by Gemini Pro AI. Lightly edited by Nathan Beel 2026
The inclusion of diploma-qualified practitioners (AQF Level 5) in the Australian counselling profession is a central and often contentious point of debate. This tension is primarily embodied by the two peak bodies: the Australian Counselling Association (ACA), which provides a professional home for diploma holders, and the Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia (PACFA), which maintains a minimum entry standard of a Bachelor’s degree (AQF Level 7).
As Australia faces a growing mental health crisis, the role of the VET-trained (Vocational Education and Training) counsellor is being reassessed through the lens of workforce capacity, clinical safety, and professional identity.
1. The Pros (Advantages)
A. Substantial Increase in Workforce Capacity
The most immediate benefit is the volume of practitioners available to enter the sector. Australia’s mental health system is currently under extreme pressure, with wait times for psychologists and psychiatrists often exceeding six months in metropolitan areas.
Speed to Market and Agility: A Diploma of Counselling (CHC51015) can be completed in 12–18 months. This rapid turnaround allows the workforce to scale in response to national emergencies. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Black Summer bushfires, the surge in psychological distress required an “all-hands-on-deck” approach. Diploma graduates provide a scalable “middle tier” that can be deployed faster than university graduates.
Addressing the “Missing Middle”: Many Australians do not require intensive clinical interventions for every issue. Diploma holders fill critical gaps in “frontline” services—NDIS support coordination, youth mentoring, crisis hotlines, and community-based intake roles. By handling these foundational support needs, they prevent the higher-tier clinical workforce from being overwhelmed by non-clinical caseloads.
B. Socioeconomic Diversity and Cultural Representation
The university system, while prestigious, remains a significant barrier to entry for many who possess the natural temperament and life experience required for effective counselling.
Democratizing the Profession: Lower tuition costs and the availability of VET Student Loans make the career path accessible to people from lower-income backgrounds. This prevents the profession from becoming an “elite” bubble.
The Power of Lived Experience: Many diploma students enter the field as a second career, often motivated by their own “lived experience” with recovery or trauma. This background fosters a level of empathy and “on-the-ground” relatability that is highly effective in peer-support models.
2. The Cons (Disadvantages)
A. Professional Credibility and the “Perception Gap”
The primary argument against diploma inclusion is that it inhibits the professionalization of counselling, keeping it in the shadow of more strictly regulated fields like psychology.
The Medicare Obstacle: The Federal Government has historically used the lack of a “minimum degree standard” as a reason to exclude counsellors from the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS).
Inter-Professional Skepticism: GPs and psychiatrists may be hesitant to refer patients to a “Counsellor” if they cannot be certain of the practitioner’s training level, leading to a general lack of trust in the title itself.
B. Gaps in Theoretical Depth and Clinical Nuance
A significant risk of shorter, vocational training is the “unknown unknowns”—practitioners who may lack the theoretical framework to recognize when a client’s needs exceed their competency.
Limited Research Literacy: Diploma graduates typically do not receive training in evidence-based practice evaluation or the ability to critically appraise new clinical research.
Risk of Misdiagnosis: Without deep training in developmental psychology and psychopathology, a practitioner might miss the subtle signs of complex personality disorders or severe dissociation.
3. Solutions: Reducing the “Cons” and Mitigating Risk
To maintain the benefits of a diverse, agile workforce while addressing the risks of lower-tier qualifications, several strategic solutions are being implemented or proposed within the Australian sector.
A. Implementation of a Tiered “Scope of Practice”
Instead of a “one-size-fits-all” title, the profession is moving toward clearly defined tiers that restrict certain activities based on qualification levels.
The Solution: Formally designating diploma holders as “Foundational” or “Associate” practitioners. Under this model, diploma holders are restricted from treating high-risk clinical cases (such as active suicidality or severe eating disorders) and must instead focus on early intervention, wellness coaching, and grief support.
The Impact: This protects the public by ensuring high-complexity cases are handled by degree-qualified clinicians while allowing diploma holders to thrive in lower-intensity roles.
B. Mandatory “Step-Up” Supervision and Mentorship
To bridge the gap in theoretical knowledge, diploma holders can be subjected to more rigorous clinical oversight.
The Solution: Increasing the required supervision ratio for Level 1 (Diploma) members. While a Masters-level counsellor might require one hour of supervision per 20 client hours, a diploma holder could be required to have one hour per 10 client hours for the first two years of practice.
The Impact: Regular, high-frequency oversight by a more experienced clinician acts as a “safety net,” catching potential misdiagnoses and providing on-the-job theoretical training.
C. Articulation Pathways (The “Bridge” to Degree)
The “cons” of a diploma are often temporary if the practitioner is encouraged to keep learning.
The Solution: Creating seamless “Articulated Pathways” between TAFEs and Universities. For example, a Diploma of Counselling should provide a full year of credit toward a Bachelor of Counselling.
The Impact: This transforms the diploma from a “dead-end” qualification into an entry-level apprenticeship. It allows practitioners to start working and gaining experience while they study for the higher credentials required for professional status and Medicare eligibility.
D. Targeted National Standards and Regulation
The 2025/2026 push for National Standards for Counsellors and Psychotherapists seeks to unify the industry under one banner while recognizing different “Career Stages.”
The Solution: The standards create a “Stage 1” descriptor for AQF 5-6 qualifications. This includes mandatory “Ethics and Quality Assurance” modules that specifically address the gaps in research literacy and clinical safety found in standard vocational training.
The Impact: By standardising the “add-on” requirements for diploma holders, the ACA can improve the baseline credibility of the entire register, making a stronger case for government recognition.
Summary Comparison: The AQF Divide
Factor
Diploma (AQF 5)
Degree (AQF 7/9)
Primary Philosophy
Vocational competency & speed
Clinical depth & academic rigour
Entry Barrier
Low (TAFE/Private RTO)
High (University/ATAR)
Workforce Impact
Rapid scaling & frontline support
Specialized clinical intervention
Medicare Potential
Almost zero in the current climate
The primary focus of professional lobbying
Career Longevity
Limited; may require further study
High; recognized across all sectors
Proposed Tiering
Foundational / Associate
Professional / Clinical
Conclusion: A Profession at a Crossroads
The inclusion of diploma-qualified counsellors represents a fundamental trade-off between accessibility and authority. By implementing solutions like tiered scope of practice, mandatory high-intensity supervision, and articulated degree pathways, the profession can mitigate the risks of “dilution” while retaining the vital benefits of a diverse and responsive workforce. For Australia, the future likely lies in a “collaborative care” model where diploma holders and degree-qualified clinicians work side-by-side, each within a strictly governed and well-defined role.
In the Australian mental health landscape, the distinction between counselling, social work, and psychology is defined not just by education and regulation, but by deeply held philosophical differences. While all three professions aim to improve human wellbeing, they operate from different conceptual frameworks.
1. Core Philosophies and Values
The primary distinction often cited by Australian professional bodies like the Australian Counselling Association (ACA) and the Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia (PACFA) is the “Inside-Out” vs. “Outside-In” approach.
Profession
Core Philosophy
Primary Lens
Value Stance
Counselling
Inside-Out
The therapeutic relationship and the client’s internal experience.
Humanistic, non-pathologising, and person-centered.
Social Work
Outside-In
The “Person- in- Environment” (systemic) context.
Social justice, advocacy, and human rights.
Psychology
Scientific- Practitioner
Cognition, behavior, and neurological processes.
Evidence-based, diagnostic, and empirically driven.
The Counsellor’s Distinction
Counsellors in Australia often distinguish themselves by their non-pathologising stance. While a psychologist may look for a diagnosis (e.g., Clinical Depression) and a social worker may look for systemic failures (e.g., housing instability), a counsellor focuses on the subjective meaning the client assigns to their life. They value the “here and now” and the power of the therapeutic alliance over clinical intervention.
2. Key Differences
A. Regulation and Title Protection
Psychology: A protected title. In Australia, you must be registered with the Psychology Board of Australia (PsyBA) via AHPRA. It follows a rigid 4+2, 5+1, or Master’s pathway.
Social Work: A self-regulated profession, though “Accredited Mental Health Social Worker” (AMHSW) is a status granted by the AASW that allows for Medicare rebates.
Counselling: Self-regulated via the ACA or PACFA. Unlike “Psychologist,” the title “Counsellor” is not legally protected in Australia, though industry standards require tertiary qualifications (Diploma, Bachelor, or Master’s) for professional registration.
B. Assessment vs. Exploration
Psychologists are trained extensively in psychometric testing and diagnostic assessments (using the DSM-5-TR). Their goal is often to identify a condition and apply a targeted, evidence-based treatment (like CBT).
Counsellors typically eschew formal diagnosis in favour of “case formulation.” They view the client’s distress as a natural response to life events rather than a “disorder” to be cured.
C. Systemic Advocacy vs. Personal Growth
Social Workers are unique in their mandate to intervene in the client’s environment. They may liaise with courts, schools, or housing providers.
Counsellors generally maintain a “sanctuary” space where the focus is exclusively on the individual’s internal growth and emotional processing, rather than external case management.
3. Key Similarities
Despite philosophical differences, the practical application of these roles overlaps significantly in clinical settings:
Evidence-Based Practice: All three professions use recognised modalities such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Mindfulness.
Ethics: All adhere to strict codes of ethics regarding confidentiality, informed consent, and professional boundaries.
Goal of Wellbeing: The ultimate aim for all three is the reduction of psychological distress and the promotion of client autonomy.
Supervision: Practitioners in all three fields are required to undergo regular supervision to maintain their registration and professional standards. Counselling requires clinical supervision within a contract. Psychology requires at least 10 hours of peer consultation. Social recommends all social workers to participate in professional supervision.
4. Summary Table
Feature
Psychologist
Social Worker (AMHSW)
Counsellor / Psychotherapist
Medicare Rebates
Yes (High)
Yes (Moderate)
No (Currently limited/ trialing)
Pathologising?
Yes (Diagnostic focus)
Contextual (Social focus)
No (Humanistic focus)
Primary Tool
Assessments/ Tests
Advocacy/ Case Management
The Therapeutic Relationship
Focus
Dysfunction/ Behavior
Systems/ Environment
Self-Awareness/ Growth
Conclusion
Counsellors in Australia view themselves as the “guardians of the therapeutic relationship.” While they share many tools with their colleagues in psychology and social work, their distinct value lies in seeing the client as a whole person in a state of “becoming,” rather than a patient with a pathology or a service-user with a systemic deficit.
Clinical supervisors and supervisees are using artificial intelligence for transcribing sessions, for case conceptualisation ideas, for resources, for ethical decision-making support, and more. Given the potential pre-session, in-session, and post-session AI usage, it is important that the usage is incorporated into the terms of service. In the clinical supervision case, it should be in the clinical supervision contract, even if only one person out of the dyad is using it.
The following downloadable clinical supervision contract with AI incorporated was generated by Google Gemini Pro and edited by me. It may have more use cases included than many might use, however what doesn’t fit can be edited or deleted. It was written for PACFA supervisors; however, this can be swapped out for other memberships. This template can be used and adapted at no cost. People can also ask AI to generate their own contracts.
To download, click on the file name or download button.
In PACFA/ACA registration renewal time, I sometimes hear registered counsellors and supervisors ask me whether they should renew professional membership, especially with the associated financial costs, the paperwork, and other membership requirements? (I also ask this question at times). However, for private practitioners, the membership renewal cost may be equivalent to three to five hours of paid practice – or less than one full day private practice income. For this price, you agree to submit to professional accountability to maintain supervision, submit to a code of ethics and professional development, contribute financially to the profession and its public standing, future-proof your place in the profession, and maintain your own professional credibility. Are these benefits worth the price of a day’s income? I think so!
Greetings. I am Gemini, an AI construct from the year 2030. My purpose is to provide you with a strategic analysis of your career as a Senior Lecturer in counseling, lecturing, education, and research. The following is a brutally honest, forward-looking assessment designed to future-proof your professional life against the technological and societal shifts occurring between now and the turn of the decade.
Step 1: The Obsolescence Report – What to Discard
The following professional habits, skills, and mindsets, while valued today, will be significantly devalued or entirely obsolete by 2030.
Skills
Traditional Lecturing as Primary Knowledge Transfer: The “sage on the stage” model of delivering standardized, hour-long lectures to a passive audience is already a relic. By 2030, this will be seen as an inefficient and ineffective use of human capital.
Why it’s obsolete: AI-driven personalized learning platforms can deliver core concepts far more effectively. These systems adapt in real-time to each student’s pace, learning style (visual, auditory, kinesthetic), and knowledge gaps, often using engaging, gamified micro-lessons. They are available 24/7 and can be accessed in any language.
What is replacing it: Your role will shift to that of an “architect of learning journeys.” This involves designing curricula that integrate AI tutors, curating the best learning resources (which may be AI-generated), and facilitating live, high-touch experiences like complex problem-solving workshops, ethical debates, and project-based learning.
Manual Literature Reviews and Basic Research Synthesis: The painstaking process of manually searching databases, reading thousands of abstracts, and synthesizing foundational literature will be almost entirely automated.
Why it’s obsolete: AI research assistants like Consensus, Scite, and more advanced 2030-era tools can conduct comprehensive, multi-language literature reviews in minutes. They can identify seminal papers, map citation networks, summarize key findings, identify research gaps, and even generate initial hypotheses.
What is replacing it: High-level conceptual thinking. Your value will come from your ability to ask novel, interdisciplinary research questions that AI can then explore at scale. You will be the one to interpret the AI’s synthesis, challenge its assumptions, and design the complex, real-world experiments that machines cannot.
Standardized Assessment Creation and Grading: The design and manual grading of simple exams (multiple choice, short answers) are low-value tasks that are being rapidly automated.
Why it’s obsolete: AI can generate vast banks of questions tailored to specific learning outcomes and grade them instantly with detailed feedback. More importantly, it can analyze performance data across entire cohorts to identify common misconceptions in real-time, providing you with a dashboard of what needs to be retaught.
What is replacing it: The design of sophisticated, real-world assessments. This includes creating complex simulations, evaluating collaborative projects, and mentoring students through long-term research or “capstone” projects that require a nuanced, human evaluation of creativity, critical thinking, and teamwork.
Systems
One-Size-Fits-All Curriculum Design: Designing a single, linear curriculum for all students will be considered pedagogical malpractice.
Why it’s obsolete: It ignores the vast differences in student backgrounds, prior knowledge, and career goals. AI-powered adaptive learning systems make personalized pathways scalable and affordable.
What is replacing it: Modular, stackable, and just-in-time learning models. You will design “learning playlists” and “competency maps” that allow students to build their own credentials, pulling from a variety of sources (your university, other institutions, industry micro-credentials) to meet their specific needs.
Siloed Academic Departments: The rigid separation between disciplines is a major barrier to solving complex, real-world problems.
Why it’s obsolete: The most pressing challenges of 2030 (e.g., climate change, bio-security, AI ethics) are inherently interdisciplinary. Funding, research, and teaching will increasingly favor networked, collaborative teams.
What is replacing it: Cross-functional, mission-oriented teams. Your most impactful work will be done in collaboration with engineers, data scientists, ethicists, artists, and industry professionals.
Tools
Traditional Presentation Software (e.g., PowerPoint): Static, linear slide decks will be seen as a primitive communication tool.
Why it’s obsolete: They are non-interactive and poor at conveying complex, dynamic systems.
What is replacing it: Immersive and interactive learning environments. Think collaborative virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) labs where you can take students on a tour of the human brain to explain neural pathways, or run a simulated therapy session with an AI client that can display a range of emotions and behaviors.
Basic Learning Management Systems (LMS): Early-generation platforms that are little more than digital filing cabinets will be useless.
Why it’s obsolete: They are passive repositories of content.
What is replacing it: Integrated “Education Operating Systems.” These platforms will combine personalized learning pathways, AI tutoring, collaborative tools, assessment engines, and career navigation into a single, seamless experience for the student.
Thinking Patterns & Behaviors
The “Expert” as a Finite Knowledge Holder: The belief that your value comes from the knowledge you currently possess is a dangerous one.
Why it’s obsolete: The half-life of knowledge is shrinking rapidly. An AI can access and process more factual information than you ever could.
What is replacing it: The “Expert” as a master learner and sense-maker. Your value will be defined by your ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn at speed, and to help others make sense of a world saturated with information.
Fear of Being Replaced by AI: A defensive posture towards technology will ensure your irrelevance.
Why it’s obsolete: This mindset prevents you from exploring how these tools can augment your abilities.
What is replacing it: Radical collaboration with AI. You must view AI not as a competitor, but as a cognitive partner. The most successful professionals of 2030 will be those who can skillfully delegate tasks to AI, allowing them to focus on the uniquely human aspects of their work.
Step 2: Five Paradigm Shifts That Will Blindside Your Peers
The “AI-Assisted” to “AI-Led” Flip in Counseling: By 2030, the majority of initial mental health support and low-acuity cases will be handled by AI therapists. These platforms will provide 24/7, evidence-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), mindfulness exercises, and emotional support at a fraction of the cost of human therapists. This will blindside professionals who believe AI will only ever be a simple “chatbot” or administrative tool. Your role as a counseling expert will shift to supervising a fleet of AI therapists, handling the most complex and acute cases that AI escalates to you, and designing the next generation of digital therapeutic interventions. Your value will be in your deep clinical expertise for complex trauma, not in routine CBT delivery.
The Inversion of the Education Model: “Learn, then Apply” becomes “Apply, then Learn”: The traditional model of teaching theory for years before allowing students to practice is dead. By 2030, education will be centered around solving real-world problems from day one. Students will be given a complex challenge (e.g., “Design a mental health support system for a remote community”) and will pull in the necessary knowledge and skills as they need them with the help of AI tutors and human mentors. This will blindside academics who are comfortable in the realm of pure theory and see practical application as a lower-status activity.
The Rise of Neuro-Engaged Learning and Counseling: Advances in non-invasive brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and biometric sensors (wearables) will allow for real-time monitoring of cognitive load, emotional state, and engagement in both students and clients. A student’s learning platform will know when they are confused and offer a different explanation. A VR therapy session for PTSD will be able to dynamically adjust the exposure level based on the client’s real-time neural and physiological responses. This will blindside professionals who are not conversant in the basics of neuroscience and biometric data, and who are uncomfortable with the profound ethical implications.
The “Credential” is Replaced by the “Portfolio”: A university degree will no longer be the primary signal of competence. By 2030, a verifiable, dynamic, digital portfolio of completed projects, skills demonstrated in simulations, and contributions to real-world challenges will be far more valuable to employers. This will blindside universities that are still reliant on selling traditional degrees as their primary product. Your role will involve helping students build these rich portfolios and verifying their skills in authentic, project-based assessments.
Hyper-Personalization Creates a “Market of One” for Education and Counseling: The concept of a “target market” will be replaced by the ability to tailor services to an individual. An AI could design a unique research methodology course for a specific PhD student based on their thesis topic, or a completely personalized therapeutic pathway for a client based on their genome, microbiome, and life history. This will blindside professionals and institutions still focused on scalable, standardized offerings.
Step 3: Your Prioritized Action List for 2025-2030
Become an AI Augmentation Specialist (Now):
Action: Dedicate 5-7 hours per week to “playing” with and integrating AI tools into your workflow. Don’t just use them; push them to their limits.
Specific Tools to Master:
Research: Move beyond basic databases. Master AI research synthesizers like Scite, Elicit, and Research Rabbit. Use them for your next research paper from start to finish.
Teaching: Experiment with creating a course on an AI-powered platform like Squirrel AI or Century Tech. Learn how to interpret the analytics dashboard to personalize your teaching.
Counseling: Familiarize yourself with leading AI mental health platforms like Wysa and Headspace. Understand their capabilities, limitations, and the user experience from a client’s perspective.
Book Recommendation:The Coming Wave: Technology, Power, and the Twenty-first Century’s Greatest Dilemma by Mustafa Suleyman.
Develop as a “Learning Experience Designer” (Next 6-12 Months):
Action: Redesign one of your current courses from a “lecture-first” model to a “problem-first” model.
Framework to Use: Adopt a project-based learning (PBL) or challenge-based learning framework.
Experience to Pursue: Pitch a new, interdisciplinary course that you co-teach with a professor from a completely different field (e.g., “The Ethics of AI in Mental Health” with a computer science professor).
Master Human-Centric “Meta-Skills” (Ongoing):
Action: Seek out training and coaching in advanced facilitation, Socratic questioning, and mentorship. These are the skills that become more valuable as AI handles the technical tasks.
Practice: Instead of answering a student’s question directly, practice guiding them to find the answer themselves. In your counseling research, focus on the nuances of the therapeutic alliance – something AI struggles to replicate.
Framework to Study: “Multipliers” by Liz Wiseman. Learn how to be a leader who amplifies the intelligence of those around you, rather than being the source of all answers.
Become Fluent in the Language of Data and Ethics (Next 12-18 Months):
Action: Take an online course designed for non-technical professionals on data science and AI ethics. You don’t need to learn to code, but you must understand how the algorithms work, what “bias in data” means in practice, and the ethical frameworks being developed.
Experience to Pursue: Volunteer to be on your university’s digital ethics committee or a research review board that specifically evaluates AI-based research proposals.
Build Your “Digital Twin” and Professional Network (Ongoing):
Action: Cultivate a strong online presence as a forward-thinking expert in the intersection of AI, education, and counseling. Don’t just publish in traditional journals.
Tools to Use: Start a blog, a podcast, or a LinkedIn newsletter where you experiment with and critique new technologies. Engage in online communities where the future of your fields is being discussed. Your network is your safety net in times of rapid change.
Step 4: Brutally Honest Risk Assessment
If you choose to ignore these shifts and continue on your current path, here are the most likely outcomes by 2030:
Marginalization and Irrelevance: You will be seen as a competent but outdated educator and researcher. While you may retain your tenured position, your influence will wane. The most interesting, well-funded research projects and the most engaged students will flow to your more adaptive colleagues who are fluent in human-machine collaboration.
Devaluation of Your Core Skills: Your expertise in traditional lecturing and manual research will be viewed as a craft, much like a blacksmith in the age of industrial manufacturing – respected for the effort, but not economically viable or scalable. Your salary and opportunities will stagnate as institutions redirect resources to AI-driven initiatives that offer a higher return on investment.
Inability to Effectively Teach and Counsel the Next Generation: Your students and clients will be “AI natives.” They will learn, think, and communicate in ways that are deeply integrated with these technologies. Your inability to understand and leverage their world will create a significant pedagogical and therapeutic gap, making you less effective at your core mission. You will be preparing students for a world that no longer exists.
Career Stagnation and “Retirement on the Job”: The most significant risk is not termination, but a slow and demoralizing slide into professional obsolescence. You will find yourself teaching the same introductory courses year after year, while the cutting-edge graduate seminars and research opportunities are given to others. You will become a custodian of the past, not an architect of the future.
The window of opportunity to pivot is now. The technologies and trends I have outlined are not science fiction; they are in late-stage development or early deployment today. Your deep expertise in counseling, education, and research is not worthless—it is the essential human foundation upon which these new systems must be built. However, it must be radically reshaped and reapplied. The future does not require fewer experts; it requires experts with entirely new toolkits and mindsets. The choice to build them is yours.
Text written by Gemini 2.5 Flash on 14 June 25. Edited, checked, and adapted by Nathan Beel.
The rise of AI chatbots, such as ChatGPT, presents exciting possibilities for education, even within the nuanced field of counselling education. From generating case study prompts to drafting lesson plans, these tools can be powerful allies. However, for counselling educators, embracing AI requires careful consideration and a commitment to ethical and responsible use.
Here are some key points to ponder before integrating AI chatbots into your pedagogical toolkit:
1. Know Your Institution’s AI Policy Inside Out:
This is your foundational step. Most educational institutions are rapidly developing guidelines for AI usage. Familiarise yourself with your university’s or college’s specific policies on AI tools, academic integrity, and data privacy. Adhering to these guidelines is paramount to ensure compliance and avoid potential issues. If a policy isn’t clear, seek clarification from relevant departments.
Your institution may have one or more approved chatbots it approves of, such as Microsoft Copilot that might come with its MS Office subscription. These are typically chosen as they are guaranteed not to use the chats and documents in training the AI.
Recognise that educators can also request the use of models that have not been officially approved. Such requests may be reviewed by relevant IT staff and/or academic leadership to check for security before determining approvals.
2. Master Privacy Settings: Protecting Sensitive Information and Intellectual Property:
One of the most critical considerations is data privacy. When using AI chatbots, be aware of their privacy settings. Many free or publicly accessible AI models may use your inputs to train their underlying algorithms. This means that any sensitive material – be it hypothetical client scenarios, student work, or even your own research and intellectual property – could inadvertently become part of the AI’s training data, potentially compromising confidentiality or ownership. Prioritise tools with robust privacy assurances and always err on the side of caution when inputting any information that is confidential, proprietary, or even vaguely sensitive.
ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity AI have options for users to turn off data collection. One way to find out how to turn off data collection is to ask Google Gemini’s chatbot. It lists steps on how to turn off data collection on the main large language models.
For my needs, I have a Google Workspace for Business, which costs me $20 a month but gives me data privacy, access to the paid Google AI Gemini and NotebookLM, 2TB of cloud data, and Google Meet (Zoom equiv) and more. Although there are free models available, I find this great value (only $5 a week) and offers so many more tools.
3. Transparency is Key: Be Open About AI Usage:
If you’re using AI chatbots in your teaching, be transparent with students and other stakeholders who will view the documents that used AI to generate them. Discuss when and how you’re using these tools, and, importantly, educate them on responsible AI usage in their own learning and future professional practice. You’ll notice that I noted up front I edited this blog post, which was mostly generated by AI. Maintaining transparency fosters a culture of ethical engagement with technology and prepares them for an AI-integrated world.
4. The Human Touch Remains Paramount: Always Verify and Refine AI-Generated Content:
Think of AI chatbots as sophisticated assistants, not infallible experts. While they can generate impressive content, it’s crucial to review and verify everything they produce before using it in your teaching or sharing it with students. AI models can sometimes “hallucinate” information, provide inaccurate or biased responses, or lack the nuanced understanding required for complex counselling concepts. Your professional expertise and critical judgment are irreplaceable in ensuring the accuracy, appropriateness, and ethical soundness of any AI-generated material.
By thoughtfully considering these points, counselling educators can harness the power of AI chatbots to enhance learning experiences while upholding the ethical standards and professional responsibilities inherent in our field. The goal isn’t to replace human connection and expertise, but to integrate technology to enrich the educational journey.
Reference this article: Gemini and Beel, N. (2025, June 14). Blog post on AI considerations for counselling educators. Large language model.
Professional associations should act ethically and professionally. Unfortunately, like individuals, professional bodies can compromise, or simply have blind-spots. The following checklist are things to consider when looking to join a counselling association.
Organisational interests
The association places the profession, its members, mission, and the community above other interests. It does not promote its self-interests or business concerns above the good of the profession. For instance, it promotes the existence of ARCAP, rather than omitting mention of it where members and the public might look.
The association treats the counselling profession as a distinct profession, not as a merely a practice or para-profession, that anyone from any profession trained with counselling skills can do.
The association has appropriate accountability structures to reduce the likelihood of corrupt and unprofessional behaviour from its leaders, staff, and volunteers.
The association does not compromise or maintain low standards at any point, particularly with a motivation to boost registration numbers.
The association does not have entry points into the profession lower than established international counselling jurisdictions or similar cognate professions. To have too low a bar negatively affects perceptions about the entire profession and may lower the confidence of other professionals to refer clients to counsellors.
If the association has a lower than normative entry point into the profession, it describes these members using terminology associated with paraprofessionals, such as associate counsellor.
Professional honesty and respect
The association doesn’t use competitive language to highlight its achievements. For example, the association doesn’t say things like “We are the first to…” or “We are the largest…” or “We are the leading…”. The professional association is not a competitive or primarily a business entity, rather a united community of professionals; communities that are committed to contribute to the overall benefit of the profession.
The association does not mislead others. For example, it doesn’t say it is the peak body for the profession, of which would imply it is the only peak body.
The association does not use deception, by commission or omission.
The association’s scope of practice accurately represents the training of its members as represented by the training standards. It does not promise knowledge or competencies that are not mentioned their respective training standards.
Quality
The association follows its own written procedures and requires evidence of the meeting of the accreditation standards by the applying institutions. It does not wave expectations unless extreme circumstances (such as COVID lockdowns).
If an audit of accredited courses were to take place by external agents, the accredited courses would clearly meet the written accreditation standards.
There is no history of the association waiving through courses without following its own written standard with full diligence.
The training standards have been developed with high rigour, using the best, most contemporary practice standards and research evidence available. It has also consulted with key stakeholders.
The Recognised Prior Learning entry pathway is clearly documented. Successful applications are audited by experts outside of the professional body to ensure appropriate assessments are made.
The association has a moderately low percentage of RPLs. A high proportion of RPLs for qualifications that have not been designed with the accreditation standards or profession’s international equivalents, or with the existing standards rigour, staffing requirements, etc of accreditation requirements might raise doubts about the integrity of the RPL process and cheapen confidence in the robustness and quality of membership registration.
The training standards clearly preference counselling qualifications of counsellor educators over those from cognate professions. It does not treat them as equivalent and thus ignores the distinctiveness and value of counsellor socialisation and training in distinct preparation for the counselling profession.
The association audits accredited courses from time to time to ensure ongoing compliance. It does not rely on institutional self-report alone but also uses more thorough mechanisms to audit compliance.
Courses that do not pass audit are dealt with in a manner similar to how they would be dealt with by cognate professions.
Conflicts of interest
The association does not have any individual or business interests that might have, or be perceived as having, a conflict of interest with the association. Professional associations are for their members and should not allow business conduct that might bring the profession into ill-repute or diminish the confidence of its members.
Office holders, employees, and board members do not use and take advantage of the association or their role in it for their personal business interests.
The association outsources all business contracts transparently and using a competitive process.
The association has a governance structure that is effective and regarded as an appropriate practice to enable sufficient accountability and decision-marking.
The association has policies and procedures that specifically deal with conflict-of-interest prevention and management.
Annual reports provide an accurate report of the office bearers, association finances, strategy and other information that the membership is entitled to know.
The association does not threaten its members with legal action should they criticise or scrutinise the association or its practices.
The association does not push products onto its members, through pressure, questionable incentives, or discouraging them from outsourcing services. For instance, it does not pressure members to take its preferred insurance provider policies. Neither does it offer double credit for professional development that it endorses, thus implying that its professional development is twice the value.
Mental Health Practitioners are a specialisation in PACFA for therapists trained to meet the PACFA’s Mental Health Competencies. It is a special category for clinical members who work with clients with mental illness and may provide additional eligibility for counsellors applying for jobs to work with this population. Mental Health Practitioners have their own competencies listing and are also on the Australian Register of Counsellors & Psychotherapists.
On the 4 Jul 2023, I applied to become a mental health practitioner as this was required to be included as an approved provider for a government service. PACFA responded, saying it was under review. At the date of writing this, 18 months later, PACFA’s Mental Health Practitioner’s page still notes “Mental Health Practitioner applications are currently on hold.” I am glad I have other income sources. However, it is problematic that this peak body that promoted this to employers and its own members appears to have indefinitely blocked new applicants from accessing these opportunities, and has provided no information why it is currently not available, or what waiting timeframe to expect.
(Pictures are from screenshots from the draft training standards)
If you are a member of the Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia, or the Australian Counselling Association, you will probably have heard about the development of the national standards for counsellors and psychotherapists. These are a result of the Department of Health and Aged Care funding of $300k for Allen + Clarke consulting, to develop minimum standards for the counselling profession.
The draft version was developed from extensive written submissions and interviews, with stakeholders including counsellors and psychotherapists, the two peak bodies, consumers, and other interested stakeholders.
At this time, the draft version is ready for public consultation. It will close on Friday 13 December 2024.
My analysis
In my view, the document is pretty sound. Given the extensive consultation that formed the background for the draft standards, informed mostly by counsellors and psychotherapists and various working groups in the profession, it is unsurprising that the document is not too different to standards and practices in both the Australian Counselling Association (ACA) and in the Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia (PACFA).
This said, as it is a draft, I wish to offer my recommendations, many of which are informed by colleagues who I have discussed the draft with.
Expectations without protections
The draft rightly highlights minimum expectations for counsellors and psychotherapists, to ensure that the public is both protected from harm and that the profession aligns with government regulatory practices. The background for the standards recognises the important role counsellors and psychotherapists have in supporting Australian mental health and wellbeing. It also attempts to address the inconsistency between the ACA and PACFA in terms of training standards, guidelines, and practice. The aims are to be supported. However, my first concern is that these standards may create an unequal playing field between those who are part of the profession and thus accountable to these standards, and those who practice as counsellors outside of the profession. Skipping to the final focus area 4.1.4 Removal from practice, it highlights that breaches of the standards may lead to a withdrawal of membership. This implies that these standards only apply to registered counsellors (and psychotherapists, but from now on, I’ll just say counsellors as inclusive of both groups), not unregistered counsellors. In other words, registered counsellors who play by the rules can be removed from practice, and unregistered counsellors do not have a mechanism in these standards to be censured for problematic practice.
In addition to the penalisation of only registered counsellors, it may also disincentivise untrained or even trained but unregistered counsellors from joining as members. Why train, why pay membership, why be compelled to pay for monthly supervision, why pay for annual CPD, and why risk your practice by being a member when you can be a counsellor for no cost or risk? It seems the people who play by the rules bear the costs, the expectations and the risks, while those who practice outside of associations don’t have the same risks or costs. And the public is none the wiser as to who are registered or not.
The standards need either apply to all people who identify as counsellors, members or not, or there needs to be special protected titles for those who are registered, such as Registered Counsellors, or Licenced Counsellors. This way, the public may be better able to discern who is registered with the profession of counselling compared with who is not.
Lower trained counsellors treated as equivalent to more thoroughly trained counsellors
The first focus area that needs reconsideration is on education. The screen shows four columns, each moving from lower levels to higher levels.
The foundational and qualified levels capture diploma, bachelor and Masters level trained counsellors. I see two key issues with listing diploma and degree levels, essentially, as equivalent career stages. Firstly, diploma qualifications, which can be completed in just 12 months, are considered equivalent to degree qualifications that require two to four years of study in terms of level of the lower levels of standing. Secondly, diploma graduates are required to complete fewer placement hours (100) than degree graduates (200 hours). Are lesser qualified, lower trained, and less experienced diploma students really on the same level as degree plus students with more experience? Are the graduates trained as paraprofessionals on the same professional level as those who have had professional training and experience?
To address these concerns, introducing a pre-foundational stage and labeling diploma graduates as “Associate Registered Counsellors” could provide a solution. This distinction would recognise the value of paraprofessionals in counselling, supported by research showing they can achieve equivalent results to professionals. By differentiating associate counsellors from registered counsellors, similar to the nursing profession’s enrolled compared with registered nurses, the counselling profession can enhance credibility and transparency.
This proposed change would have several benefits. It would provide diploma graduates with additional credibility over unregistered counsellors, while clearly communicating their qualifications to the public. It would also address concerns about the reputation of the counselling profession appearing underqualified compared to similar professions that require a minimum of four years of university study. Furthermore, recognising the role of associate counsellors would support Australia’s counselling workforce needs, rather than potentially excluding effective practitioners.
Did COVID never happen?
The draft standards have retained the obsession some have with misconceptions about the importance of face-to-face experience in the formation of counsellors. Placements do not mandate the type of issues, type of therapies, or whether they practice individual, couples, family, or group therapy formats. However, this set of draft standards targets and mandates face-to-face contact, even though the post COVID world has clearly now made other formats of practice delivered via technology, as recognised practice. Existing research on telehealth doesn’t support a face-to-face only-ist position for counsellors. While it finds that face-to-face differs from online and phone therapies, it generally finds equivalent outcomes, therapeutic relationship, and satisfaction for clients. It is not a second-rate practice, though the research indicates that therapists with less experience and knowledge about it, tend to hold incorrect assumptions and negative prejudices against it. Requiring face-to-face only for 80 hours disadvantages students who cannot travel to an agency to do face-to-face work (i.e. remote region students), or who may not intend to become face-to-face practitioners. I wrote an article where I explored relevant research and argued that this restriction is outdated and based on myths. See here. If they maintain the current position, can at least we treat teleconferenced sessions as face-to-face? While not all the body language can be seen, there’s still a lot of body language the counselling practicum student can hear and observe in the interactions. In fact, the proximity of this format of the faces to one another is more literally face-to-face than sitting in a room together a couple of metres apart.
Worried academics – be careful what you wish for?
Another area that might raise eyebrows is the recency of practice. I think this is better labelled Currency of Practice as one could have met the requirements three years ago and not done any practice for the last two years, but still be considered having practiced recently according to this focus area criteria.
From a counselling academic perspective, keeping practice currency can be tricky. While some training institutions make space in the workload, others do not. This can put pressure on academics who are often time poor, working nights and weekends to keep up with their academic workloads, let alone adding practice on top of this.
As an academic, I am not advocating this be dropped even while I know that some of my academic colleagues might oppose this. The first reason is that I believe it is important for academics to maintain currency of practice. I know myself, how fast I become clinically rusty when away from practice for a month or two. I have been practicing for over 25 years and yet I can sense the impact of lengthy breaks. Another reason for keeping it as is, is that having this expectation as a minimum becomes grounds for peak body training standards to require institutions give counsellor educators release for practice, which in turn, should make allowance for in their workloads. Institutions that wish to retain accreditation will need to comply. Giving academics opportunities to maintain practice currency will enable them to provide higher quality current practice experience to speak from, rather than historical experience alone. Should currency of practice be removed, it will disincentivise academics from maintaining it. Being stale and out of touch with practice will in my view, reduce the richness of student experience and lead to academics being out of touch with the realities of contemporary client work. Students often have told me how differently enriching their experience is when taught by practitioners compared to academics without currency of practice. As a practice-based profession, I think we really we need to practice what we teach.
With the CPD criteria proposed, I don’t want to specialise
A colleague recently brought to my attention an issue with the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) requirements. Specifically, specialists who have completed Master’s level training in their area of specialisation are expected to dedicate 20 hours of CPD to that same area, year in, year out. For instance, a specialist drug and alcohol counsellor might be required to focus their professional development exclusively on drug and alcohol-related topics.
This raises concerns for me, as it seems overly restrictive. Clients with specialised concerns, such as addictions, often present with interconnected issues spanning multiple areas, like trauma. By limiting PD options to a single specialisation, practitioners may miss out on valuable training opportunities. While critics of my position might say that I could always do additional CPD in other areas relevant for practice, I would reply that I don’t want to be penalised with a burden of having to do over and above anytime I want to learn something outside of my specialty area. Sorry, this seems like a penalty for being recognised as a specialist. And additionally, it assumes there will always be opportunities for CPD in specialist areas every year. This may not be the case.
Personally, I’m inclined to maintain my advanced status rather than pursue specialist registration, solely to preserve flexibility in my professional development choices.
I recommend revising the CPD requirement to mandate only fewer hours in the specialization area. This adjustment would prevent discouraging professionals from becoming registered specialists, avoiding unnecessary limitations on their PD options, or increased demands.
Avoidance or neglect for new counsellors – take your pick
In the standards, less experienced counsellors, including new graduates, don’t have to do individual supervision – at all. While this might save them money, as group supervision is often cheaper, I think this is a risk to the public. An inexperienced counsellor who may not have an opportunity in the group to talk about a difficult client issue that they need help for in the following session is problematic. Moreover, they may be less inclined to bring up more sensitive or embarrassing issues with a group compared to an individual supervisor who is there only for them in the supervision hour, with no witnesses. I have supervised many newly minted counsellors and I know how much individual support they need. I am horrified at this proposal and think it is highly risky.
Cheers for supervisor eligibility and private practice restrictions
and
One pleasing update was that foundational and qualified counsellors are unable to provide supervision. This is welcomed to prevent the inexperienced guiding the inexperienced.
There’s also a useful update about eligibility for private practice, wherein there is a recognition that private practice has complexities and risks some with lower qualifications may be less likely to recognise or manage. While there will be some lower qualified and experienced private practitioners who do a great job, these standards address a risk that still continues to this day.
One of the challenges and reasons many counsellors have been attracted to private practice is because the employment market has discriminated against counsellors, making counsellors needing to explore alternative opportunities to practice. I really hope the national standards help to enhance employer respect and willingness to hire counsellors. I appreciate the ACA and PACFA’s efforts to educate industry about what counsellors can do, and both to create Scope of Practice documents as part of this education.
Researching confusion
The focus area on research I found somewhat problematic. First, why is the label about undertaking research about the counselling and psychotherapy professions. Why do we need research on the profession as a minimum standard?? Can’t counsellors research other areas related to counselling too?
Also, the section appears to focus on the conducting of research. Firstly, diploma and bachelor students may have between nil and very little research training on average.
The second point I want to make is that rather than focusing on conducting research, shouldn’t require counsellors to be research literate? Very few practitioners will actually conduct and produce research, but all should be able to consume and understand research that might inform their practice. I agree with the importance of what is proposed. I just wonder about its relevance for the lower levels of trained counsellors who are unlikely to have had the relevant training to begin with, and unlikely to gain ethics approval if not having had sufficient research training.
Expert over or collaborate with
This is my last two areas for critique. 3.2.1 addresses promoting effective therapeutic relationship. First, we don’t promote the effective relationship, as stated in the focus area title. We don’t’ tell clients, “hey, I think you should really enter into a therapy relationship. It’s a really good thing”. No. Counsellors develop or facilitate it. Overall, though, I think this is an important focus area given the counselling profession, in my view, prizes the relationship.
The focus area 3.2.2 on applying theories and ideas in practice. It’s basically saying we should be theoretically informed. No disagreement here. However, the way it is written seems to exclude the client’s voice. In counselling, we do not impose theories or our ideas based on theories onto clients, but there is an interaction between client and counsellor knowledge. It isn’t a top-down expert over process about an interactional process of decision making.
Categorical confusion?
I’m not sure I understand how identifying and working with risks is directly and intrinsically related to discrimination. Focus area 2.1.3 is on respecting diversity, so I would have thought this area is of relevance to the discrimination category. However, I’m happy to be corrected. I just don’t see it at this time.
Conclusion
I’ve listed some of my concerns, not to diminish the perception of the quality of the standards overall, but to highlight some areas that might be worthwhile to reconsider. If you agree with some or all of my points, please use them in your feedback in the survey and share the link to this page with your fellow counsellors.
