When the revised
Psychology Board of Australia Code of Conduct (2025) was released earlier this year, one clause in particular caught attention:
“Psychologists must obtain client consent before disclosing client information in supervision.”
Within days of the release, conversations among psychologists were buzzing:
- Does this mean I need to go back to every client each time I want to raise them in supervision?
- What if I’m unsure until the moment — do I stop the supervision session and email my client?
- Will I be in breach of the Code if I forget?
It’s a perfect example of how a small change in wording can spark a wave of anxiety across a profession. But in reality, the new Code isn’t imposing a radical new requirement. It’s clarifying — in plain language — what has always been expected of ethical practice.
Supervision is one of the most important safeguards for clients. It ensures psychologists continue to learn, refine their skills, and manage complex situations with the benefit of a second set of eyes. But supervision also carries a risk: when we talk about our clients, we are sharing information that belongs to them.
The Board’s update highlights this risk and puts the principle front and centre. It’s a reminder that client confidentiality is paramount, and that psychologists should never assume we have the right to take information outside the therapy room without permission. In that sense, the new Code is a wise and welcome clarification of a boundary that deserves our full attention.
Since the update, I’ve heard two competing interpretations circulating among colleagues:
- The “narrow” interpretation: Consent must be sought every time a client is discussed in supervision. That would mean asking your client directly: “Is it okay if I raise you with my supervisor this week?” before every session in which they might be mentioned.
- The “practical” interpretation: Consent is obtained up front, as part of the intake process. Clients are informed, in writing and verbally, that their information may be discussed in supervision, and that supervisors are bound by the same confidentiality obligations as the treating psychologist.
The strict interpretation sounds transparent, but in practice it is clumsy and disruptive. Few clients would appreciate being asked repeatedly, and it risks undermining supervision altogether. The practical interpretation, on the other hand, is workable and aligns with what psychologists have long been expected to do under the APS Code of Ethics and the APS Ethical Guidelines on Supervision.
The truth is, this expectation has always been there. The
APS Code of Ethics (2007) required psychologists to obtain consent before disclosing client information in supervision, unless the information was de-identified. The
APS Ethical Guidelines on Supervision (2020) said the same: supervisees must ensure they have consent from clients before disclosing relevant information to a supervisor.
So what’s changed? Not the principle, only the prominence. The new Code places the requirement in black and white, in a way that no one can miss. It is a clarification, not an escalation. This is consistent with the concept of a code of conduct; ethics are aspirational, conduct is clearly defined. This change in language reflects the broader change exemplified in the new Code.
For most psychologists, this means little or no change to how you already operate. If your consent forms and intake discussions:
- explain the limits of confidentiality,
- note that information may be shared in supervision, and
- reassure clients that supervisors are bound by the same confidentiality rules,
…then you are already complying with the Code.
The Board is not asking you to stop a session mid-stream and call your client for permission before raising them in supervision. Nor is it demanding an impractical case-by-case approval. It is reminding us to ensure that the process of obtaining informed consent is explicit, consistent, and documented.
Ethics updates often spark nervousness, especially when the wording looks sharper than what we are used to. But in this case, the profession can exhale. This is not a radical shift.
The Board’s clarification reinforces what ethical practice has always required: that we treat our clients’ stories with respect, and that when we bring them into supervision, we do so transparently and with consent. For most of us, this simply means checking that our intake paperwork and standard confidentiality discussion already cover supervision — and if it doesn’t, updating it once.
That’s it. No need to go back to clients every week. No need to fear you’ll be in breach of the Code if you forget to ask on Tuesday morning.
Supervision remains one of the greatest strengths of our profession. It protects clients, develops psychologists, and raises the overall quality of services. The new Code’s clause on consent is not there to tie us in knots but to protect the people at the centre of our work.
If you already inform clients at the outset that their information may be discussed in supervision, you’re doing exactly what the Code requires. If you haven’t, now is the time to build it into your consent forms and your first-session conversations. Of course, like anything in the new code, no one can say with 100% certainty until we see some precedents of board rulings that test the new language, but for now lets all just look at the new code as mostly compelling what we should have all been doing all along.
Simple. Clear. Reassuring. Exactly as it should be.
If you would like to dig into the code in greater depth, consider signing up for our in depth on demand Code of Conduct training.
