Hello members
PACFA – Join or stay as we are?
ASPA has a pivotal decision to make at the end of 2015. Do we join PACFA
structurally, i.e. do we disband ASPA and each member become an individual
member of PACFA, or do we stay as a Member Association (MA) of PACFA, the
current arrangement, and carry on as we are?
Here I have tried to outline the issues and my take on them, the pros and cons of
each option. Please remember this is my thoughts’ alone, others within ASPA may
think differently and I would love to hear their views. The issues are complex and as
you will need to vote one or the other at the end of the year I want to give you as
much information as I can.
Currently PACFA is a confederation of Member Associations psychotherapy
associations and counselling associations. Each year at the PACFA AGM each MA
has two votes, regardless of how many members they have. This evens out the
representation of big and small organisations.
This system has served ASPA well as there are many counselling MAs that have far
more members than we do.
If the restructure goes ahead, ASPA will no longer have this advantage. The
proposed voting system is that each individual member of PACFA, ie those MA’s that
join PACFA structurally and disband their own association, will have one vote.
Those MAs that stay with the status quo will have one vote for each member that we
pay a per capita fee to PACFA, i.e. those that are eligible to go on the PACFA
register. That is not everyone in ASPA, nor is it all members of other psychotherapy
associations.
My understanding is that the majority of counsellor associations intend to join
PACFA structurally, i.e. all of their members will have a vote. Some of the
psychotherapy associations intend to join structurally, while others intend to remain
as an MA. At our AGM last year we gave an in principle agreement to join
structurally however, each of you will need to vote on this later in the year.
Of course, the real vote is whether we agree with PACFA restructuring in this way, or
whether we vote for it to stay as a confederation.
Regardless of how ASPA votes on this decision, my belief is that it will go ahead,
simply on numbers.
To work through the issues of the restructure PACFA set up a Restructure Working
Party. Tim Johnson- Newell and I have been attending these meetings on behalf of
ASPA.
Both of us have come away from each meeting with the feeling that everyone in the
room is attempting to set aside their MA’s particular wants and wishes and try to
come to a position that mostly reflects the needs of everyone. This is sometimes
tough as there are very big differences between the way psychotherapists and
counsellors’ work, let alone the differences between the various psychotherapy
organisations within the confederation of PACFA.
1
1. Future vision
 PACFA is a stronger and better resourced peak body for the
psychotherapy and counselling profession
All of the money you currently pay for membership to ASPA will go to
PACFA, not just the per capita fees ASPA currently pay to PACFA for
eligible members to be listed on their register.
PACFA are conscientiously trying to keep this to a minimum with the
current proposal that this be approximately $350 per year for a clinical
member. Other proposed fees are listed below. Please remember
these are only draft costs at the moment, they may change as more
information is available to PACFA on which associations will join
structurally and which organisations will stay as an MA:












Practitioner $350
Educator (non-practitioner) $350
Life Free
Intern $250
Student $90
Student (bulk rate for 1st year students paid by Training
Provider) $40
Affiliate $155
1st College (for eligible individual PACFA members,
including Affiliates & Students) Free
1st College (for eligible members of PACFA MAs, including
Affiliates & Students) $80
2nd College (for eligible individual PACFA members and MA
members including Affiliates and Students) $80
Interest group (for individual PACFA members and MA
members) Free
Interest group (for non-members) $80
o As an individual member of PACFA you will automatically become
a member of a state or territory based branch. These branches will
be made up of all the different psychotherapy modalities and the
counsellors. The Branches will conduct PD sessions and whatever
other activities the members want but, they will not be particularly
focussed on psychotherapy, let alone somatic psychotherapy.
o Your membership fees to PACFA, if we join structurally, will also
entitle you to join one college e.g. the College of Psychotherapy,
and some of your membership fees will go to this college to allow it
to do things for its members. For example; run a conference, hold
PD sessions, produce a newsletter, or whatever the members of
the college would like. Again, these activities will be focused on
psychotherapy, not particularly somatic psychotherapy. You will
need to decide if this is a good or bad thing. Are we mature
enough to be able to look at the similarities of our profession, rather
than the differences?
o If ASPA remains an MA you will need to pay a fee to be a member
of the College of Psychotherapy. It will not be included in the fee
you pay to ASPA, or the per capita fee we pay to PACFA
2
o If you want to join another College or Interest Group, other than the
College of Psychotherapy, you will be asked to pay a small
additional fee
o The fees received from members will also go to increase the
number of staff employed by PACFA and move to a bigger
premises.
o I do believe that PACFA is attempting to be fair in the distribution of
the funds under the restructure but, we will lose some control of
how they are distributed. Also, how that happens in the future will
be dependent on the make-up of future PACFA Boards. I will talk
more of my concerns in this area later in this paper under
Governance.
2. Government, private health funds and other bodies recognise
counsellors and psychotherapists
o I do not understand how the restructure will change the activities of
PACFA in this area, except that it believes it will have more funds
to do more work in this space.
o I do not agree with the emphasis PACFA currently puts on this
work. I do not see anything happening with health funds and other
bodies rather, all the advocacy work currently carried out is with
government. I do not believe (and this is my personal belief, you
may think differently) that psychotherapy will ever be awarded
Medicare, so spending our money to advocate to government is a
waste of time and money.
o Counsellors may think differently and I understand that PACFA has
to advocate for them too. I would prefer that more time and money
is spent advocating to allied health professionals and using social
media to advertise us to the community. I will make this view
known to PACFA at the next Restructure Working Party meeting.
3. The community understands and values the unique selling points of
counselling and psychotherapy
o I have not seen any evidence that PACFA is doing anything in this
space. I believe we need to hold them to this commitment
4. The profession has high professional standards and a robust
registration system to regulate the profession
o I believe it is a good ideal to strive for and will demonstrate the
level of maturity of our members, ie that all our members are up to
the mark. It will mean however, that those that are slow to renew,
for whatever reason, may not receive the leniency currently
afforded them by ASPA
5. The diversity of the profession is supported and diverse therapy
trainings continue
3
o I am not sure what this statement means. PACFA currently has an
accreditation process for ‘PACFA approved training”, perhaps this
is what is meant?
6. The skills and training of both psychotherapists and counsellors are
recognised and promoted
o A future vision, not a current activity so again, whether we join
structurally or stay as an MA we need to keep PACFA to account
for this piece of work
7. The evidence-base relating to counselling and psychotherapy is
developed and promoted through research and publishing
o Again a future vision, not a current activity, so again whether we
join structurally or stay as an MA we need to keep PACFA
accountable for this work. I can report that PACFA’s Research
Committee has conducted a literature review on somatic
psychotherapy and will hold a forum, to which all ASPA members
are invited, in Sydney during September 2015. I will be writing to
you about this once the venue and timings are finalised. Do we
want our work to be evidence-based?
8. Members can access high quality, affordable professional development
events and networking opportunities
o These are to be organised via the state based Branches and the
Colleges. The quality and costs will be dependent on the people
who put up their hands to run the Branches and Colleges.
o “If we join PACFA structurally you will need to consider carefully
how you can get involved, if you want to get your needs met under
the new structure. “
o If we stay as an MA you will also need to think on this issue as the
current ASPA Executive and Sub-committees are unsustainable
9. Our business-like approach secures PACFA’s sustainability for the
future
o PACFA will certainly have more money in their coffers so
sustainability will be more secure than now.
o Often I hear the reason PACFA proposed this restructure is
because some MAs came to them stating they could not attract
members to serve on their Executives and they either needed to
disband or seek advice from PACFA of another way of operating.
This is indeed true and ASPA is not far from this position as the
majority of the Exec will stand down at this year’s AGM and we
currently have only four Sub-committees operating, the others
being vacant. I have pleaded with members to step forward at the
last three AGM’s and the last two conferences however, there have
4
been very few who have answered this call. I understand that
many people are struggling to build up their practice and don’t see
they have the time to do both. This situation may force us to join
PACFA structurally and let them do the administration needed to
run an association such as ASPA
o But apart from those MAs struggling, PACFA too is struggling
under the Confederation structure. It too needed to find a way to
attract more funds or close. The restructure serves dual purposes.
It saves MAs from having to do the admin work and it saves
PACFA from going broke.
Proposed governance structure
10. PACFA Member Congress
This is a new structure, not part of the current governance structure of
PACFA
Currently it is the Council, made of up two representatives from each MA that
makes decisions and governs PACFA
Under this arrangement, if we join structurally we will each get a vote. If we
stay as an MA, each member for whom we pay a per capita fee will get a
vote. This will disadvantage us purely on a numbers basis as we don’t have
as many members as some of the other bigger MAs in PACFA,
predominantly the counsellors. While they do not see this as an issue, in fact
don’t understand what our problem is, I stress to you that I don’t believe they,
the counsellors or PACFA Board and staff, understand what we do. I believe
they think they do the same as we do except they don’t touch. This, I believe,
is the key issue for ASPA
I don’t think we have done enough to make it clear to them what the
differences are and I take some responsibility for this oversight.
11. Proposed governance structure PACFA Council
As I said above, this body used to be the governing body for PACFA. Under
the restructure it will be an advisory body only.
I think the role attached to the Council is very important but it takes control
away from Colleges, Branches, and MAs etc. Therefore as a College we
would be very dependent on the Congress, but only have a voice through the
Council and if we join structurally, our individual votes and if we stay as an
MA, those members that are eligible to vote. Again, it will be a numbers
game.
12. Proposed governance structure PACFA Board
Through the discussions at the Restructure Working Party we were able to
secure a position on the Board of a dedicated psychotherapy Board member.
5
It was only fair that a dedicated counsellor position also be part of the
proposed structure.
This does not however, allay my fears that the Board could be made up
predominantly of counsellors, solely because there are more of them and
therefore more votes for the positions of President, Treasurer, and Secretary
etc.
While I do not believe there are ill feelings towards our profession, or a
deliberate plan to undermine us, what I do believe, as I have already said, is
that they do not understand what we do and therefore I do not believe they
could adequately represent us to government, allied professionals or the
community or take into account what our profession needs to grow and
prosper.
I do not see a way around this issue for I do believe the restructure will go
ahead and whether we stay as an MA or join structurally, this will be an issue
for us and we will need to be very vocal and very involved to ensure our voice
and our needs are heard and acknowledged. Each of you will need to be
more involved in your peak body than you are now.
13. Proposed PACFA Membership categories
These do not change to what we have now in PACFA and in ASPA, other
than to add the category of Educator. This is to accommodate members of
SCAPE, who do not practice but do teach in the fields of psychotherapy and
counselling. Some of the current Board members of PACFA are members of
SCAPE.
The other addition to the current structure is that of Affiliated Organisations.
These would be organisation that want to be involved with PACFA but do not
meet the membership criteria. This is seen as a possible income stream.
I do not have any issues with these categories.
14. Registration categories
It can be confusing to some members, the difference between membership
categories and registration categories. As outlined in the PACFA paper you
could be a member of PACFA, either through your MA or as an individual
member, but you may not qualify to be listed on the PACFA register.
Registration categories set out who can be listed.
These are the same as the current categories
PACFA Colleges – Proposed Process
ASPA has been asked by PACFA to establish a College of Psychotherapy.
6
That is, to talk with the other psychotherapy associations Friday, May 29, 15that
currently belongs to PACFA and together work through the issues involved in
establishing and running a college
For example:
How will we comply with PACFA admission standards? There is a huge
difference between our professional standards and those of other
psychotherapy associations. Some are vastly more than ours and some
are vastly less. How will we come to an agreement that satisfies PACFA
and us?
Who will make up the Leadership Group?
How will we attract enough members?
What activities do we want to run each year and how will they meet the
needs of the variety of psychotherapy associations represented in the
College?
How will ASPA demonstrate evidence-based practice? This is not something we
currently give any thought to. The seminar later in the year that I spoke about
earlier may be useful however, this may be a major stumbling block or us
I think the rest of the PACFA document is self- explanatory but I am happy to try to
answer any questions you may have after reading this document, in tandem with the
PACFA update.
Warm regards
Joanne
28 April 2015
Joanne Marsh
President
Clinical Member of ASPA
0430 025634
www.somaticpsychotherapy.asn.au
7