Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill makes the second major stage of reforms to Australia's national law governing the registration and regulation of health practitioners across 16 professions. It strengthens protections for patients by giving regulators new powers to act against dangerous practitioners, improves information sharing between regulators and employers, and introduces a new objective for cultural safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
Who it affects
All Queenslanders who use health services benefit from stronger public safety protections. Over 800,000 registered health practitioners nationally are affected by new reporting obligations and higher penalties. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples gain explicit recognition in the law's objectives for culturally safe healthcare.
Key changes
- Regulators can issue interim prohibition orders to stop unregistered practitioners who pose a serious risk from providing health services, with penalties of up to $60,000 or 3 years imprisonment for breaching an order
- Regulators can issue public statements warning the community about practitioners whose conduct poses a serious risk during investigations or disciplinary proceedings
- National Boards can withdraw a practitioner's registration if it was obtained through false or misleading information
- Health practitioners must report drug-related charges and convictions (scheduled medicine offences) to their National Board
- Cultural safety for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples becomes an explicit objective of the National Scheme, including the elimination of racism in health services
- Maximum penalties for misleading health service advertising increase from $5,000 to $60,000 for individuals, and testimonials are no longer automatically banned
- Regulators can share information about serious risks with current and former employers before formal disciplinary action is taken
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading
▸22 members spoke12 support3 oppose7 mixed
Argued the bill gives the government excessive power to control the medical narrative and intervene in doctor-patient relationships, particularly in the wake of COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
“If this bill is passed, there will be absolutely no way a patient can have confidence that their doctor is providing the best advice based on their medical history or individual circumstances.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
As Minister for Health, moved the second reading and outlined the bill's reforms to strengthen public safety, including new powers for regulators to issue public statements and interim prohibition orders. Announced amendments to retain the ban on testimonial advertising following stakeholder concerns.
“The central aim of the bill is to strengthen public safety and confidence in health services provided by registered health practitioners.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
Supported the bill's paramount principle of public safety and confidence, and emphasised the importance of culturally safe health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
“It is very clear: we would not have had the success we had in Queensland if we did not back our medical professionals and make sure that that confidence in the public was strong.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
As shadow minister for health, stated the LNP would not oppose the bill overall but would vote against clauses 20 and 100-102 on natural justice grounds. Argued that public statements about practitioners should not be issued before investigations are completed, citing the risk of damage from vexatious complaints.
“The opposition's primary concern is that the bill as it stands will allow for a public statement to be issued against a practitioner prior to a proper investigation being completed into the alleged misconduct of the practitioner.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
Recognised the importance of regulation but raised concerns about natural justice being subverted by public statements before investigations are completed, and opposed the removal of the ban on testimonial advertising.
“Whilst we acknowledge that the bill is hinged to nationally agreed laws, sections surrounding natural justice and testimonial advertising must be reconsidered.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
As committee chair, supported the bill and defended the public statement powers as having a high threshold with appropriate safeguards including show cause processes and appeal rights. Thanked the minister for withdrawing the testimonial advertising provisions.
“The committee considers that the powers are appropriate and will assist Ahpra, the national boards and the Health Ombudsman in protecting and promoting the health and safety of the public.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
Supported the bill as strengthening public safety through reforms to registration, interim prohibition orders and public statement powers, noting the safeguards of show cause and appeal processes.
“This new framework, this national law, is going to help protect the medical profession and the allied health professions that we rely on so heavily.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
Supported the need for a robust health practitioner regulation system but raised concerns about the balance between public safety powers and natural justice for practitioners. Welcomed the retention of the prohibition on testimonial advertising.
“Having a robust system in place is important, but equally important is natural justice.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
Drawing on her experience as a disciplinary prosecutor at the Office of the Health Ombudsman, she supported regulating the small minority of practitioners who do wrong but opposed the public statement clause as potentially harming practitioners before complaints are properly investigated.
“Once the public statement is made, the practitioner's reputation is damaged permanently and there is no removing that from the internet. There is no removing that from a Google search.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
Supported the bill as sensible amendments to strengthen public safety and thanked stakeholders for engaging in the committee process. Welcomed the minister's decision to withdraw the testimonial advertising provisions.
“These are sensible amendments to strengthen public safety and confidence in the provision of health services, improve the governance of the national registration and accreditation scheme for the health profession under the national scheme, and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the national scheme.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
Supported the bill as enhancing consumer trust and confidence in health services through tighter regulations and consistent national professional standards.
“The public has a right to feel safe when putting their life in the hands of health professions from whom we expect to receive nothing less than good quality health care.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
Strongly opposed the bill, arguing it grants Ahpra virtually unlimited and coercive powers without adequate checks and balances. Claimed the bill would suppress medical dissent, undermine the doctor-patient relationship, and breach practitioners' human and civil rights.
“Ahpra must not be given the last word on what 'truth' in medicine is, or what actions are necessary to safeguard public trust.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
Stated the opposition would not oppose the bill as a whole but raised concerns about natural justice from public statements before investigations, and the potential harm of removing testimonial advertising bans given Ahpra's limited enforcement capacity.
“Ahpra and the related regulatory bodies barely regulate the current rules on advertising, so removing the ban would have made it more of a free-for-all and it is clear that a lack of resourcing to enforce the current regulations is a massive issue.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
Strongly supported the bill, defending the paramountcy of public safety and confidence. Argued the public statement powers have careful checks and balances and criticised the LNP for double standards on naming practitioners before investigations conclude.
“If a practitioner presents an unacceptable risk to public safety, such as by committing, for example, a serious boundary violation or being drug impacted in the course of their practice, or otherwise practising unsafely, the balance must land with public safety.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
Supported the bill, particularly the new cultural safety guiding principle for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and highlighted the importance of Indigenous liaison workers in hospitals.
“As part of the national commitment to improve health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and close the gap, the bill introduces a new guiding principle and objective which aims to support the delivery of culturally appropriate and high-quality health services.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
Recognised the importance of high professional standards but shared the LNP's concern that public statements could damage practitioners before comprehensive investigations are finalised. Welcomed the retention of the testimonial advertising prohibition.
“A cornerstone of our legal system is the principle of innocence until proven guilty. We are very concerned that a public statement could damage a doctor before a comprehensive investigation has been conducted and finalised.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
Opposed the bill on grounds it would enhance Ahpra's powers excessively, allow political influence over medical practice, and damage doctor-patient relationships, particularly in regional Queensland.
“The KAP will be opposing the passage of this legislation through the House.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
Supported the bill and discussed the importance of properly regulating testimonials in health service advertising, particularly in the cosmetic surgery sector. Expressed concern about the influence of social media on body image and cosmetic surgery decisions.
“It is vital that those testimonials are properly regulated—as well as looking to other forms of public feedback.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
Supported the bill as a step forward for public safety and investment in frontline health workers, criticising the LNP's record on health workforce issues.
“On this side of the House we are not interested in talking down our communities, our health workers or our health facilities.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
As a specialist physician and former AMA Queensland president, supported high professional standards but shared the LNP's concern about the subversion of natural justice through clauses allowing public statements before investigations are completed. Cited AMA Queensland's submission on risks of irreparable reputational damage.
“The revocation of such a statement will not undo the professional, reputational and emotional damage to an individual health practitioner. In effect, the damage could already be done under those circumstances.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
In her reply as Minister for Health, defended the bill's public statement powers as narrowly tailored with strict safeguards, clarified the paramount principle applies to regulators not individual practitioners, and announced withdrawal of testimonial advertising provisions.
“The purpose of empowering regulators to make public statements is not to name and shame practitioners. It is not to be used as a punitive or disciplinary measure. Rather, this power will be available in a very small number of cases where there is a need to immediately warn the public.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
As a registered nurse of 31 years, supported the bill as important for keeping patients safe. Welcomed the inclusion of cultural safety provisions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and defended Ahpra's role in maintaining professional standards.
“Ahpra is not given the last word on medical truth: professionals are given that word and professionals play a role in developing those standards. The regulation body plays a role in making sure that when professionals step outside those boundaries either unintentionally or intentionally there is a mechanism there to protect the public.”— 2022-10-12View Hansard
▸In Detail
Amendment to clause 2 (Commencement) removing reference to section 85(1) and (4), consequential to the withdrawal of testimonial advertising provisions.
Amendments 2 and 3 to clause 85, withdrawing the provisions that would have allowed testimonial advertising in health service advertising, in line with health ministers' agreement to address testimonials in the context of broader cosmetic surgery regulation reforms.
As shadow health minister, opposed clauses 20 and 100 allowing public statements before investigations are completed, citing the failure of existing patient safety frameworks such as the Dr William Braun case, but did not oppose the bill as a whole.
“Let's get the priorities right and have the system working properly as it stands before embarking on changes like we see in this clause.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
Opposed clause 20, arguing it provides egregious powers to unaccountable bureaucrats to interfere in doctor-patient relationships, speaking on behalf of respected medical practitioners in his electorate who raised reasonable concerns.
“They are respected medicos in my community, some of whom have been practising for decades, who have said to me that these constraints provide egregious powers to those who are effectively unaccountable for their exercise.”— 2022-10-13View Hansard
Assent date: 21 October 2022