Letter of support from Dr Joe Poznanski
History of activities for the Society, education and professional background
Personal statement on preferred policy direction and goals, reasons for nominating for this Director position
Personal statement on the knowledge, experience and qualities that I would bring to the Board of Directors
Answers to questions from members
Final statement
I have been honoured with election to the Board of Directors of the Australian Psychological Society. This is the peak body representing psychologists in Australia, with over 19.000 members. To show what I stand for, I have reproduced here the information displayed on the APS web site in preparation for the election.
The APS requires brief answers to three questions. Here are mine:
As a Member of the APS since 1991, I have contributed by being the Secretary of the Victorian section of the College of Counselling Psychologists since 2003, and of its National Executive since 2006. I also edit this College's newsletter.
I am also the Secretary of the Psychology and Buddhism Interest Group, and on the committee of the Environment Interest Group. I edit this Group's newsletter.
In the past year, I joined the Membership Retention and Recruitment Advisory Group. At my first meeting, I stated that I'd been contacted by members intending to leave the APS because of dissatisfactions. A direct result, a Members' Concerns Advisory Group has been set up, which is giving rise to positive changes in the official attitudes and culture of the APS.
My most important education has been in the University of Hard Knocks, but I also have a Ph.D. and various lesser qualifications in psychology; the equivalent of 14-and-a-half years of formal psychological study. I am a writer with 14 published books in fields varying from building and woodcraft to surviving cancer.
I have held teaching positions at Monash for 5 years and RMIT for 3, then was a Research Scientist with the CSIRO for 4 years. For 2 years, I was a private consultant in energy conservation research, designing and running surveys, training and supervising interviewers. I have been in private practice as a counselling psychologist since 1991.
In the past, I have worked as a Family Therapist for Anglicare, a counsellor at an Aboriginal Health Centre, and as a telephone counsellor. Currently, I see clients face to face individually, as couples and families. I also do therapy by telephone and email. A number of other psychologists and counsellors refer difficult, complicated cases to me. Three of the books I have written are psychology self-help.
Currently I am advising an Australian relief group headed for Sri Lanka to help war-displaced people there. I may be able to go myself to do trauma counselling and train locals to do so.
In addition, I am a professional grandfather. While only three young people are genetically related to me, I have dozens of grandchildren. This is why I am a strong conservationist.
Plato said that a desire for power should disqualify a person from holding it. I am nominating because too many people have twisted my arm to do so. I don't want to run things or tell people what to do, but to contribute to an organisation that has contributed to my welfare.
I am disturbed by the current atmosphere within the APS: divisiveness, conflict, perceptions by many members of manipulation and secrecy. I have been contacted by several people, including Clinical Psychologists, who are reacting against a perceived elitism that favours one speciality over others of equal standing.
Whether or not these criticisms are fair, a high proportion of the membership believes them. I know of people who have left the APS, or are considering doing so. Rather then joining them, I want to represent their interests so that we can all work together for the benefit of all members.
The APS has done a great deal of good for the community at large, for psychology, and therefore for the clients we work with, the students we teach, the people whose lives will be improved through our research. But, despite its apparent vigour and effectiveness, this organisation is seriously ill. As a therapist, I want to do with the APS what I do with my clients: gently lead it to a path of harmony, strength and wellbeing.
This means that all decisions made should be done in a manner that the membership can understand and contribute to, at all levels. We have no need for hidden agendas, favouritism, or attitudes based on lack of information. If elected, my role will be to be a catalyst for change toward a Society that truly and visibly serves its members.
Whatever I do, I seem to end up on the committee, and have served dozens of organisations, typically as Secretary, Treasurer, Director or Membership coordinator.
While I was a champion debater in my youth, I dislike conflict. It is almost always possible to create a win-win situation so that decisions are acceptable to everyone affected. I do this with my clients in conflict situations, in my private life, and when serving an organisation.
To me, a Director is not a master but a servant. If elected, I will strive for transparency, openness and accountability at all levels of the APS.
While, clearly, I am seeking election as a representative of "The Opposition," I don't want to oppose anyone, fight anyone or engage in power struggles. An organisation is well when its employees and members are happy. Facilitating this is my aim.
Q16 The Profession of Psychology is at a crossroads. Changes to laws and regulations that affect the profession are currently on the drawing board. Changes to government policies, funding, and compliance are rolling out with every review, report and every budget. This is not a time for bickering and internal politics. We need to be united in presenting our views and concerns to legislators. What strategic vision of the profession do you want legislators to have in mind as they make decisions? Question from: name supplied Date posted on website: 16 September 2009
Even if this was a time of steady predictability, I would say it is not a time for bickering and internal politics. The time is always right for cooperation, decency and mutual support.When I work with families who have troubled or difficult children, I tell the parents that kids model. It's not what you say that shapes their behaviour, but what they see you do. I think this is a good analogy. We as psychologists should all be Psychologists for Peace, and model in our own behaviour the excellent recommendations that Interest Group has circulated, for example through their famous poster.We live in an aggressive, confrontational culture. This is one of the major reasons for psychologically damaged children, and therefore adults. If I were granted one wish, it would be to make psychological therapy unnecessary by changing the way we bring up our kids. This needs a culture change.So, my strategic vision is for us to change the way WE do things to one of consensus, engineering win-win situations, looking after the common good before selfish interest. If we do this, we can lead social change.So, I am not all that worried about legislators. What we have been doing until now can be continued and improved, and the Society's well-developed lobbying capability can be used for all the relevant issues. But if we can be seen to act in a way that deserves respect, we will get respect.
Q15 A hot discussion issue is the decreasing diversity of APS members since the Better Access initiative (noted by Simon Crowe, Lyn Littlefield and several letters within InPsych). Given that 30% of registered psychologists do not hold membership to the Society - including many who would be classified as 'non-health' - what strategies would you use to address the situation to revitalise the perceived benefit and uptake of APS membership, whilst simultaneously increasing the diversity of the Society? How would you partner with your fellow behavioural / social / organisational scientists and practitioners in addressing this issue of increasing concern Question from: Megan Peach Assoc MAPS Date posted on website: 16 September 2009
Megan, this is a problem the Society is working on, right now. Recently, a survey was sent out to all academic psychologists, whether they are APS members or not, to see how we can better represent their interests, and what services would attract them to membership. Nick Voudouris, Senior Manager, Science and Education, reported to the last meeting of the Membership Recruitment and Retention Advisory Group that 300 responses have been received. He said that final analysis of the survey will result in proposals to Board focusing on the key areas of improvement.I have friends whose training was in psychology, but they work in other disciplines as academics or practitioners. I have approached them regarding what changes would make APS membership attractive to them, and the answer was "nothing much." Others are in pure research in psychology, and have a similar attitude. Basically, we have a right to invite them, and they have a right to accept or decline.I think that such work needs to be done by more than a few people at Head Office. As I have stated in my answers to other questions, my preference is to find a small group of people with passion and expertise, and facilitate them to come up with solutions.
Q14 As an APS member for more than 30 years, a Fellow, and someone actively involved in the broad profession, I am deeply concerned about the gap which currently exists between the diversity of practising psychologists and the narrowness of interests represented within the APS leadership. The direction of psychology as a profession is being determined predominantly by academics and clinicians in positions within the APS with negative consequences for practitioners in other psychological areas such as Organisational, Sport, Environmental. What steps do you intend to take to ensure the professional interests of non-health, non-academic psychologists are protected and served? Question from: Patricia Quealey FAPS Date posted on website: 16 September 2009
Thank you for bringing up this important issue, Patricia.If elected to the Board, I will not be a representative of my particular sectional interests, although they are diverse. I am a Counselling Psychologist, and proud of it, but in the past year, I have been involved in advancing the interests of 4 year trained psychologists, and of Associate Members. I live in Victoria, but was co-author of a submission to NSW Workcover.The task of the Board is to govern the Society so that it serves its members, the profession, and most important, the public we work for.Our discipline is very diverse. It is simply impossible to have every interest represented on the Board, nor is this necessary.However, Board members can't possibly know everything that concerns every group of members. Two way communication is essential. I want to improve procedures for members to make suggestions, bring issues to the Board's attention -- and to be involved in generating solutions.For example, if Sport Psychologists come up with an issue, I would work with the National Executive of their College, and encourage them to set up a working party of Sport Psychologists to address the problem. As a Board member, I would then take their recommendations seriously, and do my best to advance their cause.
Q13 I note the recently launched campaign encouraging APS members to write to their local MP. From my understanding, I believe that there are other important issues associated with the impending NRAS legislation. Will the individual lobbying on a single issue be seen as just a 'turf war' or an attempt to re-claim lost territory given that organisational psychologists have had to deal with this issue for 20 years? What about other critical issues in the NRAS - accreditation, mandatory reporting, complaints records and the lost cause of psychology discipline diversity in the PBA until at least 2013? Your views please. Question from: name supplied Date posted on website: 16 September 2009
As well as being a psychologist, I am also a citizen. Therefore, I have the right to approach my MP on any issue. However, from the point of view of the APS, a campaign of lobbying individual politicians is a last resort, almost an act of desperation. Over the years, through lots of imaginative, courageous, tireless work on the part of our team of representatives, the APS has become an influential voice on matters of concern to psychology and psychologists. On most issues, we should follow the route of being a national organisation that lobbies the relevant ministers.We should and can do more to influence public opinion through the media.Many members of my College have felt passionate enough about the issue of being excluded from the top level of Medicare to have contacted their local MP on this issue. This was as individuals, not as in any way representing the Society. Their action was additional to what the College has done on this matter.So, individuals, and groups of psychologists, can contact individual MPs if they feel the need, but this is not normally anything the APS should be involved in. If the Society encourages a campaign of such action, it is only when other, potentially more effective tactics have failed.
Q12 My question to the nominees might seem trivial but is not, and concerns the current "Find a psychologist" section on the APS website. Do you think it meets the goal of allowing the public to get in touch with the psychologists who will best serve their challenges? If not then how would it need to change and how would you make this happen if elected Question from: Gareth J. Mole MAPS Date posted on website: 14 September 2009
Gareth, this is a perfectly reasonable question.I receive perhaps three referrals a year from this database, which is poor return for the fee. However, I live in a rural location, and have assumed that city-based psychologists probably do better.I believe that there is a freecall number, listed in all the phone books around Australia. Services like Lifeline have it in their referral base. Seems to me that if the system is not effective, it is not for want of trying.From your question, I assume that you are less than satisfied. So, my reaction is, how would you improve the system? Would you like to be part of a group to work on improving it?This is the way we operate in my College, and if elected, I'll do my best to facilitate member involvement throughout the Society. There is an issue? We find people who have the knowledge and passion to address it. They communicate via email and the occasional phone conference, and come up with recommendations.The most recent example is a group of five Counselling Psychologists, living in four States, who are working on the problem of how we can best assist people's transition from inpatient psychiatric care to living in the community. These five are experienced in working with this issue, and their opinion will be taken seriously at the highest levels.So, if the need is there, we can find the talent to work on it.
Q11 I note with interest, and renewed confidence in the Society, that most candidates appreciate the problems of the two tiered Medicare system. Some candidates acknowledge that we as a Society must take some responsibility for the perception of two levels of professionalism that pervades. What will each candidate do to remove the distinction between Member and Associate Member, and the associated rights and privileges such as the use of Society letterhead, "Better Thinking", etc? Most Associate Members that I know drop the title as there is no perceived benefit in its use. Question from: Neil Smith Assoc MAPS Date posted on website: 14 September 2009
Q11 Response from Nominee
Neil, my attitude is that the APS is an association of all psychologists. A person with the legal right to be called a psychologist should be a member.Late last year, I publicly expressed this view. In response, Mick Symons, Membership Manager, invited me to have a talk with him. This fruitful discussion lasted about an hour. It did not change my mind about the basic philosophy, but it did educate me about the many complexities of the issue.I don't have the space to go into the details. Mick said he was planning to write an InPsych article on the issue. I've been informed that since the Board has this matter under active consideration, he has deferred the article.There was a lot of debate on the issue in the past. In 1994, the membership, many of them four year trained, voted to have six year training as the minimum requirement.Also, before the current National Registration process, every one of the State Registration Boards was pushing for a minimum six year training for registration.To me, this means that a lot of people, wiser and better informed than me, consider four year training to be inadequate. This is not to cast any aspersions on people with that background. The longer-qualified ones have gained experience, and have a higher degree from the University of the Workplace. But if I were a recent graduate, I would be motivated to do post-graduate training.On the Members' Concerns Working Party, we have spent considerable time discussing this issue. This has resulted in concrete suggestions, which are currently being considered by the Board. I am confident that it will become easier for Associate Members to gain full membership than is the case now.
Q10 A number of people at senior levels of the APS have defended the two-tiered Medicare system favouring Clinical Psychologists on the grounds that they have 6-years of training in mental health. There has also been a lot of talk about honouring the diversity of psychology. However, there has been no mention at all about the other psychologists with 6-years of training that bring specialised skills to public mental health care (e.g., Developmental, Clinical-Neuro, Health, and Counselling Psychologists). Do you acknowledge their expertise in mental health? If so, how do you plan to campaign for their recognition in the health system? Question from: Adam Becker Assoc MAPS Date posted on website: 14 September 2009
Adam, I agree with the intent of your question. From the way some people speak and write, you could assume that psychologists either have a post-graduate degree in Clinical Psychology, or are four year trained. It is as if the other specialties didn't exist.Perhaps a more charitable interpretation of their attitude is that Clinical Psychologists are specially suited work with the population of Medicare clients, and that other specialists are suited to work with an entirely different population.This, however, is completely against the evidence. Each College has an approved document setting out its Domains of Knowledge, and a Course Approval Guidelines that sets out the content of courses that qualify a person for College membership. I have compared the corresponding documents of several Colleges with that of my own, and found far more commonalities than differences. Basically, my training as a Counselling Psychologist differs from Clinical, Health, Sport, Forensic and Ed/Dev only in emphasis rather than basic content. Clinical Neuropsych is more different from these, and Organisational, although it strongly overlaps with Sport, has a very different emphasis although again large overlaps in content.Insofar as there are differences between Clinical training and the others, it is a focus on knowledge relevant to inpatient mental health care. Since by definition, Medicare clients live in the community, this is actually irrelevant.Whether I am elected or not, I will continue a strong campaign to have this recognised.
Q9 At present masters graduates can obtain full APS membership (normally two years). The alternative path requires two years supervised training then five years post registration experience then you must show you have done something significant in psychology to be considered for full membership regardless of any other post graduate qualification in psychology they have. I would like to know from each of the candidates is this fair? What would be fair and what they will actually do it if they are elected? Question from: Paul Campbell Assoc MAPS Date posted on website: 10 September 2009
Paul, this issue is of strong concern to many recently qualified psychologists, including some of my friends. It has occupied quite a bit of the discussion on the Members' Concerns Working Group, where your interests are represented by Aila Copland. I have attended every meeting of this working group so far.This is one of the issues being considered at present by a working party of 4 current members of the Board. Because it is work in progress, my chosen solution as a Director would have to be informed by the recommendations of these 4 people.The essential reason for the difference in the number of years through the two pathways is that two years of supervised practice can be great -- or lousy. It is highly variable, depending on opportunities for a variety of placements, and the quality of supervision. In contrast, a Masters or Doctorate is structured, and has inherent quality control as set out in the Course Approval Guidelines for that specialty.The Working Group has been sympathetic to your issue, and has generated a number of ideas. Some of them may be considered by the future Board. These include an examination for 4+2 registered psychologists (since those going through a graduate degree pass an examination).You mentioned other post-graduate qualifications in psychology. I don't understand. If you have a graduate degree, you should qualify for full membership straight away. Six years or more of study in psychology is one of the basic requirements.
Q8 With regard to the lobbying Campaign on the NRAS (National Registration and Accreditation Scheme) and the issue of psychological test restriction:0. I doubt that a 'psychological test' can be defined clearly - eg. what of criterion orientated personality scales as used extensively in industry - often online? Your thoughts appreciated.0. The restriction assumes that legislation will be effective in dealing with complex issues associated with trans-national, online testing: a billion dollar industry globally. Are there alternative models which you would support - such as Certification as implemented in Europe (EFPA) and UK (BPS) - that enhance standards and protect both individual and organisational clients Question from: name supplied Date posted on website: 10 September 2009
I have no particular expertise on this issue. Therefore, I sent out a query to a variety of people I respect, whose role and work situation involves relevant knowledge. My reply is based on their advice, but of course I am responsible for any errors.This is what I want to do on any issue if elected to the Board. The 17,000+ members of the APS represent a huge pool of wisdom I want to use for the benefit of the Society.My advisors were unanimous: the vendors of tests are inherently motivated to sell as many as possible. Therefore, control of test use is a conflict of interest, and should be imposed by an outside body. Current Australian plans are inadequate and dangerous. All were in favour of a vigorous campaign by the APS to protect the public by appropriate restrictions on test use.As your question implies, there are many levels of test complexity. Some can be interpreted quite mechanically, others involve considerable psychological sophistication.A lot of harm can be done by uneducated use of tests like the MMPI or a Weschler test, while the K10 or BDI are simpler, with less danger of abuse. So, some of my advisors have suggested that there could be different levels of certification.None commented on systems of control used elsewhere. If I needed to deal with the issue, I'd form a working party of experts to do so.
Q7 I would like to know how you intend to assist the Clinical College to support the overseas qualified and experienced clinical psychologists to become a member of college and particularly assistance in getting endorsed by two clinical psychologist who had not spend two years with the applicant and not happy to endorse for valid reasons.Question from: Sangeeta Jain MAPS Date posted on website: 10 September 2009
Sangeeta, I don't think this problem is unique to the Clinical College. Overseas qualified people need to gain local recognition in every field, including every specialty of psychology. I see that people in your position need support, but I don't think that the College does.Each College needs to have the right to set its entry requirements and procedures for joining. Nomination and seconding by existing members is a fairly universal part of seeking membership of professional groupings and associations. Also, it is reasonable.If your qualifications meet all the requirements of the Clinical College, and the only bar is that you do not yet know existing members well enough for them to endorse your application, then the only possible way to proceed is to be active within your College, attend PDs and other events, form part of peer supervision groups -- and get to be known and respected.If you don't like the current way the College treats people like you, then you need to take it up with its National Executive. Contact their office bearers, and make constructive suggestions for change. In my opinion, this issue is not a matter for the Board, but for the College.
Q6 As a trainee organisational psychologist I am concerned that the needs of this specialisation of psychology are not being adequately met and that the upcoming registration changes have the potential to seriously harm the future viability of organisational psychology in Australia. Given most of the candidates don't have a background in organisational psychology and there is already an under-representation of organisational psychology in the decision-making bodies across the APS, what is your understanding of the challenges facing this subgroup of the profession? How will you strive to ensure that these needs are considered when making decisions that will affect them?Question from: Marcus Champ Date posted on website: 7 September 2009
Marcus, I am aware of this issue through my involvement on the National Executive of my College. I have read the submissions the College of Organisational Psychologists has made to various bodies and enquiries, and approve of the contents.The Chairs of Colleges group has been very supportive of Organisational Psychologists on this matter, and they have had a major influence on the current Board. If elected, one of my aims is to even further improve two-way communication between the APS head office with the Chairs of Colleges; but also with the membership in general.I cannot be expected to have insider knowledge or expertise on all matters -- but the many members between them do. I want the Society to tap into the wisdom of its membership, and make more use of it.During the past couple of years, your College has been in good hands. Your Executive has done excellent work. You might consider contacting them and offering your help. In this way, you will have an influence on APS policy.
Q5 Under the two-tiered Medicare system experienced general psychologists are restricted to an extremely narrow range of 'Focused Psychological Strategies' (thereby unable to utilise effective therapies they have invested substantial resources in) whereas clinical psychologists are not. Given general psychologists are not restricted in this way by qualification or registration it appears to breach fair-trading principles if not legislation, giving clinical psychologists an unfair additional advantage in the health market beyond rebate disparity. I would like to hear your opinion; particularly if this seemingly controlled and discriminatory advantage for clinical psychologists over well trained and experienced general psychologists should be maintained Question from: name supplied Date posted on website: 7 September 2009
"Focused Psychological Strategies" is one of my pet hates. The term has no operational definition. It is meaningless. It is not used anywhere else in the world.The intent of your question is perfectly correct. Limiting psychologists who are not Clinical Psychs to "FPS" is highly discriminatory, and is based on no evidence whatever. It should be removed from legislation. I have personally written to the Minister in part on this matter, and if elected will use my position to work toward changing the law on Medicare. FPS is one of the several aspects I find to be ludicrous.I have 14.5 years of formal academic study, and over 18 years' practice in the field. It's insulting for someone to tell me what techniques I may or may not use. But the same applies to a person who is freshly registered to practice psychological therapy. The fact of registration implies the ability to exercise judgement on such matters.
Q4 Presently APS members are prohibited from accessing some submissions that the APS has made to government and other stakeholders. Is it reasonable for members to expect transparency from the APS when they ask to see documents and submissions that the APS has provided to government and other stakeholders? If elected, what do you intend to do to resolve this problem with transparency?Question from: Ben Mullings Assoc MAPS Date posted on website: 2 September 2009
Ben, this general issue is one of the reasons I am standing. A society is its members. Paid employees and volunteer office holders are servants of the membership, not its masters.Members should have input into the content of the society's decisions, submissions and direction of negotiations with other bodies. Members should be able to initiate, influence and modify what the society does.There may be a need for confidentiality during certain negotiations, and people doing a job may need to be protected from too much input so that they can get on with it. Beyond such caveats, all activities should be transparent. For example, all submissions made by the APS to other bodies, the agendas and minutes of all meetings, and all plans for change within the society should be available for inspection by members.In part, this is a matter of decisions by the Board to do things openly. In part, it is setting up new structures. For example, a mechanism something like an Ombudsman could be very useful. However, basically, what is needed is a change in culture, from 'us-them' to just 'us.''National Office' spells 'NO.' I want to change this to 'YES:' 'Your Excellent Society.'
Q3 I would like to know your opinion on registered psychologists, including intern psychologists, who have decided to take the registration path of two years internship before the two-tiered system came into place: Should they be treated as second to clinical psychologists in relation to Medicare Question from: Hamid Reza Dadgostar Assoc MAPS Date posted on website: 26 August 2009
Hamid, in my opinion, no one who has been accepted by Medicare should be treated second to anyone else. This is because there is evidence that type and length of training are not strong determinants of satisfactory therapeutic outcome. If there is a multi-level system, it should be based on variables that make a difference.The APS has Members, and even Fellows, who have had 4 years of university training. Our immediate past president is one. They have done their work with distinction. They have been trained in the university of the real world. Some who have taken that path have failed, in that they have not been able to make a living out of it. Those who have survived for long enough have proved themselves. This is why the current non-standard entry to membership specifies a minimum of 5 years in employment and/or private practice.A recent suggestion has been that membership by 4+2 psychologists should be attainable through an examination process. I support this, if the examination can have its validity demonstrated, and its costs be kept reasonable.However, I still think that attending a formal graduate course has huge advantages. There are several reasons for this, international portability being one. The 2 year supervision process can be excellent - or dreadful. Graduation from a course involves more quality control. Knowledge and skills are easier to acquire in a structured way. Finally, universities make an effort to provide varied placements. This is not guaranteed under the 4+2 system.
Q2 I would like to know each nominee's position on the two-tiered Medicare system and what they intend to do to resolve this issue for members. Question from: name supplied Date posted on website: 19 August 2009
The APS has an explicit policy of following the evidence. I approve of this policy, and only wish it had always been implemented. But when I look at the Medicare system for mental health services, I find it to be contrary to the evidence. Regardless of the APS's historical role in 2006, now it should be actively campaigning to correct this situation. I want to be part of this campaign.The research shows that therapeutic outcome greatly varies from therapist to therapist, but this is hardly if at all affected by the type and length of training. Other variables are far more important. If we are to follow the evidence, there is no justification for a two-tier Medicare system.Further, while suitable qualifications are necessary, they are not sufficient. When the Victorian government started to fund victims of crime counselling through VRAS, potential providers were required to show past experience with that client population. The same is needed for Medicare. A person could have all the degrees in the world, and years of experience, say in an inpatient facility. But without relevant experience, that person will be a beginner when dealing with the kinds of issues that present under Medicare.I do understand that the law would need to be changed to correct the situation, and I think the APS needs to lobby to change the law. In the meantime, we are stuck with a two-tier system.But if Clinical Psychologists are deemed to be on a higher level because of their training, then people with equivalent training should be up there with them. This includes all psychologists with post-graduate training that includes a focus on assessment and therapy.
Q1 I would like to know how you intend to assist the Clinical College in becoming more transparent in providing applicants with individualised feedback on applications Question from: name supplied Date posted on website: 19 August 2009
All processes should be transparent.A professional association IS its members. Employees and office holders are servants of the membership; should be accountable to the membership. There may be situations in which an outside party requires confidentiality during negotiations, and sometimes disclosure of some facts may cause harm. For example, the opinions of individual judges for an Award should not be disclosed to applicants, merely the final judgments.But I consider such exceptions to be rare, and temporary.In the case of entry to a College, that College should be in complete charge of criteria and procedures, the only limitation being coordination with other Colleges to ensure fairness and uniformity. I am aware that many Clinical Psychologists are upset because the Medicare issue has interfered with this right.There is an APS committee: the Medicare Assessment Team. I hope that the Clinical College has a major input into their criteria and processes, but don't know whether this is so. The MAT judges whether an applicant qualifies for the top tier of Medicare. If yes, the person qualifies for entry to the Clinical College.I have heard lots of complaints about this process. Criteria have changed over time, applicants with equivalent backgrounds have received different judgments, and people who believe they meet the requirements have been told to gain further brownie points. For example, a colleague who has had long term supervision from a Clinical Psychologist has told me she'd been required to get more supervision.To my mind, the whole system is wrong. There is no justification for two tiers. If there are two tiers, there is no justification for restricting the top one to Clinical Psychologists. The Clinical College should have exclusive right to determine its membership. And, certainly, feedback to applicants should be transparent, and follow clear guidelines.
I feel that my answers to questions have shown most of the reasons I am standing for election, except for my commitment to environmental conservation.
The APS is already doing a lot better than many other organisations in reducing its carbon footprint, but I am brimming with ideas on how we can improve even further. I'd like us to be a shining model for others to copy. Implementing my ideas will result in changes, and that is always inconvenient, and there may be costs. However, these costs will not be financial. In fact, we can save big money through them as an organisation, and for individual participants in events, and for the employees.
One example is work from home for some employees, for part or even all the week. It was first implemented in Holland in the 1970s, and communication technology is now much better. For argument's sake, the person who answers questions about the ethical code could live in Perth, and do as good a job as someone in Melbourne. If say 30% of the staff could be a virtual presence, then the APS offices could be 30% smaller, with many cost savings.
To summarise the rest of my agenda: