In response to the recent Psychology Board Code of Conduct changes, the APS has helpfully been trhying to put the code into practice through their series of professional practice guidelines. Their recently released Guidelines on supervision made two things crystal clear;
It cant just be a quick chat and a check in, any more than therapy should be. Supervision should be purposeful and delivered by a professional, acting as a professional.
1. Supervision is a psychological service.
2. Supervisees are clients under the Code of Conduct.
This is a perspective we have been teaching in STAP for more than a decade, but we always encountered pushback about the special nature of supervision.
This is a perspective we have been teaching in STAP for more than a decade, but we always encountered pushback about the special nature of supervision.
By formally recognising supervision as a psychological service all other ethical and professional obligations flow from that definition.
This means the same ethical obligations that apply in therapy apply in supervision:
- informed consent
- confidentiality
- record keeping
- boundaries
- cultural safety
- conflict of interest management
- recognition of power imbalance
It also means supervisors carry professional responsibility for the quality of the supervision they provide. In some circumstances, supervisors may be accountable where supervision is inadequate.
That doesn’t mean supervisors are liable for every mistake a supervisee makes. But it does mean that supervision must be:
- structured
- documented
- responsive to risk
- and clear about roles
It cant just be a quick chat and a check in, any more than therapy should be. Supervision should be purposeful and delivered by a professional, acting as a professional.
An uncomfortable truth in this definition is the dual relationship inherent in supervision. While supervisors fulfil many roles, the two that sit with most tension are our relationship with the supervisee and our relationship with PsyBA. We are expected to act in the best interests of both of these “clients”, and it's very clear that PsyBA is also a client in this setup.
The supervisee just wants to go about their day and eventually become a psychologist, the regulator wants to protect the public, and these two drives can come into conflict. When they do, it is up to the supervisor to navigate a good outcome.
The 2025 guidance doesn’t remove this tension but it expects it to be acknowledged explicitly.
If you are both a line manager and a supervisor, that dual role isn’t just “complex.” It must be:
- discussed
- agreed
- and documented
This clarity protects both parties.
If supervision is a psychological service, then the question becomes:
Would I be comfortable defending how I structured this supervision arrangement if it were ever challenged ?
Supervision does not need to become overly rigid or bureaucratic, but it does need to be structured and consistent with the overall standard of a professional psychological service.