We pursue equity and fairness for ALL. So what would a fairer system look like? That question can probably be best answered by first appreciating what the current system looks like and considering its immediate and more long term effects. The pages listed below describe the current system and present suggestions to achieve more equity.
On this page you will learn about the widespread and accelerating negative impact of a system our Federal Government designed after receiving inaccurate advice and inappropriate advocacy from our peak body – the Australian Psychological Society.
This section of our website describes the invaluable approach of providing different training pathways to full registration as a practising psychologist within Australia. All training pathways in Australia are very successful in bringing psychologists up to the regulated standards of practice in the appropriate knowledge, understanding and skilled performance necessary to practice effectively in their chosen field(s). A key strength to Australia’s approach in the provision of training pathway options is that students can self-select into the type of pathway that best aligns with their individual learning requirements. Consequently, Australian Psychologists are trained through an astute educational system that allows for greater choice and a better pedagogical ‘fit’ with the individual student and their educational needs. Unfortunately, most of these pathways are being eroded by the widespread effects of the two-tier Medicare Rebate system which has created a misconstrued perception of one single training pathway being superior compared to all others.
A governance model advocated by the Australian Psychological Society (APS) board in the lead up to an exceptional general meeting (EGM) in June of 2017 was aggressively promoted by the APS board in direct opposition to several voiced concerns by members. Unfortunately, rather than allowing opportunity for open debate over issues of concern the APS board only presented the ‘yes case’ for the new governance model to members and only provided opportunity for the ‘yes case’ to be promoted through state branches and membership email lists. This was in stark contrast to opportunities provided to APS members who were concerned over the new governance model. Members who were concerned asked the APS board for opportunities to share these concerns through the same way the ‘yes case’ was promoted to the membership. Unfortunately, this request was denied. Consequently, the governance model was voted in by members in an environment that overtly denied opportunity for the membership to become fully versed in both cases ‘for’ and ‘against’ the proposed governance model.
Additional concerns arose due to EGM proceedings including the counting of votes ‘for’ and ‘against’ the new governance model. For example, in the counting of votes ‘for’ and ‘against’, the Chair declared that several proxies for the ‘against’ vote were invalid. When questioned, the Chair would not indicate how many were invalid nor allow for the votes to be scrutinised. The final votes were ‘just enough’ for the new governance model to be ratified.
The new governance model is described in this section together with suggestions for a ‘fairer system’.
How You Can Help
Register for our Forum
Join our community forum and collaborate with others. Our community forum requires completion of an online registration form. We offer further resources here but,…Read More
Subscribe to our newsletters and receive the latest information about our campaigns. We send the latest weekly posts on our blog each Monday morning to…Read More
Make a Donation
Support our ongoing effort to unite the psychology profession. RAPS has ongoing expenses e.g. Hosting a Website including yearly renewal of a SSL security…Read More