving some psychologists a higher rate of pay, just … because. Do they deserve it? Do they get better results with clients? Where is the evidence to suggest so? It is the element notably lacking in all of your cohort’s opinions- evidence. That little issue that we as psychologists are meant to have some respect for.

    4. Sorry, I didn’t realise that a 2 to 2.5 year masters degree amounted to ‘being churned out by (a) degree mill’. The understanding of some as to what a masters entails is very concerning.
      And what you suggest amounts to fraud – ie – an intern using a supervisors medicare number.

  7. Wondering what a “one-year stand alone bridging programs to endorsement with recognition of prior learning for all non-clinicals” will mean? Many questions. Daytime/full-time/part-time attendance at lectures? “Clinical placements” out of our workplace? Lost income? Incredibly ridiculous hoops? (I assisted some 4+2s and must say their requirements were ridiculous!) Am justifiably suspicious given the almost total eradication of post-grad courses the working registered psychologist can afford (time-wise) to attend/complete.

    1. the only thing we could count on- academic clinical psychs will benefit. the whole notion is a scam. the only research evidence available shows that whatever the training of ‘gen’ psychs happens to be ; it results in psychologists who get just as good results with clients as do ‘clin’ psychs. So, a bridging course is needed for what purpose?

      1. Hi James, interested in your thinking underlying the use of ‘academic’ with reference to clinical psychologists. Are you up to date with the content of clinical masters/ other masters programs? Maybe you are thinking of the MPhil degree…

        1. dear “interested” (your real name??). You misunderstand- my use of the term ‘academic clinical psych’ refers to clinical psychs who are academics, ie. teachers- a fair enough descriptor, i would have thought. My knowledge of the contents of masters of clin psych programs in Australia is derived from the research conducted by Pachana, N., O’Donovan, A., & Helmes, E .(2006) ‘Australian clinical psychology training program directors survey’, Australian Psychologist, Nov 41(3): 168-178. They refer to the broad spectrum of clin psych programs, not just single cases. You should read it some time. Other than that, my knowledge of practicing ‘clin’ psychs is based on 30 years of observation- just like all other groupings of psychologists, some are excellent practitioners, others are far less effective.

        2. He means the Clinical Psychologists who work in Universities teaching and doing research. Pretty self explanatory really IP. Do you think you might be twisting words to create a biased negative profile?

          1. Not at all, im trying to understand the terminology. Clinical psychologists, by the nature of their masters training (and by extension other endorsed areas eg counselling) have been referred to as ‘academic’ , so just trying to understand. So youre talking about the teachers. My experience, certainly across the major Sydney and Brisbane unis is that most if not all teachers also do clinical work. Dr Clive Jones may want to comment on this from his Bond Uni experience where all clinical and forensic ‘teachers’ engage in clinical work.

            1. the amount of academics doing ‘clinical’ work has certainly increased since the inception of the upper tier Medicare rebate which their services are eligible for (hey- i wonder if there could be a vested interest there?). However, the fact remains- if you have focused your career on teaching, it has been to the exclusion of focusing your career on applied work. This hasnt stopped most of the head honchos in the APS/PBA from awarding themselves multiple areas of practice endorsement, however. I have to wonder how over 30 yeas they have managed to become experts in up to 4 or 5 different applications of psychology, while at the same time being full time academics? Quite remarkable, really (or it just shows what a sham the whole endorsement system is?).

                1. Absolutely…. academics doing clinical work requires a public enquiry. In fact any clinician doing private work and claiming any type of expertise should be examined… doctors, social workers, OTs, physios, etc. How could anyone doing research in an area and teaching find the time to also do client work? Not after hours or as a part of research. Maybe Dr Jones could assist in answering this.

                  1. Can Dr Jones respond to this thread. There is need of clarification about those excessive endorsements of Academicians.

                    1. Hi Gregory,

                      Interesting to note some irony and hypocrisy in the whole endorsement /college membership debacle when we can turn to the current President, Executive Director & President Elect of the APS and use their own journey as great examples of the principles raised and advocated by RAPS.

                      Specifically, they are great examples on the ease and effectiveness of the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) for national endorsement and college membership.

                      For example:

                      1) the current APS President has national endorsement and APS college membership in Clinical, Counselling & Health Psychology through the formal qualifications of only one bachelor of science (honours) degree and one master of psychology (clinical) degree.

                      To my knowledge the APS president has not completed any bridging courses and has not completed multiple master’s programs to obtain nationally registered endorsement and APS college membership in these three areas.

                      2) the current APS Executive Director has national endorsement and APS college membership in Clinical, Community, Counselling & Organisational Psychology through the formal qualifications of a diploma of education, an undergrad bachelor of science degree, a 4th year bachelor of science, (honours) degree and a master of psychology degree.

                      To my knowledge the APS Executive Director has not completed any bridging courses and has not completed multiple master’s programs to obtain nationally registered endorsement and APS college membership in these four areas.

                      – the APS President Elect has national endorsement and APS college membership in Clinical, & Counselling Psychology through the formal qualifications of one bachelor of science degree and one master of psychology degree.

                      To my knowledge the APS President Elect has not completed any bridging courses and has not completed multiple master’s programs to obtain nationally registered endorsement and APS college membership in these two areas.

                      What I find of additional interest with the president elect is their current position of Clinic Director at Macquarie University’s Psychology Clinic that offers practice experience for Clinical, Clinical Neuropsychology and Organisational Provisional Psychologists. Under the current climate of arbitrated specialist practice boundaries, the University should be employing three separate clinical directors. One for the clinical psych students, one for the clinical neuro-psych students and one for the organisational psych students. The president elect clearly does not consider the one specialist master’s degree to inhibit her capacity to oversee the practice experience of other endorsed areas of psychology.

                      These three examples of the APS president, the APS president elect and the APS executive director offer great examples of how psychologists can and do develop expertise across numerous endorsed areas of practice without having to complete multiple degrees and/or bridging course.

                      Kind Regards

  8. There are moments of enlightenment amongst the comments on this site, solution focused and helpful. Then we get comments about the ‘clever clinicals’ and a backwards step is taken. All we can factually say about the spill was that the ‘membership’ voted out certain directors – we can then summise that many who voted were clinical (in response to the RAPS aim of voting certain directors) , however not all were clinical. It back fired and rather than constructively looking at what went ‘wrong’ and the negative unconstructive musings on here, it is unfortunately put down to a clinical and national APS conspiracy. The spill should never have happened. However we will eventually get a more representative board.

    1. The spill should have happened on June 6th and the EGM but was cunningly diverted! It was an insult to members.

                1. Shrewed? Orchestrating? Sly? you choose which word to best replace “clever”. Sagacious? Machievellian? the list could go on but I am over this thread. It is not divisive to point out the Emporers lack of attire. It is in the interests of all.

                  1. sagacious



                    having or showing keen mental discernment and good judgement; wise or shrewd.

                    “they were sagacious enough to avoid any outright confrontation”

                    synonyms:wise, clever, intelligent, with/showing great knowledge, knowledgeable, sensible, sage;

                    discerning, judicious, canny, penetrating,perceptive, acute, astute, shrewd, prudent, politic,thoughtful, full of insight, insightful, percipient,perspicacious, philosophical, profound, deep;



                    “the President sent his most sagacious aide to help Republican candidates”

    2. Agreed, Interested Psych
      Things were getting more constructive in the last couple of posts and I feel this post is a step back toward the early days of this forum… I thought we had moved past this, but apparently not:

      #Look for solutions – not blame

  9. But remember a Board’s promise of a one year bridging course is still reliant on tertiary providers or the APS Institute to administer the course…..which may lead to the same problems of entrance numbers etc. So while it is an option, once again it is one which is dependent on the backing of other institutions, and a range of factors which will not be able to be influenced by the APS.

    1. does anyone (other than ‘clinicals’) really trust the APS to put together a bridging course? How about a skills test instead, so the competency of each and every psychologist (including ‘clinicals’) can be objectively measured against some kind of meaningful criteria, eg. client outcomes? We all know that (with one exception) all clinical courses are training in DSM nosology and CBT- both of which there is considerable evidence against. Do we rally want a year of this non-sense?

      1. Thank Dr Alexander! Let the clinicals cling to their CBT and DSM. We who work in the Real World know there are superior holistic approaches that help our client’s minds, bodies and spiritual energies and have no need to waste time learning such Foolishness that only enrich academics. Really, if the APS are Honest in wanting to raise the standard of psychology, they should advocate for all current psychologists with 15 or more years coalface experience to be given the higher rebate with no more jumping over hoops, and require all “masters” students do 3200 hours of client contact to give them the same real world expertise we “generalists” have.

        1. Yes this is the way to build collaboration. On a more constructive note, how do you guarantee the skill set and rpl for the higher rebate?:

          1. most industries in the planet are able to operationalise their skills sets and assess for them- surely not beyond the APS- in fact, i believe it has already been done for psychology (although i dont have the details- someone on this forum may have them?). How else would clin psych courses establish that their graduates are amongst the elite??

      2. Who needs a course to use the DSM? It is very self explanatory and there is alot of information about how it is set up and how to use it. I have the full DSM-5, the desk reference version and the the pocket guide to the DSM-5 Diagnositic Exam. It is not the holy grail in any case, just a document that gives a common language to a lot of conditions which is very useful from a medico-legal perspective when working with courts, hospitals, insurers, rehabilitation organisations etc.
        The ICD-11 is thought to be even better when it finally sees the light of day.
        I have used the ICD-10 in government mental health work and the DSM-IV-TR which is also on my shelf with all it’s funky dimensions and GAFs, GASFs, etc.
        I used sections of a version of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I. 7.0.2 for DSM-5) today when I visited an injured worker in a hospital to ascertain levels of trauma, suicidality and depression having already applied other screens (WHO5, DASS21, K10) and clinical interviews and less formal risk assessments I have honed over years of mental health and psychology experience (e.g.Suicidality: history? ideation? plan? means? intention? gathered from Clinical Director Psychiatrists, Senior psychologists…. etc etc. etc.).
        I am assessing and treating this client as the 4 weeks post injury time point approaches and we see if the dx will be PTSD or just the Acute Stress Disorder it currently is. I.e. will the natural traumatic stress symptoms resolve to below the threshold for a PTSD dx.
        I certainly hope they will, for all concerned and am doing what I can to help his autonomic nervous system return to normal (premorbid conditions) using “Focussed psychological strategies” and yes, Clinical Psychology…. because Medicare doesn’t have anything to do with it and I am trusted to do the correct and knowledgable things by the people who pay me what I am worth.
        It doesn’t get much more Clinical Psychologist-like than that. Notice I didn’t claim to be a Clinical Psychologists, but I do Clinical Psychology, in a Clinic that I drove to from my Clinic where I also do Clinical Psychology because I am a Psychology Clinician. But of course I am not a Clinical Psychologist.
        The MINI is quite useful in many ways and I have been using it for a decade now in other versions since it was given to me by a Senior Social Worker Colleague from Mental Health Services days along with many other useful screens and metrics.
        I even have the BDI and the BDA on file and use the PAI and IORNs when needed.
        It doesn’t get much more clinical than that.
        How long will it be before some bright spark tells me I am not allowed to do that anymore because I am not endorsed clinical?
        I hope I don’t have to go to University for a year to have the right to do that in the future.
        The word ‘preposterous’ springs to mind.
        It was lovely to go see a client in a health facility and be respected as a bonafide clinician in a multidisciplinary setting. Sad our own association doesnt.

        1. Hello Gregory,
          Do you provide any training on DSM-5? It sounds like you know quite a bit about it – pros, cons, etc.

          1. No Eric. I just read about it. There is plenty written about it. I prefer to focus on more useful activities like curing psychosocial mental and emotional health and wellbeing problems. Thanks for the thought though. What sort of training do you require? If you are a trained and registered psychologist you have all you need to go forward and unpack things like DSM and put it on the shelf along side all your other tools and lenses you will gather in your career. Believe in your profession and your training. You are enough! Enough to have the meta skills to pick up the skills tou need on any journey this amazing career can take you on. DSM5 is just a cognitive schema for organising psychopathology into categories. It is not reality. Just a schema among many.
            Peace, Love and Tropical sunsets.
            Gregory Goodluck (at the beach).

      3. Not actually true James, i was taught bith dsm and icd as part of broader psychopatholgy, as well as family therapy. I am aware of two courses in brisbane which certsinly teach more than just cbt and dsm. but don’t let facts grt in the way. ..

        1. dear “Interested” (your real name??)- surely you should know that in science, it is not ok to extrapolate from a single case study to a whole population? While you may have had a particular experience in your ‘clin’ training, the following research article states that ‘clin’ psych training in Australia is primarily in CBT as the main intervention approach. Pachana, N., O’Donovan, A., & Helmes, E .(2006) ‘Australian clinical psychology training program directors survey’, Australian Psychologist, Nov 41(3): 168-178. I suspect 2006 is relatively recent enough to still be relevant. The problem is that (you may know from the research?) that CBT is demonstrating diminishing results as the years go on- its presumed superiority (often stated as ‘the gold standard’) is largely due to publication bias, and it appears to be becoming less effective- but this is the bulk of therapy training in clinical programs. The other main feature of clin training is psychiatric nosology- either DSM or ICD, or both. Research cited by Duncan, Miller & Sparks (2004) indicates that the classification applied to any particular client contributes around .5% to the therapy outcome- it is the least important of all the psychologist related factors in therapy. But it is a major part of ‘clin’ training- in fact, one of the elements which your cohort asserts as resulting in ‘superior’ psychologists. So, what exactly does ‘clin’ training offer that is of extraordinary benefit to clients that could justify either a higher rate of pay, or participation of experienced psychologists in bridging courses? Please demonstrate (that means with evidence) how the clinical emperor isnt actually naked (that means is superior to all other psychologists).

          1. James, of coure its not ok to extrapolate from a single case study to a whole population, which is done a lot on here, but neither is it appropriate nor valid to make sweeping generalisations about any group, course, or training as was done re cbt and dsm. It simply isnt true. I simply provided an example to the contrary. Again, as has been stated many times here, the lack of knowledge regarding current clinical masters content and mrthods is concerning.

            1. dear “interested” (your real name???)- it is valid to make statements which are grounded in research based evidence. eg. most clinical masters programs in Aust are focused on CBT (see Pachana, N., O’Donovan, A., & Helmes, E .(2006) ‘Australian clinical psychology training program directors survey’, Australian Psychologist, Nov 41(3): 168-178.). It is valid to question the use of psychiatric nosology for clients (see Brown, j., Dreis, S., & Nace, D (1999) What really makes a difference in psychotherapy outcome? In M. Hubble, B. Duncan & S. Miller (Eds) The heart and soul of change. What works in therapy (pp 389-406). American Psychological Association), who demonstrated that there is no relationship between psychiatric diagnostic label and either the outcome for the client, or the length of therapy). And it is valid to state that i) much of the CBT ‘gold-standard’ rhetoric is derived from a publication bias, that its results in reality are no better than for other psychotherapies, once the publication bias has been statistically control;led for – see Cuipers, P., Berking, M., Andersson, G., Quigley, L., Kleboir, A., Dobson, K (2013) A meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioural therapy for adult depression, alone and in comparison with other treatments.. in Canadian Journal of Psychiatry July 58 ((7), and ii) CBT is showing diminishing returns as the years roll on. See a recent meta-analysis, “The Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy as an Anti-Depressive Treatment is Falling: A Meta-Analysis” (Johnsen & Friborg, 2015). The authors computed the effect-sizes found in 70 studies of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for depression published between 1977 and 2014 and concluded “the effects of CBT have declined linearly and steadily since its introduction.”

              You may find all this pretty uncomfortable reading “interested” (your name??), but your discomfort does make any of it untrue, simply because you dont like it. Relevant to our discussion here, it is CBT and psychiatric nosology which are often touted as to reasons for ‘clinical’ superiority. As per the scholarly and research based data presented in these articles, i think it reasonable to capture the situation with saying, “the (clinical) emperor is naked”. That is not to say ‘clinicals’ do a bad job with their clients- the research evidence is that they do a job which is just as good as that done by ‘gen’ psychs (well, not entirely, but the differences were not statistically significant). The evidence does suggest that the supposed differences with ‘clin’ psychs (psychiatric nosology and CBT) have no remarkable impact on client outcomes- that makes sense, in light of the research data.

            2. IP, Dr Alexander previously described clinical psychologists as “cold and heartless” based on a single unsubstantiated anecdote about a story another RAPS member heard at a party so he is quite happy to extrapolate about an entire population from a single imaginary example when it suits him.

              1. Oh, JW- here we go again. Nowhere have i stated that ‘clin’ psychs are “cold and heartless”. I did state, ‘no wonder ‘clinical’ is thought of as synonomous with heartless’ (as demonstrated in the following quote from ‘The Master and His Emissary’ by psychiatrist Iain McGilchrest (p397)- “Its cold, clinical detachment…”- note the words are used synonomously).

            3. So edify us all with the esoteric insights into the sacred Mpsych Clinical content. Or is it a secret available only for the select few? I’m guessing it pretty much covers the same ground as a plus 2 pathway to registration considering the competencies are standards for registration.

              1. Yes we forget that in my opinion a 4+2 is the requirement for registration whether the + 2 is gained via applied industry based direct learning or academic studies via masters if you want to basically get into research and teach psychology. The extra + 2 following a masters in my opinion is essential because perhaps the placement component of the masters may not be enough to prepare a student for private practice so its there to protect the public?

                1. Wow thats a good one, ive never seen it twisted that way before. So now a masters plus the two years of registrar work/ supervision is equal to a 4+2? Is that what you are saying?

                    1. teach & research in tertiary institutions
                      therapy, treatment, rehab & “clinical” application

                    2. Eric…. the master of clinical at Uni of Melb

                      This course consists of coursework, placement and a minor research thesis (6,000 to 10,000 words).
                      Coursework consists of 14 classroom-based subjects taken over the two years of the course (see below) and 125 days of Placement (30 days in the first-year and 95 days in the second-year).


                      approx 4 mths of placements over 24 mths of studying and minor research

                  1. If you spend so much time studying and your masters research & placement is the only experience you have and im assuming its not the full 2 yrs of the masters …….

                    1. many of my peers many moons ago studied a masters which was 1 yr and either via course work or research focussed with minimal placement hrs…. the 4+2 was highly valued because it offered 2 yrs of direct experience to fulfill state legislated registration requirements

                      yes times have changed! why am i as a 4+2 with nearing 30 yrs of expertise deemed unendorsed when i continue to engage in CPD offered by collegues?? Are these collegues deemed incompetent too so my CPD is invalid because its not provided under that magic masters?

                      To deem onself more competent is in breach of national law!

                      The masters pathway has changed because it needed to to justify this notion of endorsement…

                      this link provides insight


                      We are all General Registered Psychologists!

                    2. Hello CP, sorry I don’t understand what you are saying. The masters contains 3-4 placements of 6 months each, plus coursework plus a research thesis. If you want to do research or become an academic wouldn’t you pursue a PhD?

                    3. http://www.academia.edu/30711142/Survey_of_Current_Curriculum_Practices_within_Australian_Postgraduate_Clinical_Training_Programmes_Students_and_Programme_Directors_Perspectives

                      another interesting read…. if peers who were members of APS Clinical or any other college post PBA were automatically grandfathered into endorsed status in an area of interest on the PBA register then according to the issues highlighted by the two articles i have posted their “competencies” may be questionable
                      including clinicals……

                    4. Hi Eric yes times have changed… my frustration is with automatic endorsement of all APS College members into PBA when Masters programs had not been revolutionized as they are now….. no grandfathering for 4+2s back then……

                    5. Hi Eric S,

                      Only just noticed your statement “The masters contains 3-4 placements of 6 months each, plus coursework plus a research thesis.”

                      The way you have worded this is a little misleading.

                      A master’s program is 2 years full time. If it contained 4 placements of 6 months each it would not fit the dissertation or coursework.

                      From my understanding a Master’s program will have about six months full time equivalent practice placement time in total for the whole degree.

                      It is not a mystery what a master’s program contains. For anyone who wants to know just go to any website of a uni that has postgrad psychology programs and find the links to the course content. It will show you the unit breakdown of coursework, dissertation and placements.

                      Below, as an example, is a breakdown of the time dedicated to practice placements in Sydney Uni’s current Clinical Psych Master’s degree.


                      Clinical placement 1A:
                      5 weeks, 1 day / week = 5 days in total

                      Clinical Placement 1B:
                      24 weeks, 1.5-2 days / week = 36-48 days in total

                      External Placement 1:
                      24 weeks, 2 days/week = 48 days total
                      (includes face-to-face patient contact, reading/preparation, patient-related administration tasks such as notes and reports)

                      External Placement 2:
                      24 weeks, 2 days/week = 48 days total

                      The total amount of days in practice placement for the whole master’s program is between 117-129 days or 24-26 weeks maximum full time equivalent.

                      I’m not stating this as either good or bad. I’m just stating it how it is.

                      Kind Regards

                  2. No. The plus 2 of the 4+2 is far more intensive and structured than a ‘registrar’ ‘supervised’ 2 years. The plus 2 of the 4 + 2 is also more practice focused than the 2 yr masters at Uni. 4+2 is Much more applied yet structured and grounded in theory and research.

              2. No James, the masters covers more than 4+2, plus is more comprehensively assessed and has multiple supervision experiences and learning opportunities, + opportunities to engage in clinically based research and build skills in using research and research lirerature in clinical practice. Ok, ill now wait for you comment challenging what ive said.

                1. In all fairness IP, Dr Alexander did get his PhD in “Clinical Health Psychology” from Southern Cross University, a university that to this day still does not offer a single ACAP-accredited postgraduate course in psychology so it may have been difficult for him to keep up with the content of current M.Psych programs.

                    1. seriously- are you people here just in an attempt to derail the discussion from the issues of concern to most Australian psychologists- is that your sole purpose? “interested” (your real name??)- how can we have any confidence that you are not engaged by the APS to play just this role? that you are not a Board member or employee of the APS? Without being willing to reveal your name, it does appear that you could just be a troll attempting to ensure that this forum does not discuss the obvious injustices in our profession.

                    2. To all contributors,
                      It would make a far more productive and useful for all of us if contributors confined their remarks and responses to issues. It would also be more productive if contributors eliminated the use of denigratory word and terms, and avoided stereotyping large groups. In future, more posts will be trashed if civil discourse cannot be maintained.

                    3. James, I think “Interested Psychologist” might be “Cate” who appears to have disappeared.

                    4. Hi J Dwyer and Interested Psychologist,

                      The issue up for discussion and debate is that many thousands of your colleagues with a great deal of expertise in the treatment of mental health concerns across the spectrum of mild, moderate and severe clinical caseloads have been impacted greatly by the two tier medicare rebate system and the growing promotion of clinical psychologist endorsement through a masters program that ignores and/or underplays the clinical expertise established by your colleagues through other legitimately recognised and formally legislated pathways to registration and practice.

                      If we were serious about a unified voice through the APS shouldn’t we be promoting and selling the expertise of ALL our colleagues as they present in their expertise regardless of the pathway they had chosen to get there?

                      Can you offer a succinct summary of your thoughts on this specific concern?

                      Kind Regards

  10. Rather than just meekly accepting the false notion that all non-clinicals require a 1 yr bridging course to bring them up to some mythical clinical standard, i’d suggest some genuine recognition of skills and prior learning of non-clinicals- this has not yet been attempted in any honest manner. it would be an interesting exercise to apply the same skills tests to ‘clinicals’- i suspect no differences would be found.

    1. Totally agree with you, James. We are being sold a furphy. If we’re Registered to Practice and have been practising why is a bridging course necessary? Who running their own practices can afford lost income, course costs or time to do a bridging course and for what? This idea is ridiculous. People stand up for yourselves and stop selling yourselves short.

      1. Yes Harold! No other profession requires additional Timewasting Training to be judged suitable for higher pay or choice jobs. Why should we Waste Time with these “Bridging Courses” designed only to fill the coffers of Clinical Ivory Tower Academics when we already have proven ourselves as Registered Psychologists?

      2. Agree, agree, agree!!! I wont be undertaking any bridging courses because to do so would be to agree that the so called clinical psychologists (self proclaimed) are more skilled than I am and that is so not the case. Tertiary courses my ****. I wont be leaving my practice and paying an academic who hasn’t seen a live person in 25 years to teach me what I have been already doing for 25 years!

        RAPS, don’t lose sight of what you said originally – that’s what I donated for and would donate to again but only that. WE ARE ALL PSYCHOLOGISTS AND THERE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE TIER.

      3. Im so frustrated … because in my opinion by agreeing to extra training for bridging particularly for those of us who were in private practice in mental health pre PBA and are now rendered non endorsed, we give credibility to this ongoing discriminatory and defamatory ridiculous clinical supremacy…it may even work against us legally ie we accept that we dont have “competency”…..its another strategy to increase the numbers of clinicals…. it is the mission of the aps clinicals to increase memberships…. read their minutes…. i am so concerned…. open your eyes, so many positions in the area of mental health are advertising for clinical masters and/or clinical endorsement….to diversify in private practice i am currently gaining qualifications in an area outside of mental health and its costing me thousands (Gregory I have taken on your advice) …. this goes WAY BEYOND my business plan and Medicare rebates……I dont bicker about the money…..I am doing very well thank you….I AM SOOOO BUSY ATM HAVE MANY CLIENTS! but the future for non endorsed psychologists in mental health is looking grim…. I remain non endorsed and to the public I am a non endorsed psychologist…. what does this ACTUALLY mean IN THE REAL WORLD OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY? NOT ACADEMIC PSYCHOLOGY!
        RAPS we are an open book…. forget concilliatory processes they wont work…. there is a hidden agenda because if there wasnt we wouldnt be in this MESS!


        Maybe I pursue floristry….

        1. spot on CP. i am also very critical of any steps towards accepting the idea that we need to be brought up to some mythical standard of ‘clin’ pychs by bridging courses, or any other means. The emperor is truly naked.

        1. Thank you for your moderating constructive words PRJ….could be an APS Board member for all we know.

        2. David Ball, why are you attacking someone as a “no-name” for suggesting that It would be far more productive and useful if contributors confined their remarks and responses to issues, and that it would be more productive if contributors eliminated the use of denigratory word and terms and avoided stereotyping large groups? I would think this is a practical suggestion that would promote genuine constructive debate, and only be opposed by people who do not want to see that happen. Is it a coincidence that you are attacking such suggestions, when you are another poster who has repeatedly used the RAPS website to encourage people to join the AAPi? I think genuine RAPS supporters should do some research on brigading in on-line communities to get a better understanding of what the AAPi appear to be attempting.


          1. Strange application of the word “attacking” to a question of identity. JD is clearly just trying to stirr up paranoia and resentment. JD please stay on topic.

Leave a Reply