Psychology Training Reform: What Are We Risking?
Improving access to the profession matters, but so does ensuring that future psychologists are adequately prepared for the responsibilities they carry.
This article originally appeared on my substack page: https://substack.com/@drkatherinehurrell?utm_source=user-menu
I love my profession, but the proposed training reforms are making me nervous.
I’m certainly not opposed to reform. Our current pathways to registration are complex, costly and, for many aspiring psychologists, difficult to navigate. They can also be highly competitive.
There is undoubtedly room for improvement. But improving accessibility should not come at the expense of professional competence, and, ultimately, public safety.
As both a clinical psychologist and an academic involved in higher education, research, curriculum development and professional training, I have some serious questions about what we might be sacrificing in the process.
What is being proposed?
The Psychology Board of Australia has proposed significant changes to the pathway to general registration, including a new five-year accredited qualification at AQF Level 8.
Under the proposed model, graduates would be eligible for general registration without completing a separate postgraduate qualification or supervised internship.
The National Psychology Examination would also be removed as a requirement for graduates of the proposed Australian pathway.
Following consultation involving approximately 2,500 responses, the Board has retained the central structure of its proposed reforms, despite significant concerns raised about the model and its implementation.
The Board is now progressing towards implementation planning, although the reforms remain subject to government approval and the necessary regulatory processes.
Importantly, the Board maintains that the proposed changes would not lower the competency standards required for general registration.
But retaining competency standards is one thing. Ensuring that graduates have the education, experience and professional judgement necessary to meet them is another.
And this is where my concerns begin.
What happens to academic rigour?
Psychology is much more than learning therapeutic techniques. While there is some overlap with counselling, psychology is a distinct profession with its own scientific foundations, educational requirements and scope of practice. These distinctions matter and should be preserved.
It requires a strong foundation in psychological science, statistics, research methodology, critical thinking, ethical reasoning and the progressive development of professional skills.
These aren’t isolated competencies that can simply be ticked off.
They build upon one another.
Research literacy informs clinical reasoning. Critical thinking shapes assessment and formulation. Theoretical knowledge underpins intervention. And supervised practice provides opportunities to integrate these competencies when working with real people, often presenting with considerable complexity.
This is the scientist-practitioner model that has long underpinned psychology education and professional practice. It recognises that psychologists are not simply consumers of research or practitioners of therapeutic techniques, but professionals trained to critically evaluate and integrate scientific evidence, apply it to complex human problems and contribute to the ongoing development of psychological knowledge.
Developing these capabilities takes more than exposure to curriculum content. It requires opportunities for consolidation, reflection, application and increasingly independent professional judgement.
So, if the academic pathway is being restructured, what exactly is being removed, condensed or replaced?
My central question is this: how will universities accommodate the necessary depth of scientific education alongside increasingly demanding professional skills development?
And what evidence demonstrates that graduates will achieve an equivalent standard of professional competence?
What about supervised practice?
I am particularly concerned about the proposed removal of the separate supervised internship.
Under the current 5+1 pathway, provisional psychologists undertake a structured internship involving supervised professional practice, direct observation, professional development and formal assessment of competence.
This isn’t simply another year of accumulating experience.
It’s an important developmental period during which provisional psychologists apply theoretical knowledge, refine clinical judgement, recognise the limits of their competence and receive ongoing feedback from experienced practitioners.
Supervision is not simply oversight. It is an essential part of developing professional judgement.
And importantly, it provides an opportunity to assess competence beyond the university environment.
If this distinct period of supervised practice is removed, where and how will equivalent professional development occur?
Will university-based placements provide comparable exposure to clinical complexity, continuity of client care and opportunities for progressively independent practice?
And how will we ensure graduates have demonstrated competence in practice, rather than simply satisfied academic requirements?
With the proposed removal of both the separate internship and the National Psychology Examination, I am also interested in understanding what mechanisms will provide equivalent assurance that graduates have achieved the competencies required for independent practice.
Broader concerns about the proposed reforms
My concerns are not isolated.
In its June 2026 submission to the Psychology Board of Australia, the Australian Psychological Society (APS) raised substantial concerns about the proposed five-year model, particularly regarding public safety, competency assurance and the adequacy of the evidence supporting the reforms.
The APS also questioned the implications of shifting from AQF Level 9 to AQF Level 8, including potential impacts on research literacy, scientific rigour, clinical reasoning and the scientist-practitioner model.
These concerns extend beyond individual graduates. They also encompass the future of psychology education, academic and research workforces, professional recognition and the viability of university programs.
Importantly, the APS identified several existing workforce barriers that the proposed reforms may not adequately address, including placement capacity, supervisor availability, university funding and workforce retention.
In its subsequent update on 29 September 2026, the APS acknowledged that some concerns had been addressed through changes or clarifications to the proposal.
And I think this raises another important question: Are we addressing the underlying barriers to training more psychologists, or simply redesigning the pathway through which they qualify?
The APS has called for stronger evidence, modelling and structural safeguards before the proposed model is implemented.
I share that concern.
Furthermore, in its September 2026 update, the Australian Association of Psychologists Inc. (AAPi) similarly noted that the Board had made relatively limited changes to the proposed model following consultation, with the central architecture remaining largely intact.
AAPi highlighted ongoing concerns about qualification levels, placements, supervision, workforce impacts and the practical arrangements required to implement the reforms.
These matters go to the heart of how professional competence is developed, demonstrated and maintained.
Where to from here?
I recognise that reforming psychology education and registration is no small undertaking.
There are legitimate challenges within the current system, and improving accessibility, affordability and workforce capacity are important objectives.
But reform of this magnitude requires careful consideration of both the intended benefits and the potential unintended consequences.
We can redesign educational pathways and restructure curricula. But should never assume that professional competence will develop simply because the required learning outcomes have been accommodated within a new qualification.
As the proposed reforms progress towards government consideration, the questions surrounding academic rigour, supervised practice and competency assurance remain important.
There is a considerable amount of detail surrounding these reforms, and I recognise that I may have missed or misunderstood aspects of the proposal. My intention is not to misrepresent the changes, but to raise what I believe are important questions about their implications for psychology education and professional practice.
I welcome clarification, correction and further discussion.
Ultimately, this isn’t simply about how quickly we can train psychologists.
It’s about how well we prepare them for the responsibility of being one.
Further information and public petition
For readers interested in the concerns raised about the proposed reforms, a public petition titled Reject unsafe, untested cuts to psychologist training NOW calls for an independent review of the proposed changes and consideration of alternative approaches to psychology training.
By Katherine Hurrell, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist, Sydney, Australia
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Writing and research transparency
The views, professional analysis and arguments expressed in this article are my own. External sources are acknowledged and referenced where appropriate. AI-assisted tools have been used for editorial support, including refining language, structure and clarity.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Comments