Some musings on the ‘Clinical’

What’s in a name?

I am a psychologist, but I do not, and cannot, label myself as a ‘clinical psychologist’.


I am sometimes referred to as a Clinician.

I have spent nearly two decades of my life working in a Clinic, where my Clinical judgment was offered to clients and discussed amongst my peers in Clinical supervision.

My highest qualification is called a Clinical Doctorate.

The etymology of the word ‘clinic’ goes back to the Greek klinikē tekhnē which translates approximately as ‘bedside art’. I don’t see any of my clients in bed (however you read that phrase) and I am regularly informed that what psychologists do is not an art, but a science.

‘Clinical’ is often linked to the world of medicine. Yet, as a psychologist, I don’t see ‘patients’, don’t work in a hospital and have no medical training.

My cloudiness around the word ‘Clinical’ is fogged up further when I consult my dictionary. It tells me that ‘Clinical’ has a number of meanings and a long and chilly list of synonyms including;

…detached, impersonal, dispassionate, objective, uninvolved, distant, remote, aloof, removed, cold, indifferent, neutral, unsympathetic, unfeeling, unemotional, non-emotional, unsentimental; scientific, analytic, rational, logical, hard-headed, sober, businesslike…

If my work as a ‘Clinician’ was ever to be described using these ‘Clinical’ synonyms, I would be deeply concerned. With the possible and rare exception of the word ‘objective’, none of my clients have used any of these Clinical words to describe the kind of person they want sitting with them as they work on their psychological material.

Language is absolutely central to psychotherapy, a form of engagement sometimes called ‘the talking cure’. Our use of the words ‘clinical’, ‘clinic’ and ‘clinician’ has been slipshod and inaccurate as a label of who we are and what we do.

I suspect our misuse and misappropriation of the word ‘clinical’ has its roots in mainstream psychology’s desire to be seen as a legitimate science. This wish has fuelled a campaign that began over 100 years ago and continues to this day. Despite limited success, conservative forces within psychology routinely do push for a recognition of our work as a ‘clinical science’ – within the discipline, across science in general and throughout the general populous. Outside enclaves of self-interest, the public, legitimate scientists and our clients have not bought the ‘psychological science’ message.

What’s in a name? Perhaps by making our labels and monikers sound scientific, we might get to play with the real scientists.

– RAPS Supporter

61 thoughts on “Some musings on the ‘Clinical’

  1. Having a look at the Believe in Change website and the blurb about General Practice Psychologists(GPPs) (by the way, it is sad that Psychology is trying to emulate medicine in this and other ways with GPs and Specialists. Yawn. I am a Psychologist, which is general and special enough without any extra airs and titles), I see that none of the 48 special interest groups have a Mental Health focus (except the specialised Psychology and Trauma). I also note that of the non-protected titles given in the GPP, none of them are Mental Health Psychologist, but there is nothing to stop one adopting such a title as it is not a protected title. We also need a special interest group called Mental Health Psychology. I also note that there is a section in the description of the GPPs headed “Counselling, treatment and practical strategies”, that, rather ambiguously, does not mention counselling and treatment as bona-fide skills possessed by GPPs (apart from the title). See following excerpt:

    “Counselling, treatment and practical strategies
    General Practice Psychologists are trained and experienced in customising techniques, approaches and therapies with demonstrated effectiveness in improving whatever problem is being faced or wanting to be optimised further for their field. General Practice Psychologists, in particular, are often well versed in collaborating in multi-disciplinary teams and knowing who else would be of benefit to refer to or involve further to get the best outcomes for each setting. Appreciation and celebration of the diversity of humanity General Practice Psychologists are trained to appreciate that the backgrounds, identities, life stage and circumstances of individuals can impact how they relate to and experience themselves, others, places, systems, and psychological processes; and include these to enhance life for all. Sometimes the best outcomes come about through psychologists assisting with changes to individuals and the systems and settings they are in. Interest groups The breadth of psychology is reflected in the various interest groups that Australian Psychological Society members are involved with. These 48 interest groups connect members with skills or interest in specific areas of psychology and keep members skills up to date and in turn ensure a rich source of resources and professional development. APS psychologists Interest Groups include: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Psychology
    Child Sexual Abuse Issues and Psychology
    Diverse Bodies, Genders, and Sexualities Child,
    Adolescent and Family Psychology
    Consumer Psychology
    Family Law and Psychology
    Positive Psychology
    Psychologists in Schools
    Psychology and Ageing
    View the complete list of interest groups. [There is a link in the original passage to the full list of 48 SIGs]”

    It is strange that a category named “General…” is defined by reference to many subspecialities and interest groups.
    Oddly the blurb on GPPs also contains the following reference to the Colleges and protected titles promoting their expertise.

    Titles of psychologists
    The Psychology Board of Australia is responsible for managing nine specific and protected titles of psychologists that involve specific advanced tertiary psychological training. As General Practice Psychologists often have training and experiences in other disciplines, they use titles that are not defined or overseen by the Psychology Board of Australia or the Australian Psychological Society, such as: Child Psychologist Coaching Psychologist Consumer Psychologist Engineering Psychologist Ergonomic Psychologist Industrial Psychologist Media Psychologist Military Psychologist Rehabilitation Psychologist School Psychologist Social Psychologist. These purely descriptive terms can help you find psychologists with experience and skills in settings specific to your needs. The different Colleges of The Australian Psychological Society represent the interests of the nine protected psychological titles.

    1. Dear Gregory…. you are now where I started!

      The GPP page seems to be the APS introduction page…. it markets the APS, its interest groups and 9 endorsed areas/colleges…. and those members who dont fit into any neatly defined category because we are a “broad church”.

      Since when did religion have anything to do with the APS? I digress……

      Correct me if i am wrong but membership of interest groups is voluntary and has no direct correlation with expertise or affiliation to anything… i used to hold multiple memberships and would receive the occassional invitation to meetings from time to time from some … sorry but i just didnt find any value in that investment.


      How did the DGPP allow this misrepresentation! Where is it written that our registration is the gold standard and our competencies are self directed and attained via mandatory CPD and that APS college membership, and APS membership more generally, is voluntary that there are psychologists with valid expertise via alternative industry based rather than academic pathways in the identified areas of practice who do not have an endorsement and that according to PBA endorsement does not equate to SPECIALISATION OR SPECIALIST TITLE!

      In my opinion discriminatory and defamatory content!

      In my opinion those with no endorsement ie no college membership are by virtue of the information provided on the peak body website rendered incompetent to practice psychology in their chosen areas of expertise upheld via mandated CPD and are seen as some form of basic practitioner and case manager who knows how to refer clients to “real” psychologists. So in the same breath consumers of psychological services are directed to members of the 9 Groups ….. as I have said before, if i was a consumer or referrer I would be selecting a psychologist via category of representation ie ENDORSEMENT by virtue of the information on the APS website!

      We are all GENERAL registered psychologists. We are in breach of law if we purport to be specialist or more competent than our peers.

      I am sick of this ongoing #+*•¥#%

      I wrote and spoke to the APS and was assured the wording for GPP would change but alas it remains..

      When i last checked the APS find a psychologist website lists clinicals TWICE ie under Medicare clinical psychology AND Medicare psychology! WHY? You are one or the other! Easily rectified by competent web designers.

      PS I have paid in advance for the APS commemorative book that was being published …. does anyone know whats happening with this? Will be interesting to see which cohort of APS membership contributed and how OUR society will be promoted if it is ever published!

      My concerns from the beginning of the RAPS journey remain and are ever increasing.

      1. Yep. I know Concerned. Many moons ago I had correspondence with “Believe in Change” and Andrew Chau the default DGPP leader and he made some minor adjustments to the web page. Eg. moving “Mental and general Wellbeing” or similarmoved from the middle of the list of our unendorsed areas of vague interest to the top of the list.
        The whole page is badly written, vague and ambiguous. $#@%$#&*^$ indeed!

  2. thank you for this informative article. As a young female clinical masters student – this is the discussion I wish we were provided at university. Much of it rings true. Our “clin” lecturers frequently demand we refer to them as “Doctor”, to perpetuate the illusion that they are medical doctors. At the same time, we taught not to form any emotional bond with clients – to focus only on providing CBT as the scientific “gold standard” with no regard for the client as a person. Indeed, while 4+2 spend five days a week for two or more years doing real work with clients, we clin masters students only need to spend one day a week for a few months doing “observational” placements before being granted our higher Medicare rebates. Is it any wonder we clinicals are known for being cold and aloof? Clinical masters students like myself of good conscience must band together to support the AAPi and RAPS . Just as Australia spoke today against the historical injustice gays suffered, we must speak out and support the struggle for justice for the suffering of “generalist” psychologists.

    1. Anne,
      As a Clin Psych I am very concerned with your report. This was NOT how I was trained, and the clin psychs that I know explicitly eschew this approach. If it is true, then I am very sorry to hear this, and it is a corruption of good training in clinical psychology.
      I don’t know about the requirement to call people “Dr,” but it doesn’t happen elsewhere I can assure you. A sign of a lack of assuredness that suggests the need for a serious psychotherapy I think.
      My advice is tough it out, get your Masters, and when you qualify find some empathic and sensitive senior colleagues to support you through your registrar process. I know people in most states, and if you want to tell me the state you are in, I can suggest some names.
      I have to say I’m not surprised with this, but am appalled to hear of it. There is this perception that a ‘good’ clin psych is cold, aloof and “scientific.” This is a nonsense and it distresses me that this view persists.

      1. Hi Anne,

        I’m really surprised to hear your perceptions and experience. I completed my 4+2 training in 1998. I’m grateful to my supervisor who did well to teach me the basics of our profession. Training has changed somewhat since then but for me it consisted of 100 hours individual supervision and 60 of group. We also had to complete five certificates on different aspects of practice. This training did a lot to engage my desire to be a capable therapist but I finished knowing there were some very significant gaps in my knowledge. This is what lead me to apply to do a clinical doctorate which I started a short time later.

        Over the course of my studies I did receive training in cognitive behavioural therapy but I was also trained and received supervision from narrative, systemic and psychodynamic perspectives to name a few. Placements were definitely not simple observation. Over the course of my program I completed five placements over a range of inpatient and outpatient settings and spanning all age groups. Much of the 1600 placement hours I clocked up was direct service provision. During that time I received approximately 280 hours of individual supervision that augmented what I learned in coursework subjects.

        Doing the training was one of the most worthwhile experiences I have had and Im truly grateful for it. It stretched me and continually challenged me to be both compassionate and analytical in my approach with clients. It laid an excellent basis to continue to develop in the years since I completed my studies and to scaffold new ideas and interventions.

        I think there is more than one way to get good training but the one I took has stood me in good stead and made a wonderful difference to what I have been able to contribute in my practice and hopefully to psychology more generally. Im sad that you haven’t had the same experience that I did so far. Please don’t think that all of us were trained in the way you are expressing. I agree with Chris and would encourage you to be picky with your placements to ensure that you get a range of experience and good supervision as you develop.

    2. thank you Ann-your integrity is refreshing and encouraging. Keep it up, and our profession may have a future yet.

    3. I love you Anne. I just told my wife I am a Lesbian born into a man’s body and asked her to marry me! She said yes she already knew that. We were already married.
      On a lighter note. Can wehear more of what motivates you to support RAPS agenda? More about 1 day a week observation leading to higher rebate. Do you get higher rebate even while under the 2 years supervised post masters?
      I love that you put truth above self interest!
      so righteous!
      You made my day. Your comments were the cherry on the rainbow icecream creation that has been this day.
      Goodnight y’all.

    4. Hi Anne,

      thank you for your honesty. as a registered psychologist I had to pay for my registration program with ACAP and did voluntary work (found for me by ACAP) four days/week at one of the charity centres in Newcastle, working with the poorest people you can imagine and some of them were just released from the James Fletcher hospital unit of the mental health. I have never encountered so many complex clients since despite working in mental health and suicide prevention for years. I still think that this was a real training that cannot be replaced by anything else. As much for the instructions you are receiving, I think you know better. Just follow your moral compass and have compassion.

      Jana Mikula

  3. Excellent comments, Gregory and RAPS supporter, let’s have more of this.

    I believe there are fundamental problems for psychology stemming from how psychology developed as a separate profession and the subsequent efforts to characterise it as a science through developments in psychoanalytical and psychodynamic therapies, learning theory and behaviour therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, positive psychology and so on.

    The term ‘psychology’ covers an uncoverable range of theories and therapies all the way from the less testable talking arts to the quasi science of evidence-based practice.

    Being neither fish, flesh nor fowl, the psychology profession is engaged in a constant struggle with itself to find an intellectual home, with society and non psychologists to clarify what psychologists do and gain recognition and financial backing and with the medical profession to demarcate those areas of overlap where a psychologist may receive a referral from a gate-keeper who is less qualified to do the work than they are.


  4. Hi RAPS Team,

    It’s really disappointing to see the resurgence of this type of post, after moderators have repeatedly asked posters to stick to the issues at hand. How is a post such as this, supposed to invite unity and mutual respect? Shouldn’t you model the behaviour you’d like to see from the rest of us by no longer endorsing this type of discourse?

    Is the reason behind the use of the moniker ‘Clinical’ or its synonyms really that central to the strategies you are working on to unify the membership towards positive change?

    Surely we can’t blame our predicament on the fact psychology has elected to embrace this term? After all, PACFA has a clinical grade membership for Counsellors and Psychotherapists -

    As does the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy -

    Not to mention countless other health disciplines who use this descriptor, such as Clinical Dietitians to describe the context in which the discipline is applied.

    If after all that has transpired in the most recent AGM, the best that can be offered up is another dissection of the term Clinical and whether as psychologists we should aspire to use the term, it begs the question; have no lessons been learnt?!

    1. Tia. We would be happy not to discuss the Clinicalisation of psychology that advances the medicalisation of Psyche, if the APS would publish the truth that an MPsychClinical is not superior to any other psychologist and that Medicare should have one tier just as the APS has only one tier on tbe fee structure for psychologists. Clinical does not mean Suoerior. The APS needs to admit that.

    2. Hi
      I don’t want to be a clinical psychologist. I have many skills to offer my clients, I am a fully registered psychologist and I plan to continue practising my skills professionally. I will resist being conscripted into the ranks of clinical psychologists. I accept that some want to be clinical psychologists; I have no problem with people who have chosen that pathway. I simply want to practise my skills and offer my expertise without denigration from others and without having my skills and expertise demeaned.

    3. Hi Tia,

      The perception I have of this post is that it speaks to the down side of an excessively arbitrated homogenising of psychotherapeutic practice. Who should be telling whom how to practice? Top down arbitrators, bottom up experts or an authentically collaborated mix of both?

      We have to remember that the current APS president in collaboration with the current APS president elect have previously made formal submissions to Government clearly stating that they believe Australian Psychologists are amongst the worst trained in the world!

      They have both pushed to Government fervently that it is only the clinical psych master’s pathway that will produce the quality practitioner Australia needs.

      This post offers a different point of view to what the APS president and soon to be APS president have previously suggested to the Australian Government.

      The point of view from this post is from an experienced clinician that helps to clarify, by a case example, that the paths to expert clinical practice are many and varied.

      We need to understand the underpinning message of this post to properly identify and accommodate key variables of influence in the development of expertise when setting up arbitrated processes to clinical training, registration and practice.

      Kind Regards

        1. tirelessly lobby for change within the APS leadership for a start; then move on to the PBA, Medicare, the Fed Gov’t. But it needs to start with changing the APS, i believe- which starts with more and more disenfranchised psychologists saying enough is enough; and standing up to object to the false narrative whenever we hear it.

        2. Hi Concerned Psychologist,

          As a first step, RAPS tried to grab the handbrake to stop the injustice in its tracks. Unfortunately, not enough members were aware of, or fully understood, the issues being flagged by RAPS and the underlying reason for the spill motion. So that corrective action failed.

          So, what now? Well, personally I see a few key steps just for now, in the current state of play in the early days post APS election:

          Step One: build on the membership’s awareness of the issues raised by RAPS that includes a more complete understanding of what RAPS stands for. This includes ongoing awareness raising amongst colleagues.

          Step Two: Ultimately there is strength in numbers. So, it is important to engage and connect more fully with members who share in the concerns raised by RAPS and who wish to play a part in having an influence.

          Step Three: We all need to build bridges where ever possible. To talk and collaborate for effective solutions. This includes formally as a group and as individuals. This is a tough goal but needs to be intentionally implemented as a process more fully. We should all be reaching out via emailing and writing letters to college chairs and local APS branches to request opportunities to talk on these matters at public forums. Not just for talking sake but to establish real solutions for consideration and debate.

          Step Four: Write to politicians. As individuals but also with supporting signatories. Ask to meet with your local electorate based state and federal politician to speak on the issues directly.

          Kind Regards

          1. I couldn’t agree more Clive. While I do enjoy reading many of the posts on this blog, it is great to see some practical strategies on how we can grow the campaign and move things forward. This needs to be encouraged, as I’m sure many of us have valuable contributions to make. Alone we can’t do a lot, but together there’s a lot we can do!

    4. Tia- unity in our profession can only be achieved via justice. We need to take a leaf from Nelson Mandalla’s book and aim for a TRUTH & Reconciliation Council for Australian psychology. Truth is fundamental to any kind of healing of rifts. Without truth (as revealed via research), there can be no reconciliation. Many supporters of RAPS want to reveal the truth of their working lives, and how they have been adversely affected by the APS/PBA. You dont want to hear them- thats fine; but be aware that no unity can be achieved without the truth being spoken and noted. RAPS and its supporters are aiming for a post apartheid type of resolution, while the APS leadership (and some within the clinical cohort) are wanting to maintain the apartheid type regime (i.e ‘apart-hood’). Which would you prefer? If you prefer the latter, that is your right; but dont try and stand in the way of the Reform agenda of RAPS and its supporters. There is already an organisation for psychologists who want to keep things as they are- its called the APS. RAPS is not a ‘lets get together and feel good’ group- it is a reform group, of people who are not at all pleased with the status quo.

      1. It is possible to be a RAPS supporter but still be concerned about the use of polarising language. My understanding is that the whole point of the RAPS movement is about saying there should not be a “them” and “us”. Yes, there are some psychologists who prefer the distinction, but there are many (both Clinical and Non-Clinical) that do not. Non-Clinical Psychologists have suffered discrimination since the introduction of the 2-tier system. While this needs to be addressed it should not be an excuse to start discriminating against Clinical Psychologists; this will not help the cause.

        1. Is it “discriminating against Clinical Psychologists” to analyse the implications of the use of the term “Clinical” for Psychology? I don’t think so.
          Is it “discriminating against Clinical Psychologists” to remain firm in our conviction that they are over-privileged, unrealistically reified and dangerously deified (often through no fault of their own)? I don’t think so.
          Is it “discriminating against Clinical Psychologists” to highlight the unfairness of a two tier system that grossly disciminates for Clinical Psychologists against non clinically endorsed psychologists? Not at all.
          I would love to hear from more of our Clinical Psychology colleagues who can see the ridiculous situation. Many are our Allies. Especially those who point out that medicalisation of mental health is a very dangerous trend and that we are being swept along with that. Medicare is just the thin edge of the wedge. Look where it is heading. No way should a Clinical Psychologist have prescribing rights! Enough people are killed and maimed by iatrogenic disease caused by medicines without inviting Psychology to the killing field. Prescribing medicine should be a highly complex matter considering many facets of the organism, interactions of drugs, diet etc. etc. and many other factors no mere psychologist is qualified to consider thoroughly given that they may be totally unaware of particular biochemical pathways and interactions. Prescriptions are far to readily dispensed by Medicine to begin with. Way too many antidepressants sold on a whim to people who are grieving or ‘surrounded by arseholes’.
          Give me a break!
          How about demedicalising our noble profession so doctors can get on with trusting us to stop trying to emulate them and can enjoy our unique contribution to a multidisciplinary community of health professionals and healers.
          Take the greed and the politics out of it and put the public, clients, patients back at the centre of the discussion and it is counterproductive to medicalise psychology and promote Clinical as eminent.
          We are not just complicated machines. Medicine is far from infallible.

          The third leading cause of death in the united states is medical error.
          And that is just the mistakes. Many other deaths are caused by taking medication as prescribed. Permanent disability is often caused by taking medication as prescribed.

          Why is the APS silent about the dangers of medication? Why is it coseying up to Medicine so obsequiously?

          1. great points Gregory. Australian psychology (ie the APS) are attempting to get into bed with the medical disease model simply because they perceive that it increases their status. Anyone in doubt about the pernicious effects of the medical model applied to psycho-social issues really should read Peter Kinderman’s “A Prescription for Psychiatry”- note, he is a British clinical psychologist and former President of the BPA (not a fringe dwelling nutter, but an example of where clinical psychology is at internationally- very different to here).

            1. Increases their status hey? What about power and bank balances? Does it increase those too? This medical hallo effect magiviams illusion?
              Woops. Did I happen to memtion that the emperor has no clothes? Well he doesnt.
              Fummy thing is most GPs and medicos are really smart and sensible and are fascinated by and respectful of us psychologists precisely because we are a different discipline and with some warmer fuzzier edges.
              We are all meeded. Viva la difference!

        2. agreed- there should be no discriminating against ‘clin’ psychs in general. Many of them are quite sympathetic to our cause and are embarrassed by what has been done in their name. We do need to be able to discriminate between those ‘clin’ psychs who are sympathetic, and those who would prefer to see us out of the profession altogether (they do exist).

    5. Hi Greg, Kevin, Clive and James,

      I hope you don’t mind that I address all of your comments together for ease of reference, as in essence you all speak to the same thing.

      I agree wholeheartedly with all your sentiments that our skills should not be denigrated by virtue of the training pathway we selected. I am 4+2 trained, with no Masters – so I am within the most vulnerable cohort in the current climate and I understand all too well the practical impact to my ability to practice, if things continue to unfold as they have been.

      All I am saying is that our time would be better spent clarifying the elements that led to the perfect storm that altered our profession and debating strategic approaches to redirecting the flow of things where we can, instead of continuing to ruminate about whether we want to be ‘Clinicals’ or not, or what the APS should or should not have done.

      Personally, I don’t find it empowering to keep revisiting this. When our clients come to us stuck and clinging on for dear life to the ‘wrong’ that has been done to them, of course we are supportive and validating to begin with; but if we are only ever validating and never challenge said client to identify what elements they can control and act in accordance with those, we end up further entrenching their victimhood mindset. If as James suggests, in order to attain justice, we need to keep replaying the injustice done, then how can we possibly be agents of change?

      The way I see it, our current landscape was created in the perfect storm of the following 3 issues:

      – A government that believed Clinical Psychologists should be the only providers granted access to Medicare and is under the thumb of the AMA

      – an agenda by SOME Clinical Psychologists to elevate their discipline as an area of Specialisation above all others – this is evident in ACPA’s mission statement and submissions made by a select number of APS Clinical College representatives, including our incumbent and newly elected Presidents.

      – The abolition of State based Registration Boards and the inception of the PBA under AHPRA, post Medicare – creating structures that further cemented the current landscape imposed by Medicare.

      Those are the 3 battles we have to fight to regain our status.

      Personally, I don’t think it serves any of those battles to continue to rehash ad nauseam how unfair the current environment is or how valid all other training pathways are – if that were sufficient, the Spill would have more likely succeeded, because the non-clinical college members that voted would have supported RAPS, as they have been equally impacted by these events.

      I want this initiative to succeed because it is in my and all of our interests that it succeeds. But I can honestly tell you I am fast losing faith that true, positive change is possible unless the discourse is directed towards effective action, designed to truly unite the profession. Commentary about whether to be clinical is to be insecure and in need of status will never lead to unity!

      Just my opinion, of course…

      1. Preaching to the converted and hopefully the unconverted can also see and believe the 3 points you make so loudly and clearly. The more insidious foe here is the medicalisation of psychology down to the core and the pharmacologization of mental health services and treatments. If you don’t like reading our opinions, feel free not to. Many opressed minorities had to keep knocking on the same doors for decades and generations to be heard. We are only just beginning. There are active contributers to these threads who deny there is even a problem at all, so we will keep reiterating the problem. The emperor has no clothes. I think the discussion of the meaning of the word clinical was one of the most fruitful discussions so far and I am sure many Clinically endorsed psychologists would agree and also have concerns with the medicalisation of psychology and the pathologisation of Psyche.
        Thanks for your opinions. They do help to stimulate intelligent discussion and deep reflection.

      2. Hi Tia,

        Thank you for sharing. I agree with the underlying theme of what you flag in terms of pushing towards a solution focused approach that targets key areas of influence.

        From my understanding the core RAPS team are in process with this and will continue to post for broader input and assistance at each stage of development. Time constraints can make for a slower process than hoped for.

        I also think though, there is a need for a forum like this blogsite to play a part in presenting a different narrative to the one currently in place. It’s a stretch for anyone to deny that the narrative has been quite derogatory towards non-clinically endorsed psychologists who practice in the ‘clinical’ domain. We need to call that out for what it is. The evidence is in writing, it is not speculative.

        One factor that has not really been raised as a possible influence on the vote at the AGM relates to a hunch that all APS colleges have been told there will be advocacy for them to be ‘promoted’ to the top tier. Consequently, colleges would then be inclined to support the status quo in their voting preference at the AGM. I am a member of two colleges with two endorsements with my registration. So technically that would be good for me. But I sincerely don’t think, in the long run, it will be good for me or for any of us.

        We need to face the very real ramifications of the current narrative being sold. It is not just about 4+2’s having a ‘whinge’. It is more about the integrity of our profession being under threat.

        My personal belief is that many key stakeholders are coming to realise that they have been sold a lemon re: the current dominant narrative of clinical psychology being the only true specialist of psychotherapeutic practice and hence a key reason why the Government is now pushing to promote PHN’s over Medicare Better Access.

        I think that Medicare Better Access will continue to be subtly moved from the centre of Mental Health Service Provision in Australia if we do not resolve the rift in our profession by promoting a single tier for psychological services.

        The new tendering process for Mental Health Service provision through PHN’s takes the two-tier debate right out of the picture. It also takes our internal struggle as psychologists over endorsed areas of practice and training pathways right out of the picture too. I don’t believe this is coincidence.

        I think it is an intentional bipartisan political move away from the Medicare Better Access System that was set up and sold under the narrative of ‘clinical psychologist’ superiority. If we want Medicare Better Access to stay, then we do need to sell a different narrative; a single tier narrative.

        A lot of the PHN’s I’ve been contracted through, to provide professional development for GP’s in Mental Health, often have Mental Health Nurses and/or Social Workers as either CEO’s and/or managers of Mental Health Service provision in their region. They don’t fall for the ‘clinical superiority’ narrative; particularly when their own professional areas of practice are treating equally well under Medicare Better Access albeit under an even lower tiered rebate than the 2nd tiered psychologist.

        When we compete, we have winners and losers. Loser’s pick themselves up and fight back. PHN’s take away the professional prejudice of tiered rebates and so would get the support of Mental Health Nurses and Social Workers; who are in greater positions of influence and power than us psychologists through the PHN’s.

        The implications of the tiered Medicare Rebate system run deep. A lot of ground to make up across a lot of areas as a result.

        We need to collaborate, not compete. And not just from within the ranks of our own profession. I personally think that a collaborative approach across disciplines is needed. As well as a collaborative approach within our discipline. As one very small step, we need open forum discussions across APS branches to get the process of real collaboration going.

        Kind Regards

        1. Hi Clive,

          Thank you for your considered reply.

          I don’t disagree with the essence of what you point out and I have also noted the implications for all of us with the new structure to PHNs and the stepped care models they have been tasked with overseeing. In my PHN, referrals are reviewed by a Mental Health OT, not a Psychologist – and they determine the number of sessions we get with the client – that should give you some further insight on where it’s heading!

          But if you are correct that College Members agreed to support the status quo on the promise of being raised up to the higher tier, doesn’t that tell us they don’t really believe in the core tenets of this initiative and may not be concerned with the perceived threats to our professional integrity?

          If you are correct and they can easily forget about the 11 years they have been portrayed as inadequately trained and enter the higher tier as though nothing happened, then what hope is there to unify the membership?

          I must admit, I also find it confusing to argue against the medicalisation of psychology yet argue for the inclusion of psychology in a medical heathcare system. Don’t get me wrong – I agree it is a huge disservice to our clients and to our profession to medicalise Psychology, however I’m not sure how the two can be reconciled – what are your thoughts on that?

          Kind Regards,


          1. Hi Tia,

            I did forget about the OT’s too. Yes. The PHN’s will have OT’s, Mental Health Nurses and Social Workers overseeing tender applications. They will also be able to place tenders too.

            Re: my thoughts on concerns of the medicalisation of psychology while also pursuing inclusion in the medical healthcare system, I’d like to throw a psychosocial developmental spin on the role confusion faced by psychology at present in this mental healthcare service realm.

            Some might think my application of psychology in this way, on these issues is a bit cheesy; but here goes 😊

            Basically, the psychosocial developmental spin I put on it is psychology is confused in its role in the mental health care ‘space’ due to the very rigid enforcement of certain behavioural expectations that dominates through the ‘medical’ model of psychological treatment.

            Hence, instead of exercising autonomy as a profession in the mental healthcare space, we are instead encouraged to feel ashamed and doubtful of the quality of service provision we can provide in the context of the training we have had.

            Therefore, instead of taking initiative as quality trained practitioners to exercise our influence in effective treatment modalities, we feel guilty for contradicting the status quo and thus risk sticking to rigid paradigms in treatment modalities that may not work well in the subtlties of the individual case.

            Then, to top it all off, as a profession we end up feeling inferior to our medical trained colleagues rather than celebrate our shared industry in the work we do in treating mental illness.

            All this results in a confusion over our shared role as psychologists, psychiatrists, etc in the provision of psychological treatment.

            I personally don’t think it’s about entering in to a medical model. I think it is a shared, cross-discipline collaboration in providing a multifaceted approach to the treatment of mental illness.

            Below is a quote from Epston (2008; p. 4) that clearly depicts one very clear example of the unethical consequences within mental health care establishments when choosing to enforce very rigid boundaries through dominate and aggressive tactics that endeavour to induce shame, doubt, guilt, inferiority and role confusion upon other expert practitioners in the mental health care space.

            He is speaking about Michael White and the obstacles he faced in the preliminary work on the development of Narrative Therapy.

            Epston, D. (2008). Saying hullo again: Remembering Michael White. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 27(3), 1-15.

            “I want to remind you of the luckiest breaks in the history of Narrative Therapy. In the late 1970s, Michael published a paper in the prestigious journal Family Process, reporting on his work with the problem of anorexia at the children’s hospital in Adelaide where he worked. The advisory editor (Chris Beels) informed me some years ago that it was the first paper ever published showing positive results with the problem of anorexia. Soon after that, the Deputy Director of Psychiatry obviously heard about this and forbade Michael from meeting with families in which there was a young person diagnosed with anorexia because he was a social worker and was unfit for the task which should be restricted to more august medical and psychiatric practitioners. Michael refused to adhere to this edict and continued to meet with these families and they with him.”

            “The next step the Deputy Director took was to remove all the chairs from Michaels’s room. Michael and the families merely continued, now sitting on the floor. Then the Deputy Director imposed on Michael what I gather he assumed would drive him into some other form of employment, rather smartly, that from then on, he would be allowed only to meet with young people who had failed 2-year-long psychoanalytic treatments for the problem of encopresis or in common parlance, soiling. This was truly dirty work.”

            “Little did the Deputy Director know he had challenged Michael in the same way Foucault must have been challenged by what he had witnessed in a public psychiatric institution. Here Michael would be required to turn the tables on conventional psychiatric wisdom and in doing so invent externalizing conversations and in turn narrative therapy. I know Michael once told me he had a 99% success rate in an average of 4 meetings. So much so that he felt obliged, perhaps with his tongue in his literary cheek, to submit these results as having to do with pseudo-encopresis because if it was true encopresis, such claims to these results would have had to have been the ravings of a lunatic”.

            All just food for thought Tia. A few points I’m making in amongst it re: dominate characters in systems can very intentionally try to stifle the growth and development of others. So it is not so much coming ‘under’ a medical model but rather psychology needs to stand up as an equal to medical trained colleagues and be autonomous, take initiative, be industrious and be clear on our shared role as professionals and as practitioners in the mental health treatment space.

            Kind Regards

            1. Good points Clive. The irony is that Narrative Therapy went on to become the dominant paradigm in several NGOs and schools of Social work and Counselling and Michael White’s Dulwich centre in Adelaide City became a Meca for Psychotherapists of the Narrative bent. Some agencies refused to hire counsellors unless they had a narrative therapy and community work femocratic indoctrinatoon. By the way I have done several trainings in Narative therapy via Dulwich including for working with women, and trauma (taught by Michael White in Adelaide) and community work, and Dulwich heavily influenced many Indigenous friendly services.
              Very interesting that Narrative therapy is kosher for Aboriginal Australians under Medicare better Access focussed psychological strategies.
              It works. But it is not the be all and end all. Not everyone is enamoured with story telling. Many modalities can compliment biological medicine. E.g. Art therapy, ACT, body centred Psychotherapy, sensorimotor therapy, somatic experiencing etc. etc.
              Let a thousand flowers bloom.

            2. re the medical/disease model- its worth listening to this interview with Peter Kinderman (recently the president of the British Psychological Society)- on ‘All in the Mind’:


              also, his interview on Shrink Rap Radio:-


              and of course, his excellent book, “A Prescription for Psychiatry”- all of which has massive implications for psychology.

              As far as i’m concerned, he is re-invigorating the arguments of Thomas Szasz, demonstrating how they are just as relevant now. Personally, I’d like to see all psychologists becoming familiar with his work and these views. Kinderman apparently represents the views of many/most within British ‘clin’ psych.

              It looks to me that the ‘clin’ psychs in Australia who are scrambling for more status by associating themselves with psychiatric nosology and treatments (there are some who are lobbying for prescription rights) are out of step with ‘clin’ psych internationally.

              1. I think we can have it all. DSM5 and Sasz. A good dose of Social Constructionism is a necessary adjunct for the side effects of working with Psychiatric Taxonomy.

              2. Thank you for posting the links James.

                Says it all!

                I found the first link offering a great summary on the essence of contrast between psychology and medicine. The 2nd longer and deeper review was also a great listen!

                Kind Regards

    6. Hello to all here.
      I am one of those “clever clinical’s” from W.A. I thought that I would comment in a general way on a variety of the themes that I have read about on this site over a number of months. I want to be constructive and helpful, but I am sure that my comments will be resisted – I fear colleagues on this site only want to hear what they want to hear. If so, that is regrettable.
      Can I say from the outset, that I can understand the deep sense of hurt and humiliation that is felt here. Betrayal too, I think. If so, I am sorry about this and personally I regret that this is so. I do think that this is an inadvertent outcome of a process of neglect and avoidance that has not been addressed over a period of at least 40 years. In this sense, everyone has been placed at a disadvantage. It’s not right, but that’s how life is at times. I’m sure too that you are all decent people, and if I knew you, I’m sure that we would come to be friends. Anyway, I hope that this would be true.
      In this very polarised debate, I think that there are few who can cover themselves in glory. I know that I have felt and said some intemperate things – so, sorry for that. I’m just being honest. Like you, I feel a sense of passion about what I do, and this can spill over at times. We are after all, human.
      I have read everything on this site and have tried to keep my counsel. Some of what is written here is reasonable and deserving of support, other parts are less so. That is true in any debate, so it’s not a big deal.
      Many in the “Clinical Psychology space” would want to help, but not necessarily in ways that are immediately obvious. Many feel as wounded as do you, albeit that might not be immediately obvious either. My experience is that most clinical’s I know don’t want to lock you out of higher rebates or endorsement, they just want to feel assured that you have done the same work as they have. It doesn’t have to be an M.Psych, D.Psych or a clinical Ph.D necessarily, but it needs the components contained therein. If you want to be recognised as a clinical, then the edict of the Boulder Model must apply. It’s in the DNA so to speak. RPL alone won’t cut it. It needs technical instruction, placements in accord with APAC requirements as well as a piece of research. How we get there is open to various solutions, but isn’t this really the main sticking point? Colleagues on here feel that they have attained this via work experience, but I’m not sure that this is true in all cases – with respect. I do understand that the so-called generalists are an incredibly heterogeneous group and many have membership of colleges such as the Counselling College , Clinical Neuropsychology etc. In practical terms, I think that a serious error was made in 2006 in not providing specialist item numbers to members of these Colleges. Others who might not be able to join one of these Colleges also have a variety of credentials in things like pain management, psychotherapy etc. It is incredibly nuanced and I appreciate that the failure to recognise these competencies can feel insulting to say the least.
      I note also that one colleague suggested that after 2 decades or so of practice, they ought be awarded with a Doctor Clinical Psychology. With due respect, I have never heard such a claim from anyone in the clinical fraternity. If any of my clinical colleagues without a Doctorate suggested this, I am sure that it would get no truck whatsoever. Anyway, Doctorates are awarded by universities, and I don’t know of any university that awards Doctorates on the basis of work experience, except in exceptional circumstances. Even then, the award is titular (A Doctor of Laws or a Doctor of Science) and even then you can’t use the title “Dr.”
      Some here say that they don’t want to be Clinical Psychologists. Fair enough, but why are you on this website? I would have thought that your reason for being here is that you want access to the higher rebate. If so, the only way you’re going to get it is to be recognised by Medicare as a Clinical Psychologist. There is not, and unlikely that there ever will be an alternative mechanism. It seems to me that if you want to obtain higher rebates, then you will need to be recognised by Medicare as a Clinical Psychologist. That means PBA endorsement in Clinical Psychology.
      So is there a way forward? Yes, but it will require collaboration, a lot of hard work and most of all, COMPROMISE. We are nowhere near that at the moment. For this to happen, there needs to be some realpolitik injected into this debate. The way to do this is to lay the respective positions out, argue to and fro, and slowly map out a position of commonality. This will take time and negotiating through some tough issues. The current approach advocated by RAPS of Storming the Bastille will lead to an ongoing process of hostility and mistrust, resentment and grudge holding.This isn’t what I signed up for.
      The approach suggested by some on here – that they already do the same work as clinical psychologists, so therefore they should have access to the higher rebate will simply not cut it. Medicare (and the govt) have concerns about Better Access in the sense that it is uncapped (why else was funding cut from a maximum of 18 to 10 sessions all those years ago?), so there is no way that they will agree to an expansion of expenditures in a way that could be construed by them as ad hoc in nature. The only way that it will work is to go through the task of meeting the necessary criteria so that there is no challenge available.
      In the lead up to the recent spill motion, I engaged in a brief exchange with Michael Carr-Gregg. I know many of you were deeply disappointed at the outcome of the spill, and I have to confess, it was not the outcome I expected either. I thought that you would walk it in. Anyway, Michael contacted me prior to the spill, (and probably hundred’s of others asking for proposed solutions). My suggestions were quite simple. For those who want to achieve PBA endorsement in clinical psychology, we need to develop bridging programmes that enable that endorsement, but I refer to my earlier comments about what is involved. The truth is that obtaining the endorsement won’t be a simple process. I’m sorry about that, but as a colleague, I want to be totally honest with you. Talk of 1 year bridging programmes is, with respect, fanciful.
      I also want to object to the attack on some clinical colleagues around the issue of the role of CBT in all of this. I agree here with the point made constantly here that there is good evidence that relational variables and the alliance are more important in the care of people than the content of the therapy – that’s what the data tells us. No argument from me – I don’t practice in a way that is consistent with the edicts of CBT, but I would caution against the implied opposite that we should be able to “do whatever we want.” That is dangerous if that is the implication of the argument. I wouldn’t support that. I do however recognise the likelihood that other approaches are probably equally effective – the problem is that they haven’t necessarily demonstrated their efficacy in comparison to CBT (whatever the hell CBT is – it seems to keep on changing). This is a technical debate, and I come down on the side of Bruce Wampold, if anyone is interested. Also, attacking academic psychologists with regard to this is disrespectful and unhelpful. The stuff about “ivory towers” is patronising and condescending – whatever your views of these guys might be, they’ve earned their place. I note with respect the comments on this site from Tia who has been at pains to challenge this type of ad hominem attack. Personally Tia, I have appreciated your comments on this.
      I also agree with the colleague here who referred to the issues around the shift from state registration boards to the PBA. In my state, there is a widely held perception that it has led to serious problems. That however, is the effect of realpolitik – we just have to live with it.
      Please note, that I am trying to be helpful albeit in ways that might not feel helpful. Many here have talked about a need for truth and justice. Well, that is a two way matter at least. It is also true for the “clever clinical” group also. So, I am happy to engage in a respectful and constructive dialogue with any colleague – so long as it is not hostile or personal in nature.
      Oh, and one final thing for the record. I do not hold the view that training in Clinical Psychology as it is currently represented in university training represents some “gold standard.” It is not and I regard it has having serious deficiencies. That’s why many of us go off and do advanced training beyond the academy in areas like psychoanalysis, gestalt or whatever. So please don’t think that I am preaching to you from the top of Mount Olympus as I’m not. I’ve been at this for over 30 years and I have some sense of understanding what it takes to do this work. I screw up every day and fail more than I care to admit. So. I’m engaging in an honest debate about where we are at as a profession.
      I feel that I am taking a risk here in offering these comments, and I hope that you don’t go ahead and savage me as a result. Again, I am trying to help, but I’m not sure that you will experience it that way. We shall see.

      1. Thanks Chris. Your Candor and sensitivity are greatly appreciate by me for one, as are your opininions. I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but not with some of your characterisations and assumptions about non clinically endorsed psychologists.
        I choose not to be a Clinical psychologist but I am an applied psychologist with a varied caseload and an eclectic approach. Bemoaning the dominance of CBT (“whatever that is”) doesn’t equate to an anything goes approach. It is possible to be evidence based and sensible without being dominated by CBT which is great in the right hands at the right time for the right client and the right problem. But it (they! DBT, ACT, MBCBT, CT, BT, CBT, BA….etc.) is (are) just one (a clustering) set of tools to choose from. You mention Gestalt and Psychoanalysis which are making a comeback due to concerted redoubling of efforts for more than a decade to generate peer reviewed evidence of their efficacy.
        What we can say is that an effective technique is objectively as effective as it is whether or not the intersubjective activities we call doubleblind placebo controlled scientific testing have been done. It is also important to note that there are many forms of research and scientific inquiry including practice based evidence.
        I digressed.
        Just because I chose not to become a Clinical psychologist doesnt preclude me from this debate/discussion.
        We are registered psychologists. That is the highest specialisation APRAH and the legislation recognises. Why? because we are qualified to practice.
        The plus 2 is not what you implied. It is a competency based and thorough training.
        Social Workers and Nurses may well run PHNs and many other health and community sector organisations that employ mental health workers such as psychologists, and they realise that many good outcomes come from all types of badged psychologists and other disciplines. If a Social worker or nurse gains endorsement with just a 4 year degree and some work experience, equals psychologists in treating mental health clients and ends up running mental health programs overseeing psychologists why are you saying 4plus2 psychologists are inferior to MpsychClinicals when the aggregated outcomes are the same or better for 4plus2s and other nonClinicals?
        The travesty is thst tbe APS is pretending that MpsychClin is the minimum standard when we know Social workers and nurses getting better outcomes than some MPsychs, and the APS is short selling other Registered Psychologists. Only. MPsych training organisations and professors benefit and everyone else loses. Many other courses are disapoearing and prejudice against otber psychologists grows and disadvantages the public at large.
        RAPS advocates equality but didnt say higher rates. Essentially, the idea that RAPS et al. want a higher rate is a falsehood, error, Furphy or red herring. Some advocate for a lower rate for all, others for a median rate, others for the higher rate.
        Personally I advocate for a higher rate for all psychologists (and other allied health workers) which would strengthen the non-pharmacologically dependent memtal health workforce, cure a bunch of people and save megabucks on offshore bigPharma bills. I know. I’m a dreamer. “but I’m not the only one. I hope someday you’ll join us…” and Psychology and the APS “…will live as one”.
        putting aside what exactly the amount that the one tier rebate should be, and focussing on the notion of one tier and the concept of unity and the principles of togetherness and inclusiveness, it is not hard to see that greed for money, power and status has brought us to this impasse and until the egomania of a few overprivileged and powerful Clinical Academics is properly addressed and corrected, there will be no equity, or just and proper merit based distribution of resources to the needy and deserving.
        Many Clinical psychologist provide their higher rebates to the wealthy worried well in.leafy sunurbs while hard bitten Registered psychologist accept a lesser bulk bill gor their treatment of the underprivileged in ecpensive rural and remote communitees with high costs of living. Simply not fair and poor use of tbe health dollar.
        Its not about self interestedly wanting to ‘climb’ to Clinical status and money. I get the majority of my income from other sources than medicare but my GP referred clients get a lesser rebate for an equal service.
        I am against the discrimination for many reasons not purely self interest.
        There are mental health social workers. Maybe there should be mental health psychologists too.

      2. Hi Chris,

        Thank you for reaching out to share your point of view and collaborate. Thank you also for expressing your understanding of how some may be feeling in the context of the prevailing circumstances of our professional environment that continues to exacerbate without any attempt at a proper redress.

        I hope you don’t mind me cutting to the chase and speaking to some of the points you make.

        Firstly, to clarify one of the many underpinning factors of concern re: the tiered rebate system, I encourage you to read a previous comment I made recently under this same thread of comments. Among other things, it speaks to what could be argued as a different paradigm upon which to base the realpolitik. That paradigm is not something you spoke to and so you may not even be aware that it’s happening.

        Ultimately though, pragmatic solutions require a clear understanding of the problem. If we cannot agree on what the problem is, it is difficult to work at an effective solution.

        I encourage you to keep working at building your understanding of the problem RAPS is raising. There are some elements in what you address in your comments that does offer some evidence of understanding, but other aspects I suggest may have missed the target quite a bit.

        I will address what I see as some of the misunderstandings, not in any specific order. Please don’t take this as me being resistant… I am simply aiming to help you understand.


        There are forces at play that go way beyond our own little APS psychology cliché that, if not recognised and addressed, could have the whole Medicare Better Access Rebate System intentionally atrophied to the point of being made redundant.

        Ultimately a previous comment I have made in this thread flags the need of establishing a single tier for psychological services under Medicare Better Access to secure its future against the very clear and overt shift to tendered mental health service provision through PHN’s. My previous comment clarifies this in a little more detail.


        There is so much I would like to discuss re: your perception of how the boulder model should be applied in the educational practice of building professional acumen in our students.

        Among so many points I would like to flag, just briefly for now, it’s important to remember that the boulder model is a concept from the 1940’s. The science and practice of education has moved on since then. Psychology as a profession does need to keep up. I personally see the boulder model and how we currently interpret its application as a constraint to the development of our training programs whereby I see how the training programs of all other health and allied health professions have developed over the years with a lot of frustration and disappointment at the way we continue to go about our training.

        How do we build expert practitioners for the sake of holding up the integrity and quality of service and safety of the public we serve? I really don’t think an educational model formed back in the 1940’s, coupled with our current interpretation of that model, really cuts it anymore. We must grow in the knowledge of educational practice as much, if not more so, than our knowledge of clinical practice.

        In saying this, I personally believe the +2 of the 4+2 pathway has been the saving grace of our training that has allowed for a healthy balance of options in the training model a student could embrace to start on the path to expert practice.


        While you have clearly identified the hurt and distress caused by the mental health service provision landscape for so many of your colleagues; I think you may have missed that they are literally skilled clinicians, of equivalent standing to colleagues of postgraduate training, who have been treating across the spectrum of mild, moderate and severe caseloads for many years, if not many decades with equivalent success and equivalent contribution to the redress of mental health concerns in our society.

        To say, no matter how nicely, tactfully or covertly, that a colleague’s training is not good enough and ultimately has left him or her ill equipped to practice properly is insulting. It is ludicrous and naive to think such comments, no matter how subtly inferred, would not evoke an impassioned response.

        To offer encouragement in the suggestion that there may be some good ones in the mix as outliers but overall the training is really bad and you need to skill up is literally offensive. That might not be how it is said, but the inference is not mistaken.


        The problem is – many thousands of colleagues have, in good faith and trust, followed a training pathway and professional development regime that would allow them to enter in to the full scope of practice. They are now being told they were not trained properly and the quality service they have provided for many clients over the years across mild, moderate and severe cases does not compare to someone who has completed a master’s degree.

        If this were true, it would need to be copped on the chin. But it isn’t true. So, why do we go about arguing for it under the guise of being political realists? Aren’t scientists advocates of truth as it presents? Isn’t it then our professional obligation as sceintists to throw that truth in to the mix of the realpolitik?


        We are scientists. So, we need to discuss and debate in accord with the evidence.

        What science has been used as evidence for the two tiered rebate system? We talk about upholding the integrity of being a science but then go about playing a political game.

        As a profession that advocates for science we need to find common ground in what the science tells us. That is where we should be aiming to commence the collaborative process for a solution.

        WHAT DOES THE SCIENCE TELL US? And then let’s go from there.

        Kind Regards

      3. Chris- firstly i would like to say that i appreciate your respectful tone (this is a welcome improvement on many of the previous comments from your cohort, ie. those ‘clin’ psychs who are against the RAPS agenda). Civil debate is possible, and your differing views are welcome. Beyond that, i can only reiterate many of the excellent points made in response to your post already- you may call that ‘unfortunate resistance’, but we the aggrieved call it our reality, and our right to object to the status quo- and that is the point of RAPS and this discussion.

        Your post (and overall view) is based on some erroneous assumptions, which are quite insulting to most psychologists. Firstly, that ‘clin’ psych is somehow a gold standard to which many of us mere ‘gen’ psychs are either aspiring, or should be aspiring (if we want to become high quality psychologists). As Dr Clive has pointed out to you, any such assertion needs to be evidence based- if it is not, then it is simply vested interest and hubris. This is not what a science of psychology is meant to be about. By the standard of the Boulder Model, your cohort are failing miserably, and run the risk of dragging psychology back to some pre-enlightenment world of authoritarianism, superstition, and greed based vested financial vested interests (we are already half way down that track now, thanks to the ‘clins’ running the APS). Is that a direction you are comfortable with? It is not for RAPS supporters. If ‘clin’ psychs provide a better service, please provide the evidence of this – or re-evaluate where you are taking our profession.

        Most ‘gen’ psychs are not aspiring to become ‘clin’ psychs- many of us are very aware (from many years of observation) that being a ‘clin’ psych does not result in any real difference above and beyond being a ‘gen’ psych. The notion that we are, or should be aspiring to becoming ‘clin’ psychs (via a bridging course or RPL, or any other means) is to completely misread where most of is are at (and to confuse a desire to be on the same income- expressed by some- for the same work as a desire to be just like you).

        Personally, i prefer the suggestion of doing away with the upper Medicare rebate, following the evidence of equivalence, and having you and us all paid the same lower rate. You urge us to deal with reality in your post- so here, i urge you to do the same. Regardless of the financial pain it would cost you, and the implications for your large mortgage, car repayments and preferred schooling and holiday options (ie. your overall lifestyle package), your financial advantages are ill-gotten gains which cannot be justified by the evidence (either of client outcomes- they are the same- or the amount of effort you have gone to in order to become a ‘clin’ psych- again, not radically different amount of effort to most other psychs, in one way or another). ill-gotten gains should not be maintained in perpetuity, esp at the expense of the trusting tax payer. I know, were this to happen, it would hurt- but you will (hopefully) just have to deal with this reality, recalibrate your budget, and move on. This suggestion is not different to your urging that we deal with the painful reality and move on. You want to maintain the status quo (less pain for you- more for us and our clients; we want an alternative (more pain for you, less for us and our clients)- not qualitatively different, only differing numbers of more psychs and clients benefiting more from the alternative.

        Rather than have your chosen life-style maintained by the taxpayer on the basis of a furphy, i would prefer to see you paid the same as me (for doing the same work, with the same population, with the same results), and have the tax payer’s savings funneled back into the program, allowing all of our clients to have more sessions of psychology instead of the current inadequate 10. If that entails pain for you, so be it- i suspect that given our place of privilege in society as resourced professionals, you can absorb the pain much better than most of the disadvantaged clients i see (which, btw, is one of the demonstrated differences between ‘clin’ and ‘gen’ psychs- the affluence of the clients we see).

        again, thank you for your respectful tone and language, although i disagree with much of what you have to say- and also find the underlying implications and assumptions quite insulting in many ways. I welcome more discussion from you, and hope that you come to demonstrate an openness to the evidence.

        1. Good to see you’re being respectful here James, ie re: lifestyle. Some big snd likely erroneous assumptions there. ..

          1. dear “confused” (your real name?)- you think it disrespectful to refer to economic realities? We all have ‘life-style’ packages, and when they work for us, we all want them maintained, along with our ability to afford the choices we want- myself included. I dont think there is anything disrespectful in acknowledging the real-world ramifications for ‘clin’ psychs were they to lose the higher rate of pay. This has been expressed by ‘clin’ psychs previously, and it is a legitimate concern for them. You interpret a facetiouness which i didnt intend. Chris didnt pull any punches in stating ‘realities’ of ‘gen’ psychs being lesser than ‘clin’ psychs, and urging us to just deal with that ‘reality’. It is reasonable that he be responded to with the same no-nonsense approach.

            I dont think it reaonsable that tax payers foot the bill for an unjustifiable financial boon for ‘clin’ psychs. I’d prefer to see the additional pay taken off them and put back into making more psychology sessions available to clients. That is a threatening idea to some who are the recipients of ill-gotten gains.

          2. Hi confused,

            I’m compelled to comment on your pseudonym by flagging that we can ease confusion by pursuing the clarity of meaning underlying any comments made. The key is to bring it back to the point. i.e., What do you mean?

            Presumptions of meaning when reading comments and ‘dog whistle’ innuendos when making comments only serve to muddy the waters.

            We need to be able to cut to the chase, lay the cards on the table and express clearly and specifically exactly what we mean and exactly what our intentions are.

            In the current environment of our profession, where trust has been broken, clarity of meaning and intent are paramount.

            When communication is vague it is then up for grabs, with anyone’s guess, at trying to work out the meaning and intent. Consequently, those who trust will give the benefit of the doubt, while those who’s trust has been broken will be more vigilant. And rightly so.

            I personally believe we are in this growing gridlock now, as a profession, because the leadership of the APS have been vague and at times completely absent in providing clarity of meaning and intent. From time to time we ‘catch a whiff’ of the underlying intent and meaning of actions taken and initiatives endorsed. Unfortunately, in those times, it doesn’t smell too promising.

            Human growth and development occurs in a social context. The lifeblood of that psychosocial growth and development is effective and authentic communication.

            Right now, for the sake of our growth and development as a profession, we need to have open and honest discussion about contrasting and conflicting points of view to achieve a collaborative consensus. It is very hard yards to achieve this; but we should not avoid it.

            Kind Regards

        2. Sorry James, but I agree with Confused Psychologist.

          It is this type of commentary that I am talking about in my previous posts.

          These sweeping generalisations and judgemental assumptions do little to validate the underlying issues in this debate or to invite collaborative efforts towards real and positive change – in fact, it totally distracts from it.

          You and the RAPS Team can’t continuously demand the rest of us to focus on the issues and not ‘play the man’, then come out with a comment such as this personally attacking an assumed version of Chris and his lifestyle!

          If we can’t maintain our integrity throughout this debate, then this initiative is doomed to fail, as it slowly but surely alienates all generalists such as myself, who desperately want to see productive and solution focused dialogue and are getting sick and tired of the diatribe!

          1. sounds sweeping and general Tia. If you object to something James said, please be specific about it and not exaggerate to “You and the RAPS team can’t continuously…”
            James eas just pointing out the inconvenient truth that Clin Psychs are better paid and may suffer damage to the standard of living in the manner to which they have become accustomed if the medicare rebates were reduced to a common lower rate. Personally I believe the more affluent clients in the more affluent suburbs Clin Psychs are more highly concentrated in would probably cope with a higher gap or lesser rebate, but the bulk billing clin psychs would cope less well.
            Personally I think all allied mental health workers deserve a higher rebate and more sessions per client would really create beter outcomes, less inpatient admissions and less money spent on expensive Psychiatric interventions. One psychiatrists costs as much as 3-4 allied health workers. the maths is simple.

            1. With all due respect Greg, I’m not sure how I could be more specific than “a comment such as this, personally attacking an assumed version of Chris or his lifestyle”.

              And it’s hardly an exaggeration to say James and the RAPS team have demanded posters focus on issues, not the individual. James has stated this several times in replies to Cate Megan and others. So has Kevin as Moderator. Cate’s posts are allegedly even being deleted by the Moderators.

              And let’s not forget you and Kevin both told me as much, in response to my comment in ‘From the new RAPS Team’ post.

              And now you tell me to stop exaggerating and be specific…

              Can you see the irony?

              1. Hi Tia
                It’s a good thing that we are all vigilant and avoid personal attacks. Frankly, when I read Greg’s comment on ‘lifestyle’ I thought the point he was making was that all psychologists are working to earn an income and support their lifestyles; that this was not an attack on the lifestyle that Chris was living, but an acknowledgement that we all need to earn an income.

          2. Tia- i recognise that we are wanting to head in the same direction, and i respect your right to your preferred approach- viva la difference, i say! I obviously have differing views on how to get there. As much as a like Bob Marley, i dont think a “lets get together and feel alright” approach is going to get us anywhere against such prejudices, vested interests and a sense of exceptionalism/entitlement amongst some in the clinical clique and the power brokers in the APS/PBA. Marx view was that conflict is at the basis of all social change, and it is social change within our profession that we are trying to achieve. I think we do need to break a few eggs in order to make an omlette, but recognise that is just my view.

            We have been punched in the mouth repeatedly by the leadership of the APS and their minions. It makes little difference if we are punched in the mouth by a fist wearing a velvet glove or by bare knuckles- it is still a punch in the mouth. I perceive many of Chris’ statements to be just another punch in the mouth, however nicely delivered. The fact that he is able to communicate in a respectful manner allows debate to happen, so i appreciate that. His statements included:- an implication that we all want to become ‘clin’ psychs; in order to reach that hallowed status, RPL ‘wont cut it’, nor would a 1 yr bridging course, ie. what ‘clin’ psychs (presumably) do with their clients is so advanced over what ‘gen’ psychs do that it would require an enormous amount of work to achieve that level of competence. Sorry, but i find that view not only devoid of any evidence, but insulting. It presumes that mere ‘gen’ psychs are sub-standard, where the only research evidence available points to the exact opposite conclusion.

            if you find my reference to the obvious financial advantage that ‘clin’ psychs have been given; and reference to the fact that they have life-style budgets based on this unfair financial advantage; and that my preferred option entails acknowledged financial pain to them- but you dont find Chris’ statements offensive, then i think we just have to agree to disagree. I know that many other ‘gen’ psychs are also outraged by the inequities (in status, presumed competence, and finances), and are angry at the notion they need to do a bridging course in clin psych in order to attain some mythical standard. But, as with Chris, I respect your right to your views, and encourage you to keep expressing them.

          3. Hello to all from a sunny Saturday morning in Perth.
            Thanks for your comments – I feel that there is a long way to go here.
            I have some general comments to make as i feel the we can’t be too specific at this time. This is my response:

            1. I will not respond to ad hominem attack;
            2. That said, I can feel the deep sense of hurt and humiliation that is felt by many. Again, I am sorry about this turn of affairs. I reiterate – I do not take any pleasure in this. I do not want anyone to feel this way. We have a serious problem here and it is going to take a lot of work to realise a satisfactory outcome – for all;
            3. As many of you have emphasised in a variety of posts, the relationship is central to our work. Well, the same applies with this issue – we can’t progress until we have a relationship with each other. At the moment we don’t have that. Until this occurs, we will all remain stuck in our respective positions;
            4. Somewhere in all of this exchange, someone suggested that I was representing Clin Psych as the gold standard. Please re-read my post. I explicitly stated that I DID NOT view Clin Psych training as the gold standard. I made it clear that there are, in my view, serious deficiencies in clin psych training. That is why I have spent many years pursuing further training;
            5. In one of the posts, I was left with the impression that I was seen to be in the camp of CBT, DBT or some so-called “evidence-based” approach. To reiterate, I am in Bruce Wampold’s camp if I am to be anywhere;
            6. It would appear that some in RAPS seek the higher rebate for all and others want the lower rate for all. Just to be clear – I’m in the camp of the former.

            Finally, I remain committed to trying to help, but I think that we have a long way to go. There is a lot of bread that has to be broke before solutions might emerge.

            1. Hi Chris, (from green leafy NT to WA) Can you clarify that you say you seek the higher rebate for all? This means you seek a single tier approach too?! Common ground!!
              But relationship need not preclude robust debate and disagreement. Cringing from conflict and being nice to be nice is how the upper middle classes are guilted into maintaining the status quo. Discusdions of demographics and sociology need not involve ad hominem attacks and I believe you Chris and Dr Alexander are invoved in a respectful and robust debate that in Marxian dislectical terms displays the “thesis” of clinical superiority challenged by an “antithesis” position from the RAPS camp which if allowed to play out unhindered by thought police will result in the “Synthesis” we are all hoping for in the form of a Unified APS. Unity doesnt mean sameness and submission to ‘authority’. Healthy leadership welcomes dissent and seeks spokespersons and conduits to give vent to dissent and seek synthesis. A new collective Form is emerging and we are going through growing pains together.
              Having said that now I want to ask Dr James Alexander to look for commonalities with Chris at the same time as pointing out the points of conflict.

              1. Thank you Gregory. To you and Dr Alexander – I will respond, but it will be next weekend as I won’t be able to this week

            2. hello Chris,

              I believe that you take no pleasure in the hurt and humiliation inflicted on so many of your colleagues- and that is to your credit. I think it was possibly me who stated that you had held ‘clin’ psych up as being the ‘gold standard’- erroneously, as i can see that you overtly stated this to not be your belief- my apologies for getting this wrong. I think this resulted from the tenor of your post (if not the actual words), ie. i perceive that your statement that ‘clin’ psych is not the gold standard was inconsistent with the overall theme of your post, in which you stated that ‘gen’ psychs would have a great deal of work to do (beyond a 1 yr bridging course, beyond RPL) in order to achieve ‘clin’ status. The implication of this is that ‘clin’ psych is genuinely elevated, beyond what ‘gen’ psychs are capable of. You stated “… RPL alone won’t cut it. It needs technical instruction, placements in accord with APAC requirements as well as a piece of research…The approach suggested by some on here – that they already do the same work as clinical psychologists, so therefore they should have access to the higher rebate will simply not cut it….My suggestions were quite simple. For those who want to achieve PBA endorsement in clinical psychology, we need to develop bridging programmes that enable that endorsement, but I refer to my earlier comments about what is involved. The truth is that obtaining the endorsement won’t be a simple process. I’m sorry about that, but as a colleague, I want to be totally honest with you. Talk of 1 year bridging programmes is, with respect, fanciful.”

              So, to me these statements either mean that you i) view ‘clin’ psych as superior to ‘gen’ psych, in which case it will take more than a 1 year bridging program to make up the substantial deficit, and/or ii) you believe that the powers in charge will simply not allow RPL or even 1 yr bridging courses to ‘bring us to equivalence’. If you are suggesting i), then i would again request that you provide some kind of evidence supporting your position. That would be the stance i and others find quite insulting, as it is just more of the same insults. If you are asserting ii), then i would suggest you are supporting the current paradigm, where others (eg. myself, other RAPS supporters) want to challenge it and lobby for an alternative. It is a question of political strategy, and preference- a conservative approach (accepting the way things are), or a radical approach (wanting to change how things are). It is anyone’s guess what will prevail- whether RAPS can ultimately create radical change in the system by the power of numbers. You dont seem to believe that possible, i and others do.

              You also state, “Some here say that they don’t want to be Clinical Psychologists. Fair enough, but why are you on this website? I would have thought that your reason for being here is that you want access to the higher rebate.” I think you have miss-perceived many of the varied motives which people have for being on this site and involved in this discussion. My impression is that the vast majority of ‘gen’ psychs do NOT want to be ‘clin’ psychs- we are not seeking a way to become so. We clearly understand that ‘clin’ psych offers no greater skills than those already possessed by the vast majority of ‘gen’ psychs. We are strongly objecting to an arbitrary system which has reduced us to second class psychologists; which has elevated the status and pay of ‘clin’ psychs above all others- all contrary to the only available evidence. While some here believe that we/they should be eligible for the higher Medicare rate, i personally (and i know others) want to see ‘clin’ psychs reduced to our lower rate, and the saved funds channeled back into the program for more services for clients. So, when you state, “I would have thought that your reason for being here is that you want access to the higher rebate”- you are wrong, at least for an unknown proportion of RAPS supporters- i suspect that proportion is large, but as yet, no one really knows- time will tell.

              It appears to me that some view RAPS as a vehicle to bring psychologists of all stripes together so that we can be a big happy family again- and then the ‘clins’ can help drag the rest of us up to their hallowed status. RAPS was created to challenge the status quo of ‘clin’ domination in the APS leadership, so that the 2 tiered Medicare system, and any other manifestations of unjustifiable inequities could be rectified- not quite the same thing as lobbying for 1+yr bridging programs in ‘clin’ psych, so we can all enjoy more fruits of the elite status. The ‘R’ in RAPS stands for ‘reform’. I do wonder why people not interested in genuine reform are involved in RAPS? Take the R out, and you still have the APS.

  5. I am not a psychologist, but I work for a psychologist. I love the Chinese word for a psychologist which poetically translates it as Öne who discovers the essence of the heart”‘. It encapsulates the relationship between therapist and client, the learning that precedes it and the heart of most clients’ problems

      1. Hi Patricia, I am not sure if you saw my request. Is it possible to have a copy of the Chinese Character you mentioned or a link to a copy of the character please.
        Or is there a way of spelling the Chinese character in English letters?

  6. These posts have made my morning buzz with their authenticity.

    Reading on Monday morning prior to my work week where so many people come to see me to risk sharing their lives, their hopes and dreams, their hurts and struggles and disappointments. Some of these people will meet me for the first time this week. What a huge risk they take. How much trust and faith and hope they must feel – along with fear and shame and despair.

    Psychology must have heart and soul. In essence we are simply people meeting with people. Whether we talk together or draw together or ‘play’ in the sand together, whether data is collected, reports are completed, symptoms are assessed, treatment plans developed, case conferences conducted, we are people meeting together to help, guide, and essentially, communicate love in action.

    We can be as ‘clinical’ as we like, as ‘generalist’ as we choose, and as authentic as we are able to. We are all Psychologists; and individuals. We study behaviour and hope to apply our study to help others – through counselling, assessment, investigation, measurement, caring, listening, being present, holding space. It is all love after all. Love – heart and soul.

    Some say there is only love and fear. Don’t we choose to try to communicate our love (for people, for knowledge, for truth, for justice, etc) to help others (such a variety of ‘others’) have less fear? Clients ask who I see to help me. I say that I also see a psychologist – we just call it ‘supervision’ (due to our fear of being/looking vulnerable?)

    Ps Who else listened it to the brilliant Irvin Yalom webinar last week? He spoke in part of needing much more than ‘CBT and Psycheducation’, that we need to do process work to really help people. Perhaps apply that principle hear to help heal the rift? Ho’oponopono.

  7. great points. It is the appropriation of language for the sake of power. When the term ‘clinical psychology’ was first used, it meant a distinction from academic psychology- could just a easily been referred to as applied psychology. Any psychologist applying psychological principles to the field of human distress was referred to as a clinical psychologist, as at that time, it was happening mostly in psychiatric clinics. Educational and vocational psychologists were another type of applied psychologists. In the current Australian context, it is a term that is used for purely political purposes. I heard a ‘clinical’ psychologist interviewed on the ABC a couple of years ago, during which the interviewer stated, “Clinical psychologists are more medically trained”- the clinical psychologist being interviewed agreed! This is the furphy which is being promoted- that there is something distinct (“more medical”) about ‘clinical’ psychology. Some within that clique are currently lobbying the government for prescription rights of psych rugs- not because the world needs more people on psych drugs, but because it will further cement the perception that they are different and ‘more medical’. It is not just a misguided accident, but a deliberate nonsense promoted in order to win a turf war in which they are the main aggressors.

    Before the inception of the PBA, upper Medicare rebates, endorsements etc, ‘clinical’ psychologists who wanted to assert their superiority were viewed as a mere annoyance- our self aggrandizing colleagues who seemed to have some peculiar needs to set themselves apart. ‘Whatever’. Most of us just got on with the job of doing our jobs and for the most part ignored their pretensions. But with the clinical clique assuming almost complete control over the APS; spreading into the control of the PBA, selling the notion of an upper rate of pay and their superiority to the government, it has long passed since we could just view them as our harmless colleagues with self-esteem problems requiring self-promotion at everyone else’s expense.

    Think about it for a moment- it is illegal for us to use these two English language words together, next to each other while referring to ourselves- clinical psychologist, despite it being a fair description of what most of us do. Illegal. Personally, i can live without using the term as in the public view it is synonymous with ‘cold, impersonal’ etc- not ways in which effective psychologists want to be viewed. Any notions that we can be effective psychologists while being cold and detached are easily disputed with over 60 years of outcome research- literally thousands of studies, which keep demonstrating that the quality of the relationship is the most important psychologist factor in contributing to client outcomes. I am happy to leave the use of the term to the self-designated. But in order for this aggrandisement to have no impact on the rest of Australia’s psychologists (and our clients), we must work towards reforming the APS and the PBA, and eradicating the upper Medicare rebate. To do this requires simply that we inject some research evidence into the equation in order to cut through the self-serving false narrative which now dominates psychology in this country. And it is the state of evidence which the self-appointed elites fear and resist the most. We now have a psychological science in denial of research based evidence.

  8. A a firm believer in the value of science well administered and applied within confidence limits delivered with reflexivity as an adjunct to the full set of skills of an applied psychologost engaged in the art, philosophy and science of psychology, I choose not to seek endorsement as a “clinical psychologist” nor adopt the name clinical although I continue to be referred to as a clinical psychologist by many people who I correct.. If I wanted to be medical I would’ve studied medicine as Biology was my strongest subject in yr12. But I quit biology due to conscientious objection to unecessary vivisection involving the dissection of live toads, poisoning their hearts (literally) with various chemicals to see what happens. The toads were taken from the lake at Flinders university. My other subjects were “across the lake” in Humanities and Social Sciences. So I kissed goodbye to Biology, kissed the toads goodbye and opted for a non-clinical career direction to my scientific, artistic snd philosophical inquiry. A direction that honoured life and the central importance of compassion and the eminence of Heart. Psychology means literally knowledge of the Soul. But along with knowledge or Logos, must come wisdom or Sophia. Where is the Soul of Psychology? Where is the Psychosophy?
    Science is great. But science belongs within a balanced system of knowledge and wisdom and reflecive practise-based-evidence-based-practice.
    Happy to csll myself a Psychologist, but not so keen on the clinical label. Clinical stuff is just part of what and how I practise the Noble Arts, Philosophies and Sciences of Psychology. I am not a Generalist. I am s Psychologist!

      1. Expressions of Interest: Appointment to APS Board of Directors as a Non-Executive Director


        About the opportunity
        The APS Board is seeking to appoint two APS members as Additional Directors for a term ending at the 2018 AGM, with the possibility of being re-appointed for up to two additional one year terms.

        Following the completion of a skills analysis of current Directors, the Board is seeking expressions of interest from APS members (holding the grade of Honorary Fellow, Fellow, or Member) with professional experience in one or more of the following areas:

        Working in general psychological practice, without holding an area of practice endorsement or APS College membership.Working with organisations, teams, and individual employees to improve their performance and increase effectiveness and productivity in the workplace.An academic who is or was principally engaged in either research or formal teaching in a field of psychology for or in conjunction with a higher education provider. 

        In addition to the above areas of professional experience, selection of candidates for these appointments will be undertaken in a manner designed to ensure an appropriate mix of skills, experience, and diversity on the Board.

        Details of current members of the Board can be found here.
        Board of Director Roles and Responsibilities
        The Board of Directors governs the APS and has overall responsibility for pursuing the Society’s mission, determining the strategic plan and priorities, monitoring implementation and developing a resource base to support the Society’s activities. The Board is the Society’s ultimate decision-making and policy-setting body.

        Attributes and Competencies of Directors
        In addition to areas of professional experience set out above, prospective directors should possess or be able to quickly develop the following attributes and competencies expected of all Board directors: 

        Knowledge of director dutiesA high level knowledge of key matters impacting the Society, the profession and the disciplineFinancial acumen Strategic thinking IntegrityEffective listener and communicatorConstructive questionerContributor and team playerInfluencer and negotiatorCritical and innovative thinkerWillingness and ability to devote necessary time and energy

        Additional Information about being a Director for the APS
        Typically, the Board holds seven to eight full day face-to-face meetings (which are held on Saturdays) each year and if the need arises there may be a small number of further Board meetings held by audio conference. In addition there is a Strategic Planning Session (full day) which will be held in conjunction with the February 2018 Board meeting. As a Board member, you will also be involved in a number of other Board and Committee meetings throughout the year. Overall it is estimated that Director activities could require up to three times the actual time allocated to Board meetings.

        Directors are paid a Directors’ Fee of $28,400 per annum, which is paid quarterly in arrears, plus superannuation (currently 9.5%). The APS will reimburse or pay reasonable out of pocket expenses directly attributable to performing Director duties.

        All new Directors soon after their appointment will be given the opportunity to participate in an induction program (approximately 1 day) at the National Office. There is also an expectation that the appointed Directors will attend a short course in corporate governance as recommended and supported by the APS.

        Candidate selection process
        Shortlisting and interviewing of candidates are managed by the Board’s Nominations Committee. The Board of Directors is responsible for approving the appointment of the Additional Directors, following recommendations from the Nominations Committee. 

        Shortlisted candidates will be invited to attend (in person or by audio) a formal interview with the Nominations Committee. 

        If you would like to apply for one of the Additional Director positions, please submit your CV and a covering letter of no more than three pages (outlining how your knowledge, experience, and qualities would add value to the APS Board of Directors), to the Chair of the Nominations c/o Tina Yemettas by close of business on Friday 1 December 2017.

        APS Nominations Committee
        17 November 2017



        ©2017 The Australian Psychological Society Limited.
        ACN 000543788. All Rights Reserved.




Leave a Reply