This Blog is in the public domain. One of the strengths of what the Clinicals are doing and have done is that they do it secretly, therefore there is no strong counter lobby. So, we hear, after a decision has been made and implemented, that e.g. Centrelink require assessments for DSP’s only from Clinical Psychologists. We are then in a much weaker position of having to convince government to reverse a decision, governments do not like to do that unless they can see substantial political gain. We then must try to supply the political gain. Please do not think that RAPS isn’t doing and hasn’t done something about the SIRA submission.
We believe that a volume of individual complaints is several orders of magnitude more effective than a “group” complaint. Bureaucracies have very effective methods of dealing with ‘one off’ events but are not as well equipped at dealing with incoming individual volume. RAPS would really like to encourage every individual to make a complaint about the ACPA submission. It is an easy matter to look up the code of ethics and familiarise yourselves with the AHPRA complaints process. The PsyBA has adopted the APS Code of Ethics without change. You can download the code here. The AHPRA complaints process is here.
We have had a quick look, there may be others, we have identified the following code violations, highlighted in black:
Now that you realise how far many of the clinicals are prepared to go with their strategies surely you realise just how transformed the current landscape has become and how much has to be turned around … and importantly “who must do this”. If you wish to inform us that you have made a complaint about this ACPA submission we will maintain a register for our future purposes. Just shoot us an email here.
One of you posted; “Im also fairly certain that because Mr Paul Gertler’s name is on the report as the author we can lodge a complaint with AHPRA directly about the wording he uses and misconceptions he perpetuates.”
This is true that you can make a complaint about the ‘apparent’ individual author. However if you do this then ACPA may distance themselves from this person suggesting that the submission was by an individual and not scanctioned by them. We suggest that you submit a complaint about the author and ALSO about ACPA as they have scanctioned the submission – it’s available in the public domain hosted directly on the ACPA web site here. It was originally found via a Google search.
One often encountered problem with the notion of a group complaint is the diffusion of responsibility inherent in the process, please read on …
RAPS has said the following many times and we repeat it here:
RAPS is a volunteer group, very dedicated, very hard working and very people and resource poor. RAPS cannot, by themselves, do what is required for ALL psychologists and the public. Often when we ask for volunteer efforts the response is disheartening to us. We are certainly most grateful to all those who do put their hands up. However, there are thousands of psychologists in Australia who need to put their hands up, that is the only way we will turn this situation around – via both amplified voice and amplified effort. Please do not assume that someone else will do it for you as, although this is for all of you collectively, this is also for you individually. Perhaps the only certainty RAPS can offer you is that if a large majority of psychologists in Australia negatively impacted by the current landscape do not become actively involved then we will “collectively” fail.
It is encouraging to hear your angry voices in response to the ACPA submission to SIRA. However, the longer many of you leave the doing to others the easier it is for groups like ACPA to exercise their strategies and continue to debase the majority of Australian psychologists.
Very soon you will have the opportunity to congregate together and act together. We don’t want to be saying to the next generation, “I’m sorry, I should have done something”.
Thank you all
The RAPS Team