GPs call for greater checks and balances on the regulator’s power…

AHPRA used its ‘naming and shaming’ powers for the first time this week, against a suspended WA practitioner who had previously been registered as both a dentist and nurse, but who had continued to practise despite his suspension.

The Dental Board said the practitioner remains under investigation and is facing criminal charges to which he is pleading not guilty.

Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, a GP advocate and former AMA president, says the legislation which allows for practitioners to be publicly named while investigation is still ongoing is illogical. While it may be justified once the investigation has determined errant practice, he contends that the investigation should be complete before taking actions that will besmirch someone’s reputation.

“The name and shame provisions, whilst pending outcomes, really flies in the face of normal legal process,” Dr Haikerwal says. “Just because you’re medically qualified or you’re a registered health professional doesn’t remove your legal rights and your human rights.”

The move comes as we await recommendations following an investigation into AHPRA’s use of immediate action against health professionals. Key players including the AMA, RACGP, Australian GP Alliance and Avant have all released submissions arguing that greater safeguards are needed.

Insufficient checks and balances

The concerns of the peak bodies and medical defence organisation reflect that of a majority of GPs, a Healthed survey of more than 2000 GPs suggests.

Sixty-three percent of GPs said the current checks and balances on AHPRA’s powers need improvement, with more than a third strongly agreeing with that statement.

Australian Doctors Federation chair and GP Clinical Associate Professor Aniello Iannuzzi said those results were likely an under-representation of doctors’ concerns.

“I find that as soon as AHPRA’s mentioned, such is the deep-seated fear, that doctors will not reply or reply more favourably than they feel because they are so petrified that they’re going to be targeted,” he said. “So I think there’s a bias there.”

Overhaul needed

Dr Haikerwal says we are at a turning point with a new CEO of AHPRA and new chair of the Medical Board, but as yet nothing has changed.

“Ultimately, we need regulatory agencies to look after the registration and management of the professions. But I think there needs to be a whole reset, if not a complete detonation and restart,” he says.

“You can either destroy it and start again, or you can try and make adjustments. There has to be significant changes made. And this survey has really highlighted it,” Dr Haikerwal says.

“It’s a totally headless organisation.”

If AHPRA is going to be repaired, Dr Haikerwal says good consultation processes, with respectful, meaningful engagement, are essential. Has that process begun?

“No, they’re indicating they might, but nothing’s happened. It’s all weasel words just now.”

Part of the problem, he says, is that despite claims otherwise, the legislation is not consistent across states or territories. “And each of the health ministers runs for the hills when there’s a problem.”

Despite numerous reviews and inquiries, no useful change has been achieved.

“AHPRA get everything that they ask for when they go to governments for increased power — and they never ask to modify or improve the situation for the registrants who they depend on for their funding,” Dr Haikerwal sums up.

What your colleagues are saying

GPs in Healthed’s survey commented anonymously, with several noting lack of transparency and lack of accountability and oversight as cause for concern:

“AHPRA investigations can be lengthy, opaque, and disproportionately punitive. The process often lacks procedural fairness and can cause mental health impacts, especially when complaints are minor or unfounded. Greater clinician support, legal clarity, and timeframe limits are essential.”

“Doctors worked extremely hard and made many sacrifices to obtain their registration and fellowship. AHPRA shouldn’t have the sole power to single handedly take that away without having to answer to the bodies over which they govern. There needs to be accountability.”

“AHPRA operates in a manner that feels overly authoritative, and at times, oppressive. They need more balanced approach, where doctors’ rights are not overshadowed by regulatory processes. They should have more fair, transparent, and humane approach to regulation.”

“The current aggressive approach to health practitioners, especially for obviously spiteful and baseless complaints, is disappointing. Our legal system is supposed to be based on innocent until proven guilty, but AHPRA adopts the reverse.”

“AHPRA’s power to impose immediate action has outpaced the procedural safeguards necessary to ensure fairness. Investigations can drag on for years with minimal communication, while practitioners are effectively punished in the interim even when no final finding is made. There are no enforceable timelines, no external review mechanisms, and no consequences for AHPRA’s own delays. This asymmetry erodes practitioner trust and undermines the integrity of the regulatory process.”

“There needs to be balance. Patients and their relatives who have experienced serious adverse outcomes will know only their story, often without always understanding why certain treatment pathways were undertaken. They need to be heard, but also need to be willing to hear from health professionals involved.”