The revised AHPRA registration standard is now in force and introduces cultural safety considerations and clearer guidance. See what else has changed.
Health practitioners with a criminal history will now be assessed under a revised national registration standard that took effect this week.
The new standard places greater emphasis on cultural context, clarifies how offences are evaluated and introduces new explanatory guidance, while leaving the underlying public safety test unchanged.
The updated Criminal History Registration Standard applies across all 16 regulated health professions overseen by AHPRA and the National Boards.
According to AHPRA, the revisions are intended to ensure the standard remains evidence-based, reflects contemporary regulatory practice and has only minimal impact on most practitioners.
The most significant change is the explicit recognition that racism and systemic inequity experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may be relevant when considering an individual’s criminal history.
The new standard requires National Boards to consider these factors alongside the existing public protection assessment, marking the first time cultural safety considerations have been formally incorporated into the criminal history decision-making framework.
Another notable change is a clearer distinction between the nature of an offence and its gravity.
Under the previous standard, these concepts were considered together. The revised version separates them, recognising that an offence classified by the criminal justice system as relatively minor may nevertheless raise concerns if the underlying conduct is particularly relevant to healthcare practice.
For the first time, the standard is accompanied by a standalone Guide to the Application of the Criminal History Registration Standard. While the previous framework relied largely on the standard itself and FAQs, the new guide provides additional explanation of how Boards assess criminal history, with the aim of improving transparency and consistency in decision-making. This guide offers a range of case study style examples that helps put the standard in context.
National Boards have also published a series of information guides for applicants, students, practitioners and the public to help explain the revised standard.
“S’s criminal history includes convictions for several offences under public health regulations related to S’s failure to act and allowing a septic system to run into a water catchment on a rural property. S paid a minor fine as a result of the conviction, indicating that the criminal justice system did not consider the offending to be serious. However, a National Board may consider that the nature of S’s criminal history demonstrates a disregard for public health and safety that may pose a potential risk to people receiving care and could also undermine public confidence in the safe practice of the registered health profession and the criminal history is inconsistent with suitability for registration,” it says.
Conversely, a more serious offence may be less relevant if it has little bearing on a practitioner’s ability to provide safe care.
“A’s criminal history is one charge of criminal damage related to an incident when A had just turned 18 years old and defaced the fence of the local pub with graffiti during a night out celebrating. The National Board may consider that A’s criminal history involves minor offending that did not place the public at risk and that will not undermine the public’s confidence in the safe practice of the health profession, and therefore the criminal history is not inconsistent with suitability for registration,” shows another example.
Related
The revised standard also makes explicit that a practitioner cannot have a criminal history that is incompatible with registration, wording that was previously implicit in the regulatory framework rather than clearly stated within the standard itself.
“L’s criminal history includes charges related to non-fatal strangulation and possession of a controlled weapon. The charges arose after an argument between L and their former partner, which became physical. When the charges were heard by the court L’s defence solicitor noted that the victim, L’s ex-partner had not been cooperative and did not wish the proceedings to continue and L’s defence made a submission that the impact of a term of imprisonment would significantly impact on L who had lost their job because of the proceedings and was attempting to support their family by starting a small business. The court recorded a conviction against L and fined L $2500. Even though L was not sentenced to imprisonment and received only a fine, the National Board may be concerned that the nature of this criminal history indicates a potential risk to people receiving care and could also undermine public confidence in the safe practice of registered health practitioners and the criminal history is inconsistent with suitability for registration.”
Other amendments are largely structural. The revised document includes a definitions section, clarifies that serious juvenile offending may be relevant in some circumstances, explains how decriminalised offences are treated and makes clearer how the standard applies to students as well as registered practitioners. It also removes duplication and simplifies language throughout.
Importantly, the obligations on practitioners have not changed.
Applicants for registration must continue to declare their criminal history in Australia and overseas, while registered practitioners remain required to notify their National Board if they are charged with an offence punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment or more, or convicted or found guilty of an offence punishable by imprisonment in Australia or overseas. Any changes must still be disclosed when registration is renewed.
The overarching test also remains the same: National Boards assess whether a practitioner’s criminal history is relevant to safe practice, balancing public protection with fairness to applicants and registrants.
Decisions continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as the circumstances of the offence, the time elapsed, evidence of rehabilitation and the practitioner’s behaviour since the offence occurred.
The revised standard followed two rounds of public consultation and approval by Australia’s health ministers as part of a scheduled review of the common registration standard used across all National Boards.
