A practical guide to confidentiality, serious risk and mandatory child protection reporting for psychologists in Australian private practice.
In private practice, a risk decision can arise with nobody else in the room. A client says something, the session is nearly over, and you have to work out what you are permitted to disclose, what you are legally required to report, and what clinical response is proportionate.
These are different questions. They may be governed by different sources, including privacy law, state or territory child protection legislation, mental health legislation and the Psychology Board of Australia’s professional standards.
This article explains a practical way to separate those questions. It includes a national summary of mandatory child protection reporting for psychologists and a closer look at Western Australia. It does not cover Ahpra notifications about practitioners or responding to subpoenas in detail. Both involve separate legal tests and deserve their own guidance.
Information current at 28 September 2026. This article provides general information, not legal advice or an emergency protocol. The jurisdictional summary is based primarily on the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) resource sheet published on 21 April 2026 and the legislation versions identified in that resource. Laws, reporting pathways and professional standards change. Check the current legislation and official guidance for your jurisdiction, your practice policies and your professional indemnity insurer before relying on this summary. If someone is in immediate danger, call 000.
Employed psychologists may have a manager, an on-call clinician and an established reporting pathway. Sole practitioners can be left making the same decision without immediate organisational support.
The word reporting also hides several distinct processes. A concern about a suicidal adult, a child disclosing abuse, an adult describing partner violence and a specific threat towards another person are not governed by one universal rule.
Treating them as if they are the same can lead to two opposite errors: disclosing information without a sufficient basis, or missing a legal reporting obligation.
Before deciding what to do, identify which question you are answering.
Privacy law permits disclosure without consent in some defined circumstances. One example is where disclosure is reasonably believed to be necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat and obtaining consent is unreasonable or impracticable.
Permission to disclose is not the same as a requirement to disclose.
Some situations create a legal reporting duty. Child protection legislation is the main example considered here, but the people covered, reportable conduct and thresholds differ across Australia.
Many situations remain uncertain after the initial disclosure. The facts may be incomplete, several legal frameworks may overlap, or the risk may be serious without an obvious reporting pathway.
Seek appropriately de-identified consultation where possible. Be careful not to assume that calling the situation “supervision” automatically permits unlimited disclosure. Consider what the client was told, what they would reasonably expect and whether another legal basis for consultation applies.
A lawful disclosure is not necessarily a breach of confidentiality. Confidentiality is the default, subject to informed consent and defined legal or professional exceptions.
Private health service providers that hold health information are covered by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), including small health businesses. Private providers in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory must also consider applicable state or territory health privacy legislation.
Under section 16A of the Privacy Act, health information may be used or disclosed without consent where:
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner emphasises that inconvenience, time or cost does not automatically make consent impracticable. A practitioner must be able to justify the disclosure.
If disclosure is required or authorised by another Australian law, such as a mandatory child protection report, the Privacy Act also permits that disclosure. Only the information necessary for the purpose should be shared.
The Psychology Board of Australia’s Code of conduct has been the regulatory code for psychologists since 1 December 2025. It replaced the APS Code of Ethics as the profession’s regulatory framework. APS professional practice guidance may still be useful, but it should not be described as the current regulatory code.
Ordinary private practice does not have one nationwide mandatory reporting scheme for adult suicide risk. The relevant considerations may instead include privacy law, duty of care, professional standards, local emergency pathways and the mental health legislation in the state or territory where the client is located.
A clinically useful response is not simply a total score or a declaration that someone is “low”, “medium” or “high” risk. It involves understanding the current situation, including:
Where possible, work collaboratively and seek the client’s consent before involving other people. If the threat is serious and consent cannot safely or practicably be obtained, consider whether disclosure is legally permitted and what response is necessary and proportionate. Know the crisis and mental health pathways that apply where the client is physically located, particularly when providing telehealth across state borders.
Do not import American Tarasoff shorthand into Australian practice as if it creates one nationwide “duty to warn”. Australian decisions require attention to the applicable privacy law, other statutory duties, the common law and the particular facts.
The clinical assessment should clarify:
A non-specific expression of anger is not equivalent to a specific plan with intent, opportunity and access to means. If a serious threat may exist, obtain urgent clinical and indemnity or legal advice where time permits. In an emergency, contact emergency services.
An adult client choosing to remain in an abusive relationship does not, by itself, create a universal duty for psychologists to report the relationship. Adult autonomy remains important.
The clinical response may include:
Leaving is not automatically the safest immediate step. Separation can increase danger in some circumstances. Avoid presenting it as a simple test of whether the client is willing to protect themselves. The coercive control guide explores these patterns and post-separation risks in more detail.
Some jurisdictions have family violence information-sharing schemes. Whether a private psychologist is a prescribed or authorised participant, and what may be shared, depends on the scheme and the practitioner’s role. Check the current rules before disclosing.
Exposure to family violence is treated differently across Australian child protection laws.
The AIFS national summary identifies exposure to family violence as a reportable category under the child protection reporting duties in New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Tasmania. In other jurisdictions, exposure may still satisfy a broader definition of harm, abuse or neglect, trigger a different statutory duty, or justify a voluntary child wellbeing report.
This is why “children were present” should prompt further assessment rather than an automatic national answer. Consider what the child experienced, the effect or likely effect on the child, immediate safety, the applicable statutory threshold and any other reporting role the psychologist holds.
The following table summarises the principal child protection reporting duty relevant to psychologists. It cannot capture every exception, role-specific duty or criminal offence. A psychologist may also be covered because they work in a school, approved service, government agency or another prescribed role.
| Jurisdiction | Is a psychologist covered in that professional role? | Principal child protection duty summarised | Threshold and recipient |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACT | Yes | Sexual abuse or non-accidental physical injury | Belief on reasonable grounds; report to the director-general as soon as practicable |
| NSW | Yes, including a registered psychologist providing a professional service | A child at risk of significant harm, including physical or sexual abuse, psychological harm, neglect and qualifying domestic violence exposure | Reasonable grounds to suspect; report to the Secretary as soon as practicable |
| NT | Yes, because the general duty applies to any person; health practitioners also have an additional sexual-offence provision | Harm or exploitation, including physical, sexual and psychological harm, neglect and exposure to domestic or family violence | Belief on reasonable grounds; report to the department’s CEO or police as soon as possible |
| Queensland | Not solely because the person is a psychologist under the general professional list | Listed reporters must report specified physical or sexual abuse where the statutory conditions are met; other role-specific and criminal-law duties may still apply | The threshold and recipient depend on the role and provision |
| South Australia | Yes | A child or young person is or may be at risk, including physical, sexual, mental or emotional abuse and neglect | Suspicion on reasonable grounds; report through the Child Abuse Report Line or approved electronic pathway as soon as reasonably practicable |
| Tasmania | Yes | Abuse or neglect, including sexual, physical and emotional abuse, neglect and a child affected by family violence | Belief or suspicion on reasonable grounds; report to the Secretary or Community-Based Intake Service as soon as practicable |
| Victoria | Yes | Significant harm from physical injury or sexual abuse where the parents have not protected, or are unlikely to protect, the child | Belief on reasonable grounds; report to the Secretary as soon as practicable and when further grounds arise |
| Western Australia | Yes | Child sexual abuse that occurred on or after the reporter group’s commencement date or remains ongoing | Belief on reasonable grounds formed in the course of paid or unpaid work; report to the Department of Communities as soon as practicable |
The current AIFS resource identifies several further points:
The Queensland Department of Families’ current mandatory-reporting guidance lists teachers, doctors, registered nurses, specified police officers, child advocates and early childhood education and care professionals. It does not list psychologists solely by profession. A psychologist may still be captured through another role, such as employment in a school or prescribed service.
Queensland also has a criminal-law duty applying to adults in relation to child sexual offences. Organisational policies or contractual requirements may create additional expectations. These obligations should not be confused with the narrower question of whether psychologists are named as mandatory reporters under the Child Protection Act 1999.
AIFS identifies criminal-law reporting duties concerning known child sexual offences in the ACT, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria. New South Wales also includes specified physical abuse, while Tasmania includes some serious physical assault, neglect and ill-treatment offences.
These duties are separate from the child protection provisions summarised above and ordinarily involve reporting to police. Their elements, exceptions and penalties differ. Check the current criminal law before applying them to a particular disclosure.
Section 67ZA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) creates reporting duties for specified people performing family-law functions, including family counsellors, family consultants, family dispute resolution practitioners and recognised family report writers. Section 160 of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) contains a related WA duty.
These duties may cover assault, sexual abuse, serious psychological harm caused by exposure to family violence, and serious neglect. Merely being a psychologist does not mean every psychologist is performing one of these statutory family-law roles.
Psychologists became mandatory reporters of child sexual abuse in WA on 1 May 2024. The Department of Communities information sheet for psychologists confirms that the duty applies in private practice and to paid and unpaid psychology work.
The Act defines a psychologist as a person registered in the psychology profession under the National Law in WA, other than as a student. The definition is not limited to psychologists holding general registration, so provisional psychologists should ensure they understand the reporting duty.
A psychologist must report when they:
The report must be made as soon as practicable to the Mandatory Reporting Service. An oral report must be followed by a written report as soon as practicable, ideally within 24 hours according to the Department’s guidance. Failing to provide the required written report after an oral report carries a separate maximum penalty of $3,000.
Failure to make the required report carries a maximum penalty of $6,000. The information sheet identifies a defence where the psychologist honestly and reasonably believed a report had already been made or that Communities had already made inquiries or taken action concerning the child’s wellbeing.
Section 129(2) also protects a mandatory reporter who makes a report in good faith. According to the Department’s information sheet, the reporter does not incur civil or criminal liability, is not taken to have breached confidentiality and is taken not to have breached professional conduct principles. This is an important distinction: a report made through the statutory process in good faith is not treated as an unethical breach of client confidentiality.
WA’s mandatory duty for psychologists is limited to child sexual abuse. However, the Department states that psychologists concerned about physical or emotional abuse, neglect or exposure to family and domestic violence can and should notify Communities through the child protection concern pathway.
WA has published specific guidance on historical abuse. The mandatory duty introduced for psychologists is intended to protect children from sexual abuse occurring now. It applies where the belief is formed on or after 1 May 2024 and relates to abuse that occurred on or after that date or remains ongoing.
An adult’s disclosure of sexual abuse experienced before 1 May 2024 is therefore not automatically a mandatory report under this provision. The Department advises that:
Do not turn an adult survivor’s disclosure into a report without first identifying the legal basis, present risk to children and the survivor’s wishes. Other jurisdictions use different statutory wording, so the WA commencement rule should not be generalised nationally.
A checklist cannot decide whether a report or disclosure is legally required. It can help make the reasoning visible.
The purpose is not to create a defensible note after the fact. It is to slow down a decision that fear, urgency or uncertainty might otherwise distort.
Explain confidentiality and its limits at the beginning of the service in language the client can understand. Cover:
Consent should remain an ongoing conversation rather than a signed form that is never revisited.
When a disclosure approaches a possible reporting threshold, it may be appropriate to pause and remind the client of the limits before seeking unnecessary detail. Avoid making this sound like a threat. If action is required, explain what will be shared, with whom and why, unless doing so would increase risk or conflict with the law.
Record the information needed to understand the decision later:
Document uncertainty honestly. Avoid overstating conclusions that the available information does not support. For a broader structure for recording risk, reasoning and follow-up, see the psychology progress notes guide.
A private practice risk procedure should identify:
The first time a practitioner reads the reporting legislation should not be during the final minutes of a high-risk appointment. Practices can also browse clinical documentation resources when reviewing their risk and disclosure procedures.
Obtain advice promptly, and before disclosing where time and safety permit, when:
Possible sources include the relevant child protection intake service, a supervisor, an experienced colleague, the practice’s professional indemnity advice line and an appropriately qualified lawyer. The Psychology Board publishes professional standards but does not provide individual legal advice.
Mandatory notifications about registered practitioners operate under the National Law and are separate from client-risk reporting. They have defined notification grounds and thresholds. Treating practitioners in Western Australia are exempt from the requirement to make a mandatory notification about a practitioner-patient, although other professional, employer or voluntary notification considerations may remain.
A request from a solicitor, a client authority, a subpoena and a court order are not interchangeable. A subpoena may be challengeable, and it does not always require production of every document held. Seek advice from the issuing court, indemnity insurer or a lawyer rather than releasing an entire clinical file automatically.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Reporting laws and professional standards change and may apply differently according to the practitioner’s role, the client’s location and the facts. Verify current legislation, official reporting guidance, organisational policy and indemnity advice before relying on it.
Share your thoughts and experiences with this resource.
Sign in to leave a comment
Move from strategy into implementation with templates, handouts, and psychoeducation tools already live on the marketplace.
Publish clinician-grade templates, build trust signals, and start growing an evergreen library under your own brand.
How ethical fading, workplace culture and gradual normalisation can weaken psychological practice—and how practitioners, supervisors and organisations can respond.
A practical guide to separating useful professional uncertainty from global self-doubt, perfectionism and shame in therapy work.
Clinical mistakes are not all equivalent. Learn how alliance rupture research can guide proportionate accountability, repair, supervision and safer psychology practice.
