Majority of GPs are wary of the watchdog’s judgement on political matters, poll finds…

AHPRA’s efforts to stamp out discrimination and racism from healthcare have been centre stage recently, with the watchdog reaffirming its commitment to eliminating antisemitism in healthcare in a joint statement with Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Ms Jillian Segal AO last week – just a few months after it issued a joint statement on combatting Islamophobia with Mr Aftab Malik, Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia.

But some critics worry that the standards AHPRA will apply could extend beyond discrimination against people, and infringe on political expression, several media outlets including the Sydney Morning Herald reported last week.

A spokesperson for AHPRA told Healthed that the agency is equally committed to protecting health professionals’ right to speak freely and preventing discrimination.

“Ahpra is committed to free speech and the right of registered health practitioners to enter into professional and public debates. Ahpra is equally committed to the prevention of the harm caused by racism and discrimination,” they said.

“If commentary becomes demeaning or denigrating, and directed toward specific members of the community on the basis of their religion or faith, this is where Ahpra and the National Boards might undertake regulatory action,” they continued.

But how well equipped is AHPRA to strike that balance?

A national Healthed poll with around 900 respondents so far suggests many GPs have concerns. Just 36% of GPs agreed that AHPRA is capable of making good quality judgements when it comes to complaints about social media content that relates to political opinions – while 63% disagreed.

In the joint statement released last week, AHPRA said it is reviewing its Vexatious Notifications Framework “in response to concerns about weaponisation of the notifications process and is establishing an advisory panel of practitioners – including those with lived experience of notifications underpinned by antisemitism – to inform improvements to systems and processes and strengthen safeguards.”

When asked specifically if the advisory panel would also include people who had received unsubstantiated complaints connected to pro-Palestinian advocacy, AHPRA’s spokesperson did not directly answer.

“Ahpra is working to improve its handling of such notifications with the aim of reducing the harm and practitioner distress caused in these instances. That work will be designed and implemented in partnership with practitioners with lived experience of a vexatious notification,” they said.

“Ahpra continues to assess every notification independently, based on the evidence and individual merits and circumstances. Not every notification will meet Ahpra’s threshold for investigation or regulatory action, and there are strong processes in place to identify and manage vexatious notifications. The Vexatious Notifications Framework is not issue-specific.”

For those who want clarification over what speech is or isn’t acceptable, AHPRA’s spokesperson said the standards are set out in the Codes of Conduct and Social Media Guidance, “which provides examples of acceptable and unacceptable public commentary, including during periods of conflict.”

What your colleagues are saying

“I am not aware of AHPRA’s judgements on these things, but having been on the receiving end of their judgements after a completely unjustified complaint by a patient, I have serious reservations about their ability to make quality judgements on anything.”

“I am not convinced that this is AHPRAs role – surely reviewing poor performance doctors or critical incidents is more important.”

“It should not be within the remit of AHPRA to make any judgement in that context.”

“I do not have any concerns; I have no reasons to assume that AHPRA cannot.”

“I have faith in the system that AHPRA makes sensible decisions.”

The above quotes are free text comments from GPs who elaborated on their response to the survey question about AHPRA’s capability to make good quality judgements regarding social media content pertaining to political opinion.