The Board explained in its newsletters how the Act and scopes of practice worked. In its August 2004 newsletter, it gave an overview of the Act as a whole. In its September 2006 newsletter, the Board included an “important clarification” on scopes of practice. The Board said it had been hearing from psychologists and employers that vocational scopes were being used in ways that were never intended. The Board explained that a “vocational scope of practice does not ‘fence off’ any exclusive territory (other than title use). Any psychologist can perform any activity, as long as they are demonstrably competent to do so, or are doing so under appropriate supervision (for example when training in a new area of practice). A vocational scope simply provides the practitioner with the right to use the scope’s title, and thereby clearly and simply signal to the public (or an employer) their competence in that scope.” A similar message appeared in the Board’s July 2007 newsletter.
More...
August 2004 newsletter
The Psychologists Board’s August 2004 Newsletter was devoted to an explanation of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance 2003 which was due to come into force on 18 September 2004. Among other things, the newsletter stated:
“On 18 September 2004, when the Act officially comes into effect, all psychologists registered under the Psychologists Act 1981 will be deemed to be registered under the general “Psychologist” scope of practice. You do not need to re-register under the new Act, or apply for a general scope of practice if you are currently registered.
The ‘Clinical Psychologist’ and ‘Educational Psychologist’ vocational scopes of practice are available to registered psychologists who hold a minimum of a Masters degree in psychology and an appropriate Postgraduate Diploma or equivalent qualification. …
…
From 18 September 2004, law will protect the titles “Psychologist”, “Clinical Psychologist”, “Educational Psychologist”, “Intern Psychologist”, and “Trainee Psychologist”. Part 1, Section 7 of the Act states that a person may only use names, words, titles, abbreviations or descriptions stating or implying that the person is a health practitioner of a particular kind if the person is registered, and is qualified to be registered, as a health practitioner of that kind. …
…
Registered psychologists in the general “Psychologist” scope of practice may use the title “Psychologist” with or without prefixes to that title, for example; “Health Psychologist”, “Counselling Psychologist”, “Industrial Organisational Psychologist”, or “Community Psychologist”. The above prefix titles will be restricted when and if those titles, in the form of a scope of practice, are gazetted. They may not use the titles “Clinical Psychologist” or “Educational Psychologist”. In other words, registered psychologists use the gazetted titles for the scopes of practice in which they personally are registered.
There was nothing in this newsletter suggesting that vocational scopes would carve out exclusive territory from the general scope, and nothing inconsistent with the approach the Board took to the scopes of practice between 2004-2021.
September 2006 newsletter
In its September 2006 newsletter, the Board said this:
3. IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION – SCOPES OF PRACTICE
The Board has been hearing from psychologists and employers that vocational scopes are being used in ways that were never intended. Some employers and funders are insisting that psychologists hold a given scope as a condition of employment. While that is certainly any employer’s prerogative, it is important that all parties understand the following;
A vocational scope of practice does not “fence off” any exclusive territory (other than title use). Any psychologist can perform any activity, as long as they are demonstrably competent to do so, or are doing so under appropriate supervision (for example when training in a new area of practice). A vocational scope simply provides the practitioner with the right to use the scope’s title, and thereby clearly and simply signal to the public (or an employer) their competence in that scope.
In short, practice is not restricted by scope, but by competence. Only title use is restricted by scope. All psychologists are ethically and legally bound to practise only within the bounds of their competence.
Some employers and funders seem to be assuming that psychologists must have a specific vocational scope in order to competently provide the required service. Given the above clarification this can be seen to be untrue. For example, many highly competent and experienced practitioners working in the Family Court do not qualify for the Clinical Psychologist scope, but it would be a huge loss to the Court and to the families involved if these experts were denied work on that basis (as we are told may be starting to occur). The Board has brought this particular example to the attention of Judge Boshier, Principal Family Court Judge, to ensure that the public and the Family Court continue to have good access to a range of experienced and competent psychologists.
July 2007 newsletter
In its July 2007 newsletter, the Board said this:
Message to Organisations Regarding Vocational Scopes of Practice
The Board wishes to remind organisations and employers that the prescribed scopes of practice do not ‘fence off’ any exclusive territory (other than the use of the title). Any psychologist can perform any activity – as long as they are competent to do so, or are doing so under appropriate supervision (for example when training in a new area of practice). A vocational scope simply provides the practitioner with the right to use the title, and thereby clearly and simply signal to the public (or an employer) their competence in that scope. In short, practise is not restricted by scope, but by competence. Title use is restricted by scope.
Some organisations have decided – as is their right – to only employ or contract with psychologists who hold a certain scope. While this provides them with some assurance about the breadth and depth of the psychologist’s competencies, it may also eliminate from consideration some psychologists who are perfectly competent to perform the specific tasks required. Organisations may wish to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of this ‘trade-off’ when setting the criteria for hiring/contracting. The Board has corresponded with the Family Court about this matter, and has been told that they intend to continue their practice of contracting on a case-bycase basis, utilising a range of psychologists who possess the skills, knowledge and experience needed for each case. We have also corresponded with ACC, who indicate that only a small range of contracts are restricted to holders of the Clinical Psychologist scope, and that this has been the case for many years. (See letter from ACC enclosed with this mailing). Psychologists who still have concerns about this issue may wish to use this article to facilitate discussion, and may also wish to provide feedback to the Board as part of the upcoming review of scopes (see article in this newsletter – to the right).