Psychology Lite: The "Associate Psychologist" Debate
By Dr Karen Faisandier - a Clinical Psychologist in Private Practice
New Zealand faces persistent and growing pressure on its public mental health services, and a new role has emerged as a possible solution that has sparked deep concern within a large number of the psychology profession.
The Minister for Mental Health, Matt Doocey, says the problem is a workforce shortage and the solution is to create a new watered-down psychology role. Enter - the Associate/Assistant Psychologist scope of practice, currently referred to as 'AP' while the final title is to be decided by the New Zealand Psychologist Board (NZPB). This appears to be a problematic offshoot from a previously explored role – the Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner (PWP) (Allen & Clarke, 2022).
This article compares the two roles and explores why the proposed AP role, in particular, is raising red flags for many within the profession and why the problem is not as simplistic as a workforce shortage and quick fix.
These conclusions are deduced from comparing information in the Feasibility Analysis for a Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner Workforce (Allen & Clarke, 2022) with the currently live 2025 consultation document from the NZPB. However, none of this is decided yet, although funding has been announced for two courses and the training begins in 2026 at the University of Canterbury and Auckland University of Technology, and APs themselves will hit the ground running in 2027.
Key Differences: Philosophy and Integration
The PWP role is rooted in flexibility and community integration. It was envisioned as part of a broader movement to create new, layered workforce roles that can respond to local needs. PWPs might support whānau with housing or employment challenges, facilitate parenting groups, or deliver psychoeducation — often in community, marae-based, or primary care settings. Some tasks might resemble those of allied health or social work professionals, particularly if the role remains non-clinical.
In contrast, the Associate Psychologist (AP) role is tightly tethered to psychology as a profession. It attempts to use the protected title “Psychologist”, raising concerns that it is a misleading attempt to have people believe they are accessing psychological input when they are in fact not. The AP role is proposed to be a registered, highly structured role delivering “low-intensity” psychological services under direct supervision. The AP would remain within traditional health settings and be trained through formal, NZPB-approved postgraduate programmes.
This distinction matters. While the PWP proposal leaves room for community-specific adaptation and broader public health functions, the AP role centers itself firmly within the clinical psychology domain—raising questions about professional boundaries and identity.
Both roles raise concerns for psychologists, and further consultation and engagement with the sector about the PWP role was recommended in order to determine the direction of the development. In fact, a similar non-psychology regulated role to this has since been established known as “Health Improvement Practitioner’s” (HIPs) who are working alongside many GPs in medical practices. Regardless, a key success factor with moving forward after the Allen & Clarke (2022) feasibility report, was said to be engagement - unfortunately, this has not been successfully achieved with psychologists.
Psychologists' Concerns About the AP Role
While the AP proposal aims to extend the reach of psychological services, it has sparked significant concern from many registered psychologists, especially in the following areas:
Professional Dilution and Role Confusion
There is unease that the role will blur the lines between psychologists and non-psychologists—especially if titles like “Associate or Assistant Psychologist” are used. With growing public confusion already surrounding who is qualified to offer psychological therapy, some fear the AP role could further erode trust and clarity.
Supervision Toll
The AP model relies heavily on close, regular supervision by psychologists. Early indications are that psychologists do not support supervising APs due to concerns they will carry a higher risk than other types of supervision (e.g., psychology peers, trainee or intern psychologists). Concerns have been raised as to whether, as the more senior clinician under the Health Practitioners Competency Assurance Act, clinical psychologists would be responsible for the work of untrained colleagues. Given that supervision is already stretched across internship training and early-career support, it is also highly questionable whether psychologists have the capacity to absorb a new layer of supervision obligations, even if they were willing to.
Scope Creep and Risk Management
By placing APs in clinical roles—even supervised ones—there are grave concerns about the risk of scope creep. Over time, tasks originally intended to be low-intensity might expand, particularly in under-resourced services desperate for more hands on deck. This could pose ethical and safety concerns, and this has occurred in similar roles overseas.
What Does it Mean to be a Psychologist?
Psychology is inherently an n = 1 science—its strength lies in applying broad theoretical principles to the unique context of an individual. Clinical psychologists are trained to do this through rigorous scientific education and case formulation, not just by delivering tools and techniques. Without this foundation, we must ask: what are APs actually practicing? If they lack the depth of scientific training, are they truly delivering psychology—or simply using fragments of it? Diluting the role risks diluting the profession itself.
Cultural Appropriateness
Feedback on both roles emphasised the need for integration with Māori and Pacific models of care. Some see the development of the AP role as vital to increase access for Māori to enter the psychology workforce. This would entail making training easier, cheaper and shorter. The unintended consequence would be a lowered bar and lower quality clinician and could be considered to be patronising - rather than empowering - to Māori wanting to pursue a career in psychology.
Dilution is Not a Solution
The introduction of a new and lesser-trained psychology role would reflect a critical turning point in New Zealand’s mental health system. From many discussions with colleagues, it’s clear: no amount of boundary-setting will make the AP role ethically or clinically acceptable in the current environment.
It has also raised an uncomfortable but essential question: If a stripped-back version of psychology can be rapidly created and deployed, what does it even mean to be a psychologist anymore?
Treating the scientist–practitioner model as optional undermines decades of evidence-based development in clinical psychology. If “just enough” training becomes the new standard, we risk abandoning comprehensive, reflective, and ethically grounded care - the very standard our communities deserve.
As consultation on the AP role continues, we must also ask whether this approach will truly ease pressure on the failing system, or simply create new tensions within the profession of psychology itself. Are we solving the workforce retention crisis with real investment and reform, or relying on quick fixes that dilute standards and erode trust?
If Health NZ cannot retain the psychologists it already has, creating a second-tier version of the profession is not the answer. Psychology “lite” fails the public as well as the profession. It signals that fragments of training are enough, that expediency matters more than depth, and in doing so, it erodes the integrity of the profession itself.
Until policymakers confront the real causes of workforce attrition—burnout, underfunding, and lack of support—these new roles may offer little more than symbolic change, while degrading the quality and the safety of our public mental health system, and threatening the very essence of psychology.
Note. The consultation on the proposed scope of practice, title, competencies, and supervision requirements is currently open for feedback from the public until 16 June, 2025.1
Articles shared here are written by individual registered psychologists who share concerns about the proposed "Associate Psychologist" role. While we present collective viewpoints, the opinions expressed herein are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of all registered psychologists.