This article presents the authors' response to a comment made by O'Kearney and Wilmoth on their article. The authors mention that O'Kearney and Wilmoth's rejoinder contained many positive features and supported the common aim of delivering best practice, improved access and equity, and cost efficiency in psychological therapies. They added that it was particularly encouraging to read their observation that a "preoccupation with within-profession distinctions is counterproductive." Nevertheless, two areas require clarification. The first is the difference between the psychological therapies and the focused psychological strategies described in the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS). O'Kearney and Wilmoth maintain that these items are different types of services, with the psychological therapies requiring "more independent clinical decision making" and "more expertise." If this is the case, it is not expressed in the MBS. The other difficulty in the O'Kearney and Wilmoth paper concerns international standards of training. There is clearly an argument for making Australian standards of training compatible with those in other countries, but this is a separate issue to the one highlighted in the Medicare context. The two-tier Medicare system does not differentiate between university-trained and industry-trained psychologists, as singled out by O'Kearney and Wilmoth. Rather, it separates those psychologists eligible for membership of the Clinical College of the Australian Psychological Society (APS) from all other registered psychologists, including those that are members of the other eight specialist colleges of the APS. The authors conclude that it is an exciting time for psychology in Australia and, to ensure that they do not look back on this period as an opportunity lost, it is imperative that they move forward in an atmosphere of collaborative openness and transparency.