Exit Wounds: The Coming Exodus of Australia’s Top Psychologists

Why We May See a Mass Exodus by the End of the Year

“Enantiodromia: when things are driven to their extreme, they become their opposite.”
-Jung

The safety promised by ever-tighter regulation is now poised to become the very thing it was meant to prevent: the greatest risk to public safety in mental health care.

Australia’s psychology profession stands at an unprecedented crossroads. With few speaking openly about the real risks on the horizon, I am setting aside my usual caution because the future of psychology here is at risk of losing its best. In the lead-up to December 1, 2025, when every psychologist must comply with a completely new Code of Conduct set by the Psychology Board of Australia, and enforced under the National Scheme by AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency).

This isn’t just another policy update. It’s a seismic shift, replacing decades of Australian Psychological Society (APS) Code of Ethics with a regulatory framework that risks silencing our realities and deepening already heavy strains. It’s time to face uncomfortable truths and demand that both the profession and its regulators look squarely at what’s happening on the ground.

From Principles to Compliance: The End of an Era

For over seventy years, Australian psychologists were guided by a code authored by the APS; a living document built on values of respect, propriety, and integrity. Now, regulatory control shifts to AHPRA. From December 1, our ethical framework will turn into a compliance- driven set of instructions, enforced by audit and sanction rather than professional discernment or peer guidance.

This is not a procedural tweak, it’s a decisive shift in how psychology is governed, practiced, and defined.

Section 8.4: The Reach of the New Code

The new Code, enforced by AHPRA, imposes sweeping restrictions on both public and private commentary, including on social media. Section 8.4 states that psychologists must “enhance and protect the profession’s reputation by refraining from practice and personal behaviour that might bring the profession into disrepute and/or reflect on their ability to practice as psychologists.”

Even private statements, if made public, can impact standing. Any digital communication potentially damaging to the profession’s reputation is explicitly prohibited. This extends the regulator’s reach into every aspect of a psychologist’s life.

Crucially, the new Code now means even personal social media disclosures or advocacy, if deemed to “damage reputation”, can trigger investigation or reprimand. There have not yet been widely publicized cases in Australia where psychologists have faced disciplinary action solely for nuanced advocacy, personal identity posts, innovative teaching, or mainstream thought leadership.

Yet the profession already reports a chilling effect: practitioners, whether educators, commentators, or clinicians, are increasingly self-censoring diverse or critical perspectives for fear of career consequences. This environment risks pressuring psychologists to limit themselves to regurgitating approved or static content, stifling the original thinking and leadership that drive genuine progress in both teaching and public engagement.

Moving from professional guidance to enforceable regulation is a fundamental change. Under basic principles of contract law, agreements, especially those defining professional life, should not be rewritten by one party without the real, informed consent of the other.

Many psychologists entered the clinical college, committing years and significant resources, under the expectation of an ethics-based, peer-guided code, not a sanction-based regulatory regime. We are now being compelled to accept a system of risks and controls we had no say in creating, a shift with profound implications for our rights, safety, and authenticity.

Curbing Dissent, Curtailing Safety

This is no mere policy update; it strikes at the very core of professional autonomy. Curbing free speech and dissent undermines transparency, whistleblowing, and the self-correcting mechanisms public safety depends on.

The Australian Psychological Society has explicitly warned that these provisions risk silencing dissent, especially when psychologists seek to raise concerns about regulatory overreach in their personal lives. The chilling effect extends to whistleblowers, stifling the critique on which professional accountability depends.

When Privacy and Dignity Are Forgotten

History and international best practice show that protecting insider voices, especially whistleblowers, is vital for exposing risk and preventing harm. AHPRA insists its regulatory stance is about public safety, but experience demonstrates that safety depends on transparency and the ability of practitioners to speak up.

Current regulation fiercely upholds client rights but leaves psychologists vulnerable to public sanction, eroding their own privacy and dignity, a double standard with real human costs.

Psychologists can face highly public “name and shame” notifications sent to employers and media, resulting in severe reputational and psychological harm even before any findings are reached. Meanwhile, psychologists are hemmed in by uniquely strict constraints on free speech, even outside their professional lives.

The Lifelong Liability of the Psychologist Title

AHPRA now holds psychologists professionally accountable at all times, blurring any line between work and personal life and making the title a lifelong liability.

As a former AHPRA board member (now a lawyer supporting psychologists) explained, even when psychologists take on non-clinical roles, like teaching, coaching, or even something as benign as ‘selling lemonade’, they can still be held to the same standards if the public, or AHPRA, expects it.

Regulatory overreach of this kind creates a legal and ethical minefield: psychologists could be investigated for personal views, artistic pursuits, or alternative lifestyles considered “controversial.”

The Threat to Authenticity and Integrity

When practitioners must sanitize their identities and avoid honest disclosure for fear of sanction, the profession risks losing authenticity, one of its foundations. Ethical healing in psychology embraces emotional complexity and shared humanity. Forcing practitioners to present polished facades hollow out the work and its meaning.

Truly great therapists model openness, humility, and humanity. That’s the opposite of new rules favoring image over substance. The values championed by psychology’s best, think Irvine Yalom, are under threat in an environment that prizes reputation over reality.

The Compliance Fallacy: Are the Public Really Safer?

Advocates for tighter regulation claim strict codes protect the public. In practice, a compliance-based, reputation-focused code actively discourages critique and growth from experienced insiders.

The justification for remaining regulated, to provide access to client rebates, cited as a privilege for psychologists, misses the true motivation: most psychologists stay out of genuine commitment to rebates that assist clients, and not themselves.

Many who leave the regulated sector find higher pay and less restriction, leaving the profession poorer for their loss. It is an insulting summary to assume that our ability to provide clients a rebate is personally lucrative and a fair sacrifice for our personal rights and dignity.

The Real Backbone: Why Psychologist Wellbeing Matters

Why should we care how psychologists feel? Because their wellbeing is the backbone of Australia’s mental health system. Without a thriving practitioner workforce, quality care is not sustainable. With a rapidly aging and growing population, demand will only increase.

Regulatory burdens are now pushing psychologists to the brink. National workforce surveys, including those by the APS, reveal: one in three psychologists now reports emotional exhaustion, with “crushing compliance” a top reason many are considering an exit.

“We can’t fix the system without first supporting the people who hold it together.”
—APS Media Release, April 2025

Neglect those holding the system together and the whole structure buckles. Without support, there’s no safety net, just gaps for the public to fall through.

Lessons from Teaching and Nursing

AHPRA’s case for “aligning” psychology with other health professions is deeply flawed. History in teaching and nursing shows what happens when frontline realities are ignored: rigid oversight and compliance have led to mass resignations, workforce shortages, and declines in public welfare.

Aligning psychology with these already-burdened professions risks compounding the mistakes that led to burnout and attrition.

The Attrition Cycle (and Why Recruitment Isn’t Enough)

Evidence shows that when systems ignore the suffering of practitioners, talent walks and everyone suffers. The same patterns are now emerging in psychology, with unchecked regulatory burdens prompting many to question their futures.

Recruitment isn’t enough: without real support for retention, the cycle of attrition rolls on.

A System Straining to Breaking

The crisis is here now. With Ramsey Health Care closing 17 out of 20 clinics by the end of August 2025, we’re watching Australia’s clinical mental health infrastructure dismantle in real time. Burnout, and the lure of less regulation in other sectors, threaten to create a mass loss of talent that cannot easily be rebuilt.

AI, Digital Disruption, and the Need for Psychologist Leadership

As AI-powered therapy platforms boom, the uniquely human skills of psychologists are more crucial than ever. In 2024, over 20% of Australians seeking therapy accessed some form of AI support, but outcomes for complex needs are poorer without skilled human oversight.

Accessibility rises, but safety and true transformation are not guaranteed. Trained psychologists are best placed to create robust, evidence-based content and identify emerging mental health risks, online and off.

Yet current regulations increasingly discourage them from leading or innovating. When the environment forces practitioners to choose between their professional title and authentic participation, society loses essential leadership and wisdom.

Renewal or Decline: The Choice Ahead

History shows that at moments of greatest pressure, systems often double down, mistaking rigidity for safety. Jung called this enantiodromia: when things pushed to the extreme tip over into their opposite, and transformation begins.

Right now, psychology in Australia stands at such a point. Overregulation risks triggering an exodus, pushing energy and talent into unregulated spaces just as public need surges. But this is also an opportunity.

True regulation empowers, adapts, and fosters innovation. Now is the moment to open, not close, doorways for psychologist voices, restoring trust and ensuring our best and brightest are not just preserved, but have room to lead anew.