Since 1 December 2025, psychologists practising in Australia have been required to comply with the Psychology Board of Australia’s new Code of conduct, which replaces the Australian Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics as the minimum enforceable standard under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme.
A recent legal analysis by Justine Radcliffe-Thatcher (Principal) and Amber Salter (Special Counsel) of Health Law Partners Pty Ltd has highlighted that, beyond professional and ethical expectations, the new Code introduces significant legal considerations, particularly in relation to practice contingency planning, continuity of care, and health record governance.
(Source: Health Law Partners Pty Ltd, 10 December 2025)
From ethical guidance to enforceable legal standards
While many of the principles in the former APS Code of Ethics are reflected in the new Code, a key difference is that the Code is now legally enforceable under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. This means expectations around professional behaviour, public safety, and cultural safety are no longer aspirational guides, but mandatory requirements linked directly to registration.
As outlined by Radcliffe-Thatcher and Salter, one of the most substantive shifts is the requirement for psychologists to engage in practice contingency planning. This reflects a clear regulatory expectation that practitioners proactively plan for interruptions to practice, rather than responding to them only once difficulties arise.
Practice contingency planning is now a regulatory obligation
Under the new framework, psychologists are expected to have arrangements in place to support continuity of care if they are unable to practise due to illness, incapacity, relocation, or death. This includes planning for how clients will be informed, supported in transitioning to alternative care, and how services will be concluded in a way that avoids abrupt or unmanaged endings.
The analysis emphasises that this obligation extends beyond clinical handover. It also encompasses communication processes, timing of notifications, and structured transitions that align with both professional standards and legal requirements.
Health records, privacy law, and lawful authority
A central legal issue raised in the Health Law Partners analysis concerns who holds, and who can lawfully manage, client health records in contingency scenarios.
In sole practitioner settings, the psychologist typically holds the records as assets of the practice. In contrast, group or corporate practices often vest record ownership and control in the legal entity, depending on contractual arrangements. These distinctions become critical in situations involving death or incapacity.
Radcliffe-Thatcher and Salter note that next-of-kin, practice managers, or colleagues do not automatically have authority to access or manage records following a practitioner’s death. Authority usually rests with a legally appointed personal representative, such as an executor or administrator, once formal legal processes have occurred.
Similarly, during periods of incapacity, access to records must remain consistent with privacy law. Records cannot simply be transferred to another practitioner for “safekeeping” unless that practitioner is providing care to the client and the use of the information aligns with the purpose for which it was originally collected.
Jurisdictional privacy laws add complexity
The authors also highlight that privacy obligations vary depending on where the practice is located. Jurisdictions such as NSW, Victoria, and the ACT have specific health privacy legislation that imposes notification and record-handling requirements when practices close or transfer.
In other States and Territories, Commonwealth privacy law applies, creating different procedural expectations. This variability reinforces the importance of understanding how local privacy frameworks intersect with the new Code.
Documentation, consent, and defensibility
Another theme emphasised by Radcliffe-Thatcher and Salter is the growing importance of clear documentation and informed consent. Where psychologists notify clients in advance about how their care and health information will be managed in the event of death or incapacity, this can support lawful secondary use of information and reduce uncertainty during critical periods.
Privacy policies, consent language, and documented contingency plans now play a more central role in demonstrating compliance with both regulatory and legal obligations.
What this signals for private practice
Taken together, the legal considerations identified by Health Law Partners suggest that compliance with the new Code requires psychologists to look beyond individual clinical decisions and consider how their practices function as regulated legal entities.
For many practitioners, particularly those in sole practice, this may prompt a review of contingency arrangements, privacy documentation, and record governance processes to ensure alignment with the expectations now embedded in the regulatory framework.
This article reflects our reading of a legal analysis published by Health Law Partners Pty Ltd and is provided for general information only. It does not constitute legal advice or regulatory guidance. Psychologists should refer directly to official Psychology Board of Australia and AHPRA publications for authoritative requirements, and seek independent legal advice regarding their specific circumstances.