The National Boards refer allegations of professional misconduct to tribunals in each state and territory. Only a tribunal can cancel a practitioner’s registration, disqualify a person from applying for registration for a time, prohibit a person from using a specified title or prohibit them from providing a specified health service.

One tribunal matter can include multiple notifications about the same practitioner. There may have been multiple complaints about the same or similar misconduct, or multiple complaints relating to different concerns about the same practitioner, which can all be included in the one tribunal referral.

There were 395 practitioners with open referral matters in tribunals at 30 June, compared with 392 practitioners last year. The National Boards referred fewer practitioners to a tribunal, with 196 practitioners referred this year, compared with 235 last year.

During the year, matters about 229 notifications (involving 199 practitioners) were closed after referral to a tribunal. Of these: 

• Matters about 219 notifications (involving 190 practitioners) were decided by a tribunal. 
• Matters about 10 notifications were withdrawn or did not proceed to a tribunal: Two of these matters did not proceed because the practitioner was deceased. 
  • Two did not proceed due to practitioner ill health. 
  • Two did not proceed due to evidentiary issues that arose during proceedings; namely, crucial witnesses were unable to give evidence in the tribunal proceedings. 
  • Four were referred by the Board and then the decision to refer was repealed prior to a referral being filed in the tribunal. 
• 94.3% resulted in disciplinary action. 

The National Boards continue to appropriately identify the thresholds for referring a matter to a tribunal to protect the public.

Tribunal decisions 

Matters included findings of professional misconduct involving: 

• convictions for family violence offences and other serious criminal offences including sexual assault and drug offences 
• sexual boundary breaches and other general boundary breaches, such as inappropriate relationships with patients and/or former patients 
• sexual harassment of colleagues and patients 
• failing to obtain informed consent for intimate examinations 
• misappropriating medications, falsifying prescriptions, and inappropriate and/or improper prescribing and dispensing
• inadequate clinical management and/or medical mismanagement, and/or providing treatment that was not clinically justified or evidence based 
• failing to hold or maintain appropriate professional indemnity insurance 
• use of unreasonable or excessive force in an aged care setting 
• provision of false and misleading information to the Board and/or Ahpra 
• interference with the evidence of a witness 
• failing to maintain client confidentiality and/or inappropriate access to health records. 

Significant periods of disqualification were imposed in some matters, including in matters involving: 

• sex offences against a child (convictions) (20 years) 
• sexual offending in relation to two patients (convictions) (10 years) 
• a volunteer doctor at a football club who inappropriately touched the genitals of three young male players under the guise of providing massage treatment (convictions) (10 years) 
• holding out employees as being registered health practitioners when they were not and directing employees to provide health services when they knew or ought to have known the employees did not hold registration (convictions) (7 years) 
• multiple dishonesty and drug convictions (5 years). 

We include links to published adverse tribunal (disciplinary) decisions and court outcomes in the Register of practitioners, unless the name of the practitioner has been suppressed by the court or tribunal. 

When a court or tribunal cancels a practitioner’s registration or disqualifies them from applying for registration, using a specified title or providing a specified health service, this is recorded in the Register of cancelled practitioners. 

When a tribunal reprimands, suspends or places conditions on the registration of a practitioner, this is recorded in the Register of practitioners. 

Changes to the way we publish information about tribunal decisions 

Ahpra and the National Boards publish information about tribunal decisions involving registered practitioners on the Ahpra website. 

We do this to meet our obligations in the National Law to publish a record of decisions and to educate health practitioners, students and the public about regulatory outcomes. 

At the start of 2025, we changed the way we publish information about tribunal decisions to make it more timely and more effective as an educational tool. 

We have replaced full news items for each tribunal decision with a wide range of case studies. These cover the full breadth of possible notification outcomes, which can range from no further action or a caution, through to conditions being applied or tribunal referrals. 

A record of each tribunal decision is published in a table on a dedicated notifications outcomes webpage. We still publish full news items in cases that we consider to be of public interest. 

The new approach provides better opportunities for education and understanding about the notifications process for both practitioners and the public, by giving a more accurate and balanced view of the likely outcomes. 

This may also contribute to reducing practitioner distress associated with prominent and permanent publication of news stories about tribunal decisions.

First public statement 

We issued our first ever public statement in June, naming a suspended practitioner in the interests of public safety. 

Amendments to the National Law made in 2023 allow Ahpra and the National Boards to make a public statement in certain circumstances where it is reasonably believed the person poses a serious risk and it is necessary to issue a public statement to protect public health or safety. 

The practitioner concerned had been suspended from practising in February. An investigation revealed that he may have been continuing to present himself as a registered practitioner despite being suspended. After a full natural justice process, a public statement was made warning the public that the practitioner was not registered and encouraging anyone with relevant information to contact Ahpra’s Criminal Offences Unit.

Panels are established by the Boards and include members from the community and the relevant health profession. Health panels must include a medical practitioner. 

Matters involving three practitioners were decided by panels, resulting in regulatory action against each of these practitioners.

There were 90 appeals lodged about decisions made by the National Boards (see Table 27). 

• This was lower than in 2023/24, when there were 111 lodged. 
• The majority were from professions that have a higher number of regulatory decisions, such as medical practitioners (56) and nurses (12). 
• 101 were finalised. 
• 57 were not yet decided at 30 June.

One way we ensure access to safe, professional healthcare is to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute people alleged to have committed criminal offences. All complaints and information received about alleged offences are assessed to determine the risk to the public and the response necessary to protect the public. We focus resources on alleged offences that present the highest risk to public health or safety, or that undermine trust and confidence in the National Scheme. 

These offences include: 

• unlawful use of protected titles 
• unlawful claims that a person is a health practitioner 
• performing a restricted act 
• unlawful advertising. 

Only registered practitioners can use protected titles for their profession. It is also an offence to falsely claim to be qualified to practise in a health profession or hold yourself out as a registered health practitioner. 

Prosecutions can be necessary to maintain the public’s trust and confidence in the National Scheme, and deter non-compliance. In most cases we take an educative approach to achieve compliance quickly. Penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment and/or a $60,000 fine can be imposed on individuals who commit these offences, and a fine of up to $120,000 for companies. 

During the year: 

• 474 criminal offence complaints were received, a 13.3% decrease on the number of complaints received last year (see Table 29) 
  • 74.1% related to alleged unlawful use of title and unlawful claims to registration. 
• 416 criminal offence complaints were considered and closed 
• 356 open criminal offence complaints were still under review at 30 June 
• 107 new complaints about advertising were considered. Most related to the advertising of corporate entities or unregistered persons, a 23.6% decrease on the number of matters considered last year 
• 77 advertising complaints were closed. 

Criminal prosecutions 

Ahpra successfully prosecuted several people found to have committed criminal offences (see Table 30), including: 

• ‘fake’ practitioners with no relevant formal qualifications, who held themselves out to patients and employers as registered practitioners 
• practitioners who continued to practise after their registration was suspended by tribunals or a National Board 
• practitioners who continued to practise after surrendering their registration 
• practitioners who continued to practise after they failed to renew their registration, even after they realised they were not registered 
• a company which failed to comply with a compulsory notice to produce information 
• a person who obstructed an inspector executing a search warrant. 

Significant prosecutions like these demonstrate the importance of criminal offence provisions for the protection of the public. 

Outcomes show that Ahpra continues to identify appropriate thresholds for referring offence complaints for prosecution. 

• 15 proceedings were completed in the courts for offences. 
  • 14 prosecutions resulted in a finding of guilt against the defendant. 
  • One prosecution resulted in a finding of not guilty after a trial. 
• 12 prosecutions were ongoing at 30 June. 

Using alternative names

Sometimes, practitioners use different names for registration than the name they are commonly known by. In July, we published the Common policy – Nomination of an alternative name and prohibited names, which requires practitioners to nominate any alternative names used and have them available on the Register of practitioners. This policy provides flexibility for practitioners while also benefiting public safety by making it easier for consumers to verify a practitioner’s registration. We have already requested that 24 practitioners nominate an alternative name they had used in advertising.