Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 1:48:11 to 2:00:00
AHPRA and the Psychology Board of Australia explain proposed changes to the psychology education pathway, including a move toward a five-year straight degree. The reform aims to reduce high attrition rates and address workforce maldistribution while maintaining clinical standards.
Topics: Health, Education, Employment
Speakers: Hon Anne Ruston, Justin Untersteiner, Natalie Bekis, Nicole Brady, Unknown Speaker
Yes, so Senator uh just to probably provide a little bit of context, maybe helpful here. Um back in 2024-2025, the Psychology Board of Australia and ARPRA were contracted by the Commonwealth by the Commonwealth Department uh to undertake a review of the uh education pathway for psychologists, and this comes off the back of data and information that shows that we have uh serious concerns around um access and maldistribution of um psychologists in Australia. So distribution, sorry. Uh and um and at the same time as we're seeing rising and more complex mental health issues in the community. So part of this work, uh the psychology board with ARPRA has undertaken an extensive uh investigation of the current education pathways, but also significant consultation uh with higher education with the profession themselves, with students and with many others uh to look at potential options and risks. Through that work, uh there has been a uh a report published that proposes uh an option. Uh that option would see um a pathway uh changed and uh and and really uh while maintaining the same high quality standard, uh reducing the time it takes and some of the complexity of the existing pathway, and just to give you an idea of that, one of the primary pathways at the moment requires an undergraduate uh three year degree to be undertaken an arts degree, followed by an honours, uh one year of honours, followed by a master's. What we see at the moment is 20,000 students enroll, and only 2,200 are registered out of that cohort. So we see huge attrition rates, which means we're losing domestic supply. The new pathway proposes a five year straight degree. Now that five year degree would include. Clinical experience from year two through to five, so uh improved clinical experience while maintaining the high quality by removing a non-related subjects through the arts uh the arts um component. Um we are due to provide that report through to the Commonwealth uh by the end of the year, and we still intend to do that. Uh in saying that we are aware that there has been some concern raised by parts, some pockets of the profession and some pockets of the higher education uh sector as well. And so at the moment uh we are looking to work closely with those key stakeholders to try and narrow down where some of those concerns might lie uh and to try and find a pathway forward. I think some of the um I think there may be some concerns that have been raised through maybe a lack of understanding of some of the issues here, and that's that's on us to work through that uh and to provide that. I I do I would say and flag that our chair of the psychology board, Rachel Phillips and the board itself has undertaken really extensive consultation. I mean they've been out almost every day meeting with stakeholders many times, but in saying that we're really uh certainly uh keen to continue to work with those key stakeholder groups uh to narrow down these issues and work through them.
Yeah. So a few things to unpack in that. There was a lot in that. Um it appears from my observation that the that there is general agreement around um the challenges in terms of access and male distribution. I think the problem um that we have here tends to be more that there is a a divergence of views as to whether the solution that's been put forward by the board actually solves those issues. Um you also made a comment about maintaining the high standard. Can I just check at the moment if you um when you've finished the pathway that you just described, um the qualification for a psychologist is um an AQF level nine?
Correct.
And under the proposal that's currently it would be an AQF level eight.
That's correct.
So I suppose you know, just on that the optics of that one would suggest that there is a reduction in a standard because I mean, in last time I looked, eight was below nine. Um I I suppose these are the kinds of concerns that are being raised. Now there may well be a logical explanation for this, but to me that looks like a reduction in the level of qualification simply because the standard has been reduced.
Well, and look, I certainly understand the the I understand why some might form that conclusion. I think what's important here is the role uh of the psychology board of Australia here is to ensure that those that are trained and meeting the capability and competency requirements to be able to practice. That standard hasn't changed. It remains exactly the same. What we're proposing here is a change to the education pathway, which we believe still meets that capability and competency requirement. Uh and again, I think what's important to note here is uh uh part of the change here is again removing some of the um non-psychology related components of the education pathways, which actually prolong the education pathway at the moment. I think this is an opportunity to reduce it. And also looking at how you can um provide clinical experience in a different way, so rather than it being concentrated in that two-year period?
Yeah. I I suppose I I don't want to debate the the um the issues that are contained within the paper that is not my area of expertise. I'm more interested in understanding how we can get to a place where um that you know the our very important psychologists who appear to be the ones who are up in arms at the moment um about what's being proposed here, that we get a solution that satisfies them so that that so that they've been able to work through this to a conclusion that that is satisfactory. So can I just ask you who appoints the people to the psychology board?
Uh the appointments are made by uh the health ministers, so we the health ministers' meeting, uh which includes the health ministers from the states and territories and the and the federal government.
Okay, right. So I I suppose going through where to from here, because it it strikes me that um we've got a proposal that's been put on the table that has significant concerns raised, and I and I don't know whether this is correct, but my understanding of the two and a half thousand submissions that were received in the process of the development of the model that's been put forward that there was you know fewer than half supported any aspect of the proposal. Um those kind of statistics tell me that there's a lot more work to do here to get to a consensus model. So you're saying that you're still intending to provide the report to the minister on the proposal that has been worked up by the board. Um would it not be more advisable to just take a little bit more time, uh perhaps do some uh an independent verification? Because my understanding is that there are other alternative models that have been put forward in relation to the solution for the problem that everyone sort of tends to agree is there, um, so that we can actually get a uh a position where we don't have this you know obviously significant concern amongst the psychology sector. I'm not saying all of them, but there certainly is some significant concern out there. Is there not uh uh an argument to just put hit the pause button and actually go back and see if we can try and resolve this in some sort of consensus way instead of you still going ahead and giving the report to the minister, which clearly is causing great concern.
No, Senator, so first of all, uh what I would say is um we certainly um value our incredible incredible psychologists that are practicing and we try and work really closely with them on a range of different issues. Um I think the the numbers you gave, I would have to check. I'm not sure that they're quite right, but still we we appreciate there is a pockets of acute noise, uh, and that's really important for us to address.
I suppose pockets of acute noise um needs to be more clearly defined because I mean if it's three people sitting in the corner is a completely different thing than if you've actually got an entire um group of key stakeholders who've got a concern, and I understand the the G8 have got a concern, you know, maybe other universities don't have a concern, but there seems to be a sort of a bit of a lack of transparency here about who's how we've got to where we've got to, um, and we've got a model that concerns have been raised by a number of sectors. Um maybe we could do this a bit better.
No, I look I um we are absolutely uh committed at the moment uh to doing further work with those key stakeholder groups uh to work through those specific issues and to identify um pathways forward. So we are committed to that. At the moment, we've got a time frame to provide that report by the end of the year. Um we still have space and if we need to, we will work on uh looking at different time frames if we have to do that as well at the moment. Our goal and I might ask um Miss Beckers to comment uh on behalf of the Commonwealth as well.
Yes, uh certainly, Senator. So in terms of time frames, I can confirm that this will not be um considered by health ministers in December. It will be delayed until 2027. Um so that does provide us um further time for the Commonwealth together with um ARPRA, but also the states and territories to work through everything that we're hearing. Um we too are hearing from stakeholders and there's mixed views. Um so I do think we have time to continue to work with ARPRA and the psychology board uh to try and get this really important reform right. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that we've got to try and get it right.
Okay, so excuse me, Senator. Just wanted to Nicole Brady Executive ARPRA executive director, corporate affairs and regulatory governance. It might seem a minor point, but for the sake of the record, not all registered psychologists today are AQF9, some many of them have an AQF eight level qualification. So there's two types of qualifications that we're working standards of qualification we're working with at the moment. So the board would say that we're not eroding the standard of qualification. Just wanted to make that clarification for you.
Okay, it's just that um can you still through the process that's being proposed get it uh at level nine qualific um classification?
Yes.
Yeah, okay. All right. So I mean these are some of the things that you know quite clearly need to be resolved. I mean, the fact that I'm asking you a series of questions and you've got a different point of view, um, it would suggest that the consultation process has been somewhat flawed for no other reason than we're actually having this conversation so close to the time when you're proposing to hand the report to uh the minister. So I'm just wondering, is there any possibility that um and maybe you know uh more than most Ms. Bekis about what's actually um transpiring behind the scenes, that there could be an undertaking that um that that and there will be further consultation, um, a review with a level of independence that will satisfy stakeholders that there are that any changes have been interventional independently verified in terms of their appropriateness, their safety, and quite frankly, to make sure that that there is some evidence to show that the outcomes that are being sought in terms of access and male distribution are actually being addressed by this. I mean, is is there any possibility that we could get an undertaking that that processes?
So the challenge is um in terms of independence, it is.