VASZOLYI and PSYCHOLOGY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA
[2019] WASAT 55
•18 JULY 2019
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ACT: HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION NATIONAL LAW (WA) ACT 2010
CITATION: VASZOLYI and PSYCHOLOGY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA [2019] WASAT 55
MEMBER: MR M SPILLANE, SENIOR MEMBER
MS C BARTON, MEMBER
DR A GARTON, SENIOR SESSIONAL MEMBER
HEARD: DETERMINED ON THE DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED : 18 JULY 2019
FILE NO/S: VR 146 of 2018
BETWEEN: EVA VASZOLYI
Applicant
AND
PSYCHOLOGY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
Catchwords:
Psychologist - Conditions on registration - Supervised practice - Whether satisfactory compliance with conditions - Whether conditions remain necessary or desirable
Legislation:
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010, s 3, s 3(2), s 3(2)(a), s 3(3)(c), s 4, s 4(1), s 6, s 31, s 35, s 81, s 125(5), s 195, s 199(1)(f)
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Regulation 2018 (WA), reg 4
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 24, s 27(1), s 27(2), s 47, s 60
Result:
Decision of Psychology Board affirmed
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | In Person |
| Respondent | : | Ms G McGrath |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | N/A |
| Respondent | : | Panetta Mcgrath Lawyers |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Jemielita v Medical Board of Western Australia (unreported WASC Library No. 920584, 13 November 1992)
Khosa v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2017] WASCA 192
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction
The applicant's registration lapsed in 2009. In 2013, the applicant applied to the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia Board of the Psychology Board of Australia (Board or respondent) for renewal of her registration. The Board granted that application but made it subject to the same conditions as had been imposed by the Psychologists Board of the Northern Territory (NT Board) following a professional conduct investigation in 2009.
The Board is authorised to impose any condition on registration that it considers necessary or desirable in the circumstances. The applicant later requested the Board to remove the conditions on her registration. On 6 July 2018 the Board declined to alter its decision.
This application is made under s 199(1)(f) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia) (National Law) which is set out in the Schedule to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (Act). Section 199(1)(f) of the National Law enables a person to appeal to the Tribunal a decision of the Board to refuse to remove a condition of registration.
The Board submits that the Tribunal should strike out the proceeding under s 47 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act) because it is frivolous, misconceived or lacking in substance and/or otherwise an abuse of process. The Board also seeks a contribution to the costs of the application.
Issues to be determined
The issues for determination by the Tribunal are as follows:
(1)Has the applicant demonstrated satisfactory compliance with the conditions imposed on her registration?; and
(2)Do the conditions imposed on the applicant's registration remain necessary or desirable in the circumstances?
The statutory framework
Section 4(1) of the Act provides as follows:
(1)The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law set out in the Schedule
(a)applies as a law of this jurisdiction; and
(b)as so applying, may be referred to as the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Western Australia); and
(c)as so applying, is a part of this Act.
The Board is established under s 31 of the National Law and reg4 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Regulation 2018 (WA). The Board has the functions set out in s 35 of the National Law which include to register suitably qualified and competent persons in the health profession and if, necessary, to impose conditions on the registration of persons in the profession. The Board can also decide the requirements for registration, including the arrangements for supervised practice in the profession.
The Board made the decision to refuse to remove the conditions on the applicant's registration under s 125(5) of the National Law.
The Tribunal is 'the responsible Tribunal' for the purposes of the National Law pursuant to s 6 of the Act.
The Tribunal is required to exercise its functions under the NationalLaw having regard to the objectives and guiding principles as set out in s 3 of the National Law: s 4 of the National Law.
Section 3(2)(a) of the National Law relevantly provides:
(2)The objectives of the national registration and accreditation scheme are
(a)to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered.
Section 3(3)(c) of the National Law relevantly provides:
(3)The guiding principles of the national registration and accreditation scheme are as follows
(c)restrictions on the practice of a health profession are to be imposed under the scheme only if it is necessary to ensure health services are provided safely consistent with best practice principles.
The Tribunal may also make any order about costs it considers appropriate for the proceeding: s 195 of the National Law.
Chronology of relevant events
The historical and factual background that the Tribunal has found to be relevant to the issues between the parties are outlined as follows.
The applicant ceased employment as a psychologist in or around August 2008 and on 11 May 2009, the NT Board placed a number of conditions on the applicant's registration following a professional conduct investigation it carried out as the applicant's employer.
The conditions imposed by the NT Board at that time were (conditions):
(a)the applicant practice under supervision until a further determination by the Board;
(b)that supervised practice be conducted in accordance with the Board's Supervised Practice Policy with the exception that supervision progress reports be provided to the Board on a monthly basis until a further determination by the Board; and
(c)that as part of the supervised practice the applicant is required to undertake further professional development in the following practice areas:
•clinical assessment;
•case management and record keeping; and
•professional ethics and practice standards.
On 1 September 2009 the applicant allowed her registration to lapse.
On 26 October 2012, the applicant made an application for general registration as a psychologist to the Board.
On 7 December 2012, the Board approved the application for registration and, as required by s 81 of the National Law, gave the applicant the opportunity to make a submission in relation to the proposal to impose the conditions on her registration which had previously been determined by the NT Board.
By letter dated 30 January 2013, the applicant accepted the conditions to be imposed on her general registration as a psychologist.
On 21 February 2013, the applicant was granted general registration subject to conditions.
On 17 February 2014, the applicant submitted a supervised practice plan which the Board found to be unsatisfactory. By letter dated 10 April 2014, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) provided the applicant with the Board's guidance on the content of the supervision plan.
Because the applicant faced difficulty preparing an appropriate supervision plan, on 7 August 2015 the Board approved a mandated supervision plan (Mandated Supervision Plan) which would allow the applicant to undertake supervised practice in accordance with the conditions on her registration.
The Mandated Supervision Plan, amongst other things, required that:
(1)in the first three months of supervised practice, the applicant be provided with simulated clients, provided by the supervisor;
(2)the applicant undertake 20 hours per week of psychological practice; and
(3)supervision will occur once per week for one hour and will be facetoface supervision.
Following the commencement of the Mandated Supervision Plan, the applicant submitted the following progress reports to AHPRA:
(1)26 August 2015 to 26 September 2015 (First Progress Report);
(2)13 October 2015 to 9 November 2015 (Second Progress Report);
(3)10 November 2015 to 9 December 2015 (Third Progress Report);
(4)19 September 2017 (last page only) (Fourth Progress Report); and
(5)1 June 2017 to 30 June 2017 (Fifth Progress Report).
In December 2017, the Board approved a new supervisor for the applicant and also agreed to modify the Mandated Supervision Plan (Modified Mandated Supervision Plan). Under the Modified Mandated Supervision Plan, the applicant was able to provide services to clients via non-facetoface methods. She was also required to undertake 20 hours per week of psychological practice and supervision was to occur fortnightly for a minimum of one hour via Skype.
The applicant then submitted the following progress reports to AHPRA:
(1)14 December 2017 to 14 January 2018 (Sixth Progress Report);
(2)1 February 2018 to 28 February 2018 (Seventh Progress Report);
(3)1 March 2018 to 31 March 2018 (Eighth Progress Report);
(4)1 April 2018 to 30 April 2018 (Ninth Progress Report);
(5)1 May 2018 to 31 May 2018 (Tenth Progress Report);
(6)1 June 2018 to 30 June 2018 (Eleventh Progress Report); and
(7)1 July 2018 to 31 July 2018 (Twelfth Progress Report).
The Board's submissions
The Board's submissions may be summarised as follows:
(1)The decision by the Board of 6 July 2018 to refuse to remove the conditions on the applicant's registration was the correct and preferable decision in the circumstances of the case. The conditions require that the applicant practise only under supervision and that as part of her supervised practice she is required to undertake professional development in the areas of clinical assessment, case management and record keeping, and professional ethics and practice standards. The applicant has not demonstrated satisfactory compliance with the conditions imposed on her registration or competence in the areas of practice relevant to the conditions.
(2)The Mandated Supervision Plan required the applicant to provide monthly progress reports to the Board from her appointed supervisor. The supervision was required to take place for one hour per fortnight and could take place via Skype.
(3)The First Progress Report demonstrated that the applicant had not complied with the Mandated Supervision Plan in that the client assessed was not a simulated/role play client and was a previous client of the supervisor. It was also unclear whether an assessment interview, counselling or intervention was undertaken which raised concerns about the applicant's competency. As did the use of DSM IV[1] instead of DSM V and the unsatisfactory case study provided.
[1] DSM IV codes are the classification found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association that includes all currently recognised mental health disorders.
(4)The Second Progress Report and Third Progress Report also demonstrated that the applicant had not complied with the Mandated Supervision Plan in that she continued to work with a client who was not a simulated client and who had significant complex issues. Also, the applicant was marketing herself to general practitioners despite the Mandated Supervision Plan limiting her to work with simulated clients for a three month period. The Mandated Supervision Plan required the applicant to undertake 20 hours of psychological practice per week which she did not meet. The reports failed to demonstrate progress in the applicant's skills in relation to psychometric testing, assessment and case formulations.
(5)The applicant did not submit monthly reports for the period between August 2016 and November 2017 until AHRPA staff sought clarification about the outstanding reports. A new supervisor was engaged for this period but in the Fourth Progress Report the supervisor stated that he had insufficient opportunities to make an informed appraisal of the applicant. A similar comment was made by the supervisor in the Fifth Progress Report. The supervisor had only a single online supervision session with the applicant in November 2017.
(6)The Board approved a new supervisor in December 2017 and agreed to the Modified Mandated Supervision Plan so that the applicant was able to provide services to clients via non-facetoface methods. The applicant was expected to undertake 20 hours per week of psychological practice and supervision was to occur fortnightly for a minimum of one hour via Skype. In the Sixth Progress Report, the applicant had recorded three hours of direct client contact and only one hour of supervision for the month.
(7)In the Seventh Progress Report, the applicant had not recorded any direct client contact but had recorded 50 hours of non-client related activities which included research and evaluation of diagnostic systems and personality assessment tests. These are not activities that assist in demonstrating clinical competence and compliance with the conditions imposed on the applicant's registration.
(8)The Eighth Progress Report contained misleading information in that the client interaction referred to by the applicant related to past cases. Also, the applicant had recorded only one hour of direct observation by the supervisor and zero hours of direct client contact.
(9)The Ninth Progress Report prepared in April 2018 recorded zero hours of direct client contact and, therefore, did not confirm competence in the areas of practice relevant to the conditions. The Tenth Progress Report had not been completed or signed by the applicant's supervisor and did not demonstrate competence in the areas of practice relevant to the conditions. Similarly, the Eleventh Progress Report states that the supervisor did not observe any assessment or interventions for the relevant supervision period.
(10)The Twelfth Progress Report submitted by the applicant in July 2018 was not completed or signed by the approved supervisor and, therefore, did not assist in demonstrating the applicant's compliance with the Modified Mandated Supervision Plan and competence in the areas of practice relevant to the conditions.
(11)The applicant has neither demonstrated competence nor remedied the deficiencies in the areas of practice addressed by the conditions imposed on her registration for the following reasons:
(a)The progress reports demonstrate that since commencing supervised practice in August 2015 the applicant has had very limited direct client contact (17 hours to 31 July 2018) and raise concerns about several aspects of the applicant's practice including client assessment;
(b)During the period August 2016 to November 2017, the applicant's approved supervisor was unable to comment on the professional aptitude of the applicant due to his limited contact with her;
(c)The Eighth Progress Report referred to historical clients and did not provide an assessment of her current level of competence;
(d)The progress reports submitted for the period April 2018 to July 2018 show that the applicant had only 1 hour of direct client contact during that period and do not demonstrate her competence in relation to the conditions;
(e)Despite the Board approving the Modified Mandated Supervision Plan to allow the applicant to see clients via non-facetoface methods, the applicant has not increased her hours of direct client contact; and
(f)In the absence of the applicant engaging with clients to undertake clinical assessment, case management and reporting responsibilities, she has not demonstrated competence or remedied the deficiencies in the areas of practice addressed by the conditions.
(12)The conditions imposed on the applicant's registration remain necessary and desirable for the protection of the public until the applicant has demonstrated improvement in the areas of practice identified by the NT Board in 2009 to be below the expected standards. The supervision requirements imposed by the conditions are not onerous. The difficulty the applicant has experienced in complying with the conditions demonstrates that she requires ongoing supervision of her practice.
(13)The Board's policy for recency requirements provides that eligibility for registration or renewal of registration is not automatic and remedial action may be required where a registered psychologist has not practiced for 250 hours within the last five years. The applicant has not completed the necessary 250 hours because she did not practice as a psychologist between August 2008 and August 2015, having allowed her registration to lapse in August 2009. Since August 2015, the applicant has had limited direct client contact. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that the applicant continue to have conditions on her registration until such time as she demonstrates her competence to work in the profession.
The applicant's submissions
The applicant's submissions may be summarised as follows:
(1)On 26 August 2015, AHPRA issued the Mandatory Supervision Plan and four Board approved supervisors were appointed between 2013 and 2018 to assist with the supervision plans.
(2)In relation to the first supervisor, one supervision plan was submitted to AHPRA in January 2014 and amended in April 2014.
(3)In relation to the second supervisor, three supervision plans were prepared and fifteen supervision sessions attended. There were five progress reports submitted to AHPRA between August and December 2015, as well as five log books and one case study. The second supervisor reported that the applicant is a competent psychologist and, therefore, the supervision condition should have been removed at that time.
(4)The third supervisor provided supervision between March 2016 and October 2017. The supervisor submitted two progress reports to AHPRA and provided a final assessment.
(5)The fourth supervisor was engaged between November 2017 and August 2018. The supervisor provided fourteen supervised sessions on Skype and one on the telephone. Seven progress reports were prepared and submitted to AHPRA.
(6)The recency of practice requirement of 250 hours in the past five years has been satisfied. A total of 1,371 hours of documented psychology practice was undertaken between February 2013 and 2018.
(7)A significant number of professional development courses was undertaken between 2015 and 2018.
(8)The strict reporting conditions imposed by AHPRA eroded the supervisory relationships, amounted to a lot of unnecessary paper work and was a distraction from work. The process was distressing and counterproductive as it cut off ties with supportive professional contacts.
(9)Two opportunities for employment were lost because of the need for supervision.
(10)The conditions are unfair and unjust and this has been brought to the attention of AHPRA, the Minister for Health, the National Psychology Board of Australia and the Australian Psychological Society.
(11)There has been satisfactory compliance with the conditions and the conditions have been met. The applicant has demonstrated competence and remedied deficiencies in the areas of practice identified by the Board. The Board has failed to identify the risks to public safety by the identified deficiencies and how the conditions will protect the public against the deficiencies.
(12)The applicant wishes to continue her work in the area of psychological assessment, and on the application of a test which is appropriate for blind/low vision people.
Consideration by the Tribunal
As outlined earlier, this application comes to the Tribunal pursuant to s 199(1)(f) of the National Law against a decision of the Board made on 6 July 2018 under s 125(5) of the National Law to refuse to remove the conditions imposed on the applicant's registration as a psychologist.
The reasons given by the Board for refusing to remove the conditions imposed on the applicant's registration were that:
The Board is yet to be satisfied that you have made sufficient progress under supervised practice.
There has been no substantial change in your circumstances which would warrant a change in the conditions and you have not provided evidence to satisfy the Board that the conditions are no longer required.
The Board's primary regulatory principle and consideration is to protect the public. The current level of your competence is unclear and as such the Board has refused your request to remove the conditions on your registration, until such time you have provided sufficient evidence that you are competent to practice safely.
However the Tribunal's review of the Board's decision is by way of a hearing de novo and is not confined to matters that were before the Board but may involve the consideration of new material whether or not it existed at the time the decision was made: s 27(1) of the SAT Act. The purpose of the Tribunal's review is to produce the correct and preferable decision: s 27(2) of the SAT Act.
Pursuant to s 60 of the SAT Act, and by consent of the parties, the proceeding was conducted entirely on the basis of documents filed by the parties. No oral hearing took place.
The documents filed by the parties and considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision are as follows:
(1)the application under s 199(1)(f) of the National Law filed with the Tribunal on 8 August 2018;
(2)the respondent's statement of issues, facts and contentions (SIFC) dated 8 November 2018;
(3)the respondent's indexed bundle of documents filed with the Tribunal under s 24 of the SAT Act on 8 November 2018;
(4)the applicant's statement of issues, alternative facts and claims dated 14 January 2019;
(5)the applicant's bundle of documents filed with the Tribunal on 21 January 2019 in support of her application which include:
(a)certificate of registration as a psychologist from the Victorian Psychological Council dated 1 June 1981.
(b)Australian Business Register for the applicant with registration date 1 July 2002;
(c)Northern Territory Department of Health and Community Services job description dated April 2004;
(d)background facts to the Raine Report, page 2 and page 5 dated 8 January 2007;
(e)copy of degree from The University of Melbourne for a Graduate Diploma in Mental Health Services dated 25 August 2007;
(f)letter to the Northern Territory Government Department of Health & Families dated 29 May 2009 with attachments;
(g)letter from NT Board to the applicant dated 18 September 2009;
(h)letter to the Board from the applicant dated 16 February 2012;
(i)letter from the WA Department for Child Protection and Family Support to the applicant dated 30 May 2013;
(j)letter from the Australian Psychological Society to the applicant dated 27 June 2013;
(k)letter from Medicare Australia to the applicant dated 22 November 2013;
(l)statement of service for the applicant from the Government of Western Australia Department of Communities dated 25 November 2013;
(m)email from the College of Clinical Psychologists to the applicant dated 31 October 2014;
(n)letter to the applicant from the Australian Government Department of Health dated 15 June 2015;
(o)list of work produced by applicant during 26 August 2014 to December 2015;
(p)progress report to the Board dated 26 March 2018;
(q)progress report to the Board for May 2018;
(r)progress report to the Board for June 2018;
(s)progress report to the Board dated 17 August 2018;
(t)curriculum vitae of the applicant received by the Tribunal on 15 January 2019;
(u)certificate of Australian citizenship of the applicant dated 22 November 1979;
(v)letter to AHPRA from the applicant (undated);
(w)letter from the Australian Psychological Society to the applicant (undated); and
(x)statement of service for the applicant from the Northern Territory Government Department of Corporate and Information Services (undated).
(6)the respondent's submissions dated 5 March 2019; and
(7)the applicant's submissions in reply dated 26 March 2019.
Consideration of issue 1
Has the applicant demonstrated satisfactory compliance with the conditions imposed on her registration?
The applicant graduated with a doctor of arts and science in 1976 from Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, Hungary. The applicant migrated from Hungary to Australia in 1977 and gained registration in Australia as a psychologist in 1981, maintaining that registration until 2009. The applicant reapplied for registration with the Board in 2012. It is noted that the applicant was awarded a graduate diploma in young people's mental health from Melbourne University in 1996.
The first and second condition imposed by the Board require the applicant to practice under supervision and that the supervised practice must be conducted in accordance with the Board's Supervised Practice Policy (Policy). The only exception to the Policy was that supervision progress reports were to be provided by the applicant to the Board on a monthly basis.
The applicant contends that she has met conditions 1 and 2. However, the applicant's first three monthly progress reports (submitted to the Board for the period from 26 August 2015 to 9 December 2015) reveal that the client assessed by the applicant was not a simulated client which was contrary to the Mandated Supervision Plan. Also, the applicant did not complete the stipulated 20 hours of psychological practice per week and for the period between January 2016 and August 2017, the applicant did not submit monthly progress reports at all.
The Fourth Progress Report provided to the Board in September 2017 was submitted by the applicant following a request by the Board in June of that year and only included the last page of the report. Further, the supervisor stated in both the Fourth and Fifth Progress Reports that there had been insufficient opportunities to make an informed appraisal of the applicant. The supervisor later advised the Board by email correspondence in November 2017 that he had only a single online supervision session with the applicant and was not in a position to give feedback on her professional aptitude.
After the Modified Mandated Supervision Plan was accepted by the Board in November 2017, the applicant reported to the Board on a monthly basis between December 2017 and July 2018. However, the Tribunal finds that the content of the monthly progress reports (reports six to twelve) reveal that the applicant did not meet the stipulated 20 hours per week of psychological practice and minimum one hour of fortnightly supervision via Skype.
The Tribunal therefore finds that on the evidence before it the applicant did not comply with the Mandated Supervision Plan or, subsequently, the Modified Mandated Supervision Plan and accordingly, has not demonstrated satisfactory compliance with the first and second conditions.
The third condition imposed on the applicant's registration requires the applicant to undertake, as part of her supervised practice, further professional development in clinical assessment, case management and record keeping and professional ethics and practice standards.
The applicant listed in her SIFC a number of courses and activities she has undertaken between 2015 and 2018 which relate to professional development, including topics involving assessment techniques, record management and professional practice management standards.
The Tribunal recognises that substantial professional development has been undertaken by the applicant. However it did not occur in a supervised context with the benefit of oversight and feedback from a supervisor. That is, a supervisor has not provided advice (in the form of progress reports) on how the topics identified by the applicant satisfy the requirements of professional development in those practice areas set out in condition 3.
Therefore, because the Tribunal has already found that the level of supervision of the applicant does not meet the requirements of the Mandated Supervision Plan and Modified Mandated Supervision Plan, it is difficult for the applicant with the lack of such necessary supervision to demonstrate that unsupervised, the necessary professional development has been satisfactorily undertaken to remedy the deficiencies in these areas of her practice. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not undertaken, as part of her supervised practice, professional development in the relevant practice areas identified by the Board and, therefore, has not demonstrated satisfactory compliance with the third condition.
Consideration of issue 2
Do the conditions imposed on the applicant's registration remain necessary or desirable?
The National Law establishes a national registration and accreditation scheme (Scheme) for the regulation of health practitioners. One of the objectives of the Scheme set out in s 3(2) of the National Law is to provide for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered.
Vocational proceedings before the Tribunal have the purpose of both protecting the public and maintaining and preserving the high standards and good reputation of practitioners: Jemielita v Medical Board of Western Australia (unreported WASC Library No 920584, 13 November 1992) at 141. The jurisdiction is not exercised for the purpose of punishing the practitioner concerned: Khosa v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2017] WASCA 192 at [188].
Following its preliminary investigation conducted in 2009, the NT Board concluded that the applicant fell below the expected practice standards in the following areas of practice:
•assessment and planning;
•formulating clinical interventions and documenting rationale for clinical decision;
•maintenance of clinical records; and
•knowledge and application of expected ethical and practice standards.
The Board found that the applicant's failure to meet these expected standards significantly undermined the efficacy and legitimacy of the applicant's practice with clients and, therefore, posed a risk to clients and the reputation of the profession.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that she has remedied the deficiencies in her practice identified by the NT Board because she has not completed the required supervision in accordance with the Mandated Supervision Plan and Modified Mandated Supervision Plan.
Therefore, having regard to the objective of the Scheme set out above, the Tribunal finds that the conditions imposed on the applicant's registration remain necessary and desirable to provide for the protection of the public.
The Board contends, and the Tribunal accepts, that the requirement imposed on the applicant to undertake an hour of supervision once a fortnight (which the Board agreed with the applicant could be done via Skype rather than facetoface) is not an onerous task. The Tribunal finds that the difficulty that the applicant experienced in complying with those requirements supports a finding that there is a need for ongoing oversight of the applicant's practice by an approved supervisor and, therefore, the retention of the conditions.
The Board further contended that the conditions on the applicant's registration remain necessary or desirable because the applicant has failed to meet the recency of practice requirements.
The Board's policy is that an applicant who has not completed at least 250 hours of practice in the last five years is not automatically eligible for registration or the renewal of registration. The policy provides that 'practice' is not restricted to the provision of direct clinical care. It also includes using professional knowledge in a direct, nonclinical relationship with clients, working in management, administration, education, research, advisory, regulatory or policy development roles, and any other roles that impact on safe, effective delivery of services in the profession.
The applicant contends that she completed 1,371 hours of practice between February 2013 and 2018. However, the Board has calculated that the applicant has had only 17 hours of direct client contact since August 2015.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not practice as a psychologist between August 2009, (when her registration lapsed), and February 2013, (when she was granted general registration subject to conditions). Since August 2015, the progress reports submitted by the applicant to the Board reveal limited client contact.
The Tribunal accepts that a failure by a registrant to comply with the Board's policy on recency of practice may lead to registration or the renewal of registration being granted by the Board on a conditional basis or not at all. In light of the applicant's limited practice in the past five years, due in part to her lapsed registration, the Tribunal finds that it is necessary and desirable that the conditions on her registration remain in place.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not demonstrated satisfactory compliance with the conditions imposed on her registration and that it is necessary and desirable that the conditions continue. Accordingly, the Tribunal concludes that the application should be dismissed.
The Tribunal notes that this is the applicant's third application against the conditions imposed on her registration in 2012. The first application (VR 69/2014) and second application (VR 190/2014) were lodged with the Tribunal on 10 April 2014 and 20 October 2014 respectively. Following mediation on 15 May 2014, the applicant was given leave by the Tribunal to withdraw the first proceeding and, by consent of the parties following mediation, the second proceeding was dismissed by the Tribunal on 3 December 2014.
In light of the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the current application, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to determine if the proceeding should be struck out on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance, or otherwise an abuse of process for the purposes of s 47 of the SAT Act.
Orders
1.The decision of the respondent dated 6 July 2018 to refuse to remove the conditions on the applicant's registration is affirmed pursuant to s 29(3)(a) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
2.The application for review is dismissed.
3.If the respondent wishes to maintain its application for costs then it may on or before 16 August 2019 file and serve written submissions in relation to costs.
4.If the respondent makes a costs application as per order 3, then the applicant is to file and serve responsive submissions in relation to costs on or before 13 September 2019.
5.Subject to any further order, any application for costs will be determined entirely on the documents pursuant to s 60(2) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
MR M SPILLANE, SENIOR MEMBER
19 JULY 2019
0
1
3