The playbook
Six steps we keep seeing
Nobody has published this playbook. It's the pattern we think we keep seeing across reforms. No single reform shows every step, and we don't claim anyone planned it. You be the judge.
Name an urgent problem
Workforce shortages and access are real concerns. Our question is whether the evidence shows the proposed fix would solve them.
Example: Australia's review was launched "to boost access to psychologists", "aiming to reduce workforce shortages". Psychology Board of Australia
The rulebook says Identify the problem before the solution
Move fast
Big changes can come with short consultation windows.
Example: New Zealand's consultation on overhauling health workforce regulation ran from 28 March to 30 April 2025. Consultation summary
The rulebook says Quantify and qualify the risks
Consult on one big model
The main proposal arrives largely formed, so the debate becomes about adjusting it.
Example: Australia's April 2026 paper proposed removing the internship year and, for domestic graduates, the national exam. The APS says the paper "does not provide a competency mapping analysis". Psychology Board of Australia · APS submission
The rulebook says Focus on the outcome
Treat objections as self-interest
Professions do have interests, and we say so. But an interest does not answer the evidence.
Example: New Zealand's Cabinet paper said profession-focused regulation encourages "patch protection". At a Senate committee, Ahpra's CEO referred to "pockets of acute noise", adding "that's really important for us to address". Cabinet paper
The rulebook says Get as close to the problem as possible
Give ground on the edges
A concession arrives while the core proposal stands.
Example: In September 2026, Australia's Psychology Board said it would recommend the five-year degree but drop the psychology-assistant role from this reform. Psychology Board of Australia
The rulebook says Understand the consequences
Lock it in
The change becomes permanent before the results are published.
Example: NSW and Queensland made pharmacy schemes permanent before their evaluations were published. NSW Health · Queensland Government
The rulebook says Review, evaluate impact and respond to change
The test for any reform
What's the problem? Where's the evidence of risk? How will we know if it worked?
Is this playbook in the right-touch documents?
No. "The rulebook" above is right-touch regulation's own eight-step guide (PSA, 2025). It contains no step like these. Its warning runs the other way: regulators "must not just manage crises of the past".
The closest thing we have found is step 4. A 2018 PSA collection includes a chapter by an Ontario veterinary regulator describing right-touch as "a wonderful tool to help a council with mid-course corrections on topics potentially fuelled by professional self-interest" (PSA, 2018, p. 31). Harry Cayton's British Columbia report sorted some dentists' consultation responses under the heading "To professional self-interest" (Cayton report, para 5.11).
That shows the idea that professions resist change out of self-interest has a place in this literature. It does not show a plan.