AI Ethics for Psychologists in Australia (2026)

The use of AI in psychology practice raises ethical questions that go beyond the technical capabilities of the tools themselves. For Australian psychologists, the ethical framework that governs practice — the Australian Psychological Society's Code of Ethics, the Psychology Board of Australia's standards, and the Privacy Act 1988 — provides the foundation for thinking through these questions. But applying that framework to AI requires careful consideration of how AI tools work, what risks they introduce, and what obligations psychologists have to their clients.

This article covers the key ethical considerations for Australian psychologists using AI in 2026.

Client Confidentiality

Confidentiality is the cornerstone of the therapeutic relationship. Clients share sensitive, personal information with their psychologist in the expectation that it will be kept confidential. The Australian Psychological Society's Code of Ethics and the Psychology Board of Australia's standards impose strict obligations on psychologists to protect client confidentiality.

AI tools introduce new confidentiality risks. When a psychologist enters client information into a public AI tool like ChatGPT, that information may be used to train the AI model, stored on servers outside Australia, or accessed by the AI provider's staff. Even if the information is not explicitly shared, the act of entering it into a public AI tool may constitute a breach of confidentiality.

The ethical obligation is clear: never enter client-identifying information into a public AI tool. This includes names, dates of birth, Medicare numbers, clinical details, and any other information that could identify a client. Use AI tools only for tasks that don't involve client data, or use only tools that have been assessed for use with sensitive health information and that comply with Australian privacy legislation.

Informed Consent

Informed consent is a fundamental ethical principle in psychology. Clients have a right to know how their information will be used, including whether AI tools will be used in their care. The APS Code of Ethics requires psychologists to obtain informed consent before providing psychological services, and to provide clients with information that is relevant to their decision to consent.

Whether and how to disclose AI use to clients is a question that requires professional judgement. At minimum, psychologists should consider: whether AI tools are being used to process client information; whether clients would reasonably want to know about this; and whether disclosure is required by the APS Code of Ethics or the Psychology Board's standards.

The APS has published guidance on informed consent that provides a framework for this. Psychologists should review this guidance and consider how it applies to their use of AI tools.

Professional Accountability

The psychologist remains accountable for all clinical decisions and documentation, regardless of whether AI tools assisted in producing them. If AI-generated documentation contains an error and the psychologist signs off on it without reviewing it, the professional responsibility is theirs. If an AI tool provides clinical information that the psychologist acts on without verifying, the professional responsibility is theirs.

This accountability cannot be delegated to an AI tool. AI tools are decision support — they do not have professional registration, they cannot be held accountable under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, and they cannot be sanctioned by the Psychology Board of Australia. The psychologist is always the accountable professional.

Competence

The APS Code of Ethics requires psychologists to practise within their areas of competence. Using AI tools in psychology practice requires a form of competence — understanding what the tools can and cannot do, how to use them appropriately, and how to review and take responsibility for their outputs.

Psychologists who use AI tools without understanding their capabilities and limitations are not meeting their competence obligations. This means investing time in learning about AI tools, understanding their limitations, and developing the skills to use them effectively and safely.

Non-Maleficence

The ethical principle of non-maleficence — do no harm — applies to the use of AI tools in psychology practice. AI tools can cause harm if they produce inaccurate clinical information that influences treatment decisions, if they breach client confidentiality, or if they are used in ways that undermine the therapeutic relationship.

Psychologists must consider the potential harms of AI use and take steps to mitigate them. This includes reviewing AI outputs critically, maintaining client confidentiality, being transparent with clients about AI use, and using AI tools only for appropriate tasks.

The Therapeutic Relationship

The therapeutic relationship is the foundation of effective psychological treatment. AI tools cannot replicate the empathy, attunement, and relational skills that characterise effective therapy. Psychologists who use AI tools in ways that undermine the therapeutic relationship — for example, by spending session time interacting with AI tools rather than with the client — are not meeting their professional obligations.

AI tools should be used to support the therapeutic relationship, not to replace or undermine it. The most appropriate uses of AI in psychology practice are those that reduce administrative burden, freeing the psychologist to spend more time on the relational work that matters most.