All sexual misconduct-related tribunal findings will now be permanently added to a health practitioner’s registration, even if there are no conditions attached.
AHPRA has begun the process of permanently adding sexual misconduct findings to practitioners’ public records, with more to follow in coming months.
The regulator is working in tranches, with the first round seeing additional information added to the registrations of 107 health practitioners.
Of these 107, around 50 were doctors and 86 were already on the list of cancelled practitioners.
Under laws passed in 2025, AHPRA is now obliged to publicly and permanently publish information on a practitioner’s registration if a tribunal decides that they behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct involving sexual misconduct.
The rules apply even if the misconduct in question was completely unrelated to the practitioner’s working life or if sexual misconduct was not the sole or main basis for the misconduct finding.
The law is also retrospective, meaning that it captures all misconduct findings since AHPRA was set up in 2010.
“Publishing sexual misconduct findings on the public register empowers patients to make informed choices about their care and reinforces that breaches of trust will not be hidden,” AHPRA CEO Justin Untersteiner said.
AHPRA’s guidance splits sexual misconduct into three broad categories: violation of a professional boundary between a practitioner and a patient, violation of a professional boundary between a practitioner and a colleague or patient’s family member and conduct giving rise to a criminal conviction.
By way of example: conducting an intimate physical examination without consent or without clinical indication would fall under the first category; sending unwanted explicit images to a coworker would fall under the second; and a rape conviction would fall under the third.
“Sexual misconduct not only breaches professional and ethical standards, it breaches the trust placed in practitioners by their patients, colleagues and community,” Mr Untersteiner said.
“Any incident can have a lasting and profound impact.”
Related
AMA president Dr Danielle McMullen told The Medical Republic that the association had supported the passage of the legislation and would never condone conduct which breached the trust the community had in medical practitioners.
“However, we made it clear that the use of new powers must be done judiciously, sparingly, and proportionately,” she said.
“The AMA remains concerned that the National Scheme does not do enough to support the wellbeing of health professionals.
“At the inquiry into the amendments we again called on health ministers to mandate that Ahpra has a duty of care to the Registrant and in particular a duty to minimise the mental health impacts and financial effects on the practitioner subject to notification.”
RACGP president Dr Michael Wright said that striking the balance between transparency for community protection and natural justice was a “challenging area”.
“Patients should be able to make an informed choice about which health professionals they consult with, including being able to view a practitioner’s regulatory history,” Dr Wright told TMR.
“Our members support accountability and transparency, though have expressed concerns about retaining information on the public register permanently.
“It may be appropriate to publish information for a set period and then remove it from the register once it expires.”
Where information is added on a practitioner’s registration, it will be in the form of a note stating that the practitioner engaged in professional misconduct including sexual misconduct, list any sanctions imposed as a result and link to a tribunal decision.
Before any notes are added to a practitioner’s registration, AHPRA will get in direct contact, inform them of the proposed decision and give them an opportunity to respond before any information is published.
“Boards will rely only on tribunal findings and reasons,” AHPRA’s guidance read.
“They will not reinvestigate or re-litigate matters.
“Where sexual misconduct is not explicitly stated, Boards may draw a limited and necessary inference that sexual misconduct was a basis for the finding, based on the tribunal’s reasons.”
The notes will be removed if a finding is reversed or overturned, or if the publication would break a court order.
If this article caused distress or if you are prompted to reach out for support, these services are available:
Doctors4doctors crisis support hotline: 1300 374 377
Doctors4doctors online resources
Lifeline: 13 11 14
Beyond Blue: 1300 22 46 36
Due to the sensitive nature of this topic, TMR has closed comments on this story.
