Reflections on the past, present and future: Professor Don Thomson FAPS

Why did you choose a career in psychology?

I was a primary school teacher first and enrolled at Melbourne University in psychology to be a better teacher but psychology became the end in itself. I worked later as a psychologist at Pentridge Prison, where I met Ronald Ryan, the last person to be legally hanged in Australia. That event was so distressing it led me to go to Canada to do my masters and doctorate.

How has psychology changed over the years?

When I started anyone could call themselves a psychologist. Unless one belonged to the APS there was no formal code of ethics for practitioners. Back in the 1960s, the APS was dominated by academics and the Code was pretty much all about research and issues academics thought practitioners should be engaged in. Now the Society is much more practitioner oriented. One of the disappointing changes in many professions, including psychology, is that there seem to be many more technicians than clinicians.

What key achievements of the APS spring to mind?

The structural changes in the government of the APS over the years means that it has the ability to respond to social issues and crises in a timely manner. In turn, it has a public profile and it is now better recognised by governments.

What was your involvement in the regulation of the profession?

I was registered in Victoria when registration first happened in 1967. Soon after I went to Canada but returned in 1972. In the 1980s, I became chair of the Victorian Psychological Council, the then regulating body. When the Psychologist Registration Board of Victoria was established I became its president. I was the first psychologist to occupy those positions because the rules required that the occupant be a lawyer, and it happened that I was a lawyer as well as a psychologist. With the establishment of registration boards in other States and Territories I was elected Chair of the annual meeting of the registration boards.

What do you recall about the first efforts to regulate psychology?

There was an inquiry about Scientology in the 1960s. The commission of inquiry recommended that psychology be regulated to minimise the chance of people preying on vulnerable people and families. At the time, I went along to one of the offshoots of Scientology, the so-called College of Psychology, and I had myself ‘monitored’. The process involved the administration of ‘psychological tests’ , the diagnosis of problems and deficiencies, and an invitation to undergo further monitoring. Sure enough, I was found to be deficient in a number of areas but I declined to continue participation. I was put under strong pressure to continue. They said they really hoped I would return. To which I replied, "No, but I hope to see you at my place of work.” “Where is that?” they asked. “Pentridge Prison” was my reply.

What are your views on why it was necessary to regulate psychology?

The rationale for regulating the industry is important and always has been. I’ve always had a concern about these fringe practitioners who are not regulated but who, in my view, are holding themselves out to the public as having skills that I don’t believe they do have, and have potential to cause considerable harm as a result.

Do you think there’s a case for further regulation?

Yes I think there needs to be further regulation, not specifically of psychology but of the allied professions. One of the downsides is that the regulation of psychology has become more and more bureaucratic. The danger is that the focus is on formal aspects rather than substantive ones.

What do you believe is a priority for psychology today?

It’s important that the APS and other psychological groups educate the public in the skills of psychologists. Working in the legal profession, I find that frequently psychiatrists are recognised as having certain skills when in fact psychologists are often more adequately trained in a whole range of ways.