From April 2026, information about findings of sexual misconduct involving medical practitioners and other health professionals regulated by AHPRA and the National Boards will be made publicly available on the National Register across all states and territories.
From April 2026, information about findings of sexual misconduct involving medical practitioners and other health professionals regulated by AHPRA and the National Boards will be made publicly available on the National Register across all states and territories.
AHPRA has released Guidance which will be used by the National Boards to determine whether a practitioner’s sexual misconduct was a basis for a tribunal finding of professional misconduct.
In NSW, amendments to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) (National Law) were made in May 2025, including the introduction of section 225A of the Health Practitioner Regulation (Adoption of National Law) Regulation 2025 which requires that information regarding sexual misconduct be published if the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal has decided that the practitioner:
- behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct
- has been convicted or the subject of a finding for an offence which renders the practitioner unfit in the public interest to practise the profession, or
- is not a suitable person for registration in the profession,
- and that a basis for the decision was that the practitioner engaged in sexual misconduct.
Tribunal decisions dating back to 1 July 2010 relating to professional misconduct will be subject to the new amendments, meaning the changes are retrospective.
Prior to this update, under section 225 of the National Law, information to be recorded in the Register was limited to the practitioner’s name, principal place of practice, date and type of registration, and any conditions imposed. Previously, only the fact that a practitioner had been reprimanded was noted - not the reason for the reprimand.
How National Boards will make decisions
To determine whether sexual misconduct was a basis for the tribunal’s finding of professional misconduct, the National Boards will consider two steps:
- identify whether any conduct is sexual misconduct by reference to express findings by the tribunal, and
- determine whether particular conduct formed a basis for the tribunal’s finding of professional misconduct. A National Board may draw inferences to determine that sexual misconduct was a basis for the finding of professional misconduct. However, such an inference will not be ‘necessary’ where the tribunal decision can be understood without inferring that sexual misconduct by the practitioner was a basis for the decision.
When determining whether a basis for a finding of professional misconduct was that the practitioner engaged in sexual misconduct, National Boards will consider whether such a determination will assist to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession. Importantly, the sexual misconduct does not need to be the sole or primary basis for a tribunal deciding that a practitioner has engaged in professional misconduct.
What is sexual misconduct?
Sexual misconduct is not expressly defined under the National Law. The Boards will determine whether certain conduct falls within its scope, with reference to the context in which it takes place.
Sexual misconduct frequently involves a breach of trust, abuse of power, or exploitation of professional relationships - but is not limited to conduct within practice settings.
Sexual misconduct also encompasses inappropriate or unlawful behaviour outside of practice, including criminal sexual offences, which may indicate a serious risk to public safety and professional integrity. Sexual misconduct may occur even if other parties involved consented to the conduct.
If the tribunal has not made an express finding in relation to sexual misconduct and the Board is required to draw a necessary inference, the Board will consider a range of contextual and behavioural factors. For example, this includes the nature and location of any physical contact, whether the conduct was clinically justified within the context of the practitioner’s role, and whether there was a power imbalance between the parties.
Process for decision-making
Once the Board forms the initial view that sexual misconduct has occurred, the affected practitioner will be advised of the initial decision and invited to make a submission to the Board within 28 days. The Board will then consider the practitioner’s response and make a final decision.
If the final decision is to publish, the practitioner will be advised in writing of the decision, including the Board’s reasons. The additional information will be published on the Register no earlier than 28 days after writing to the practitioner.
If the practitioner does not agree with the final decision, they may make an administrative complaint about the decision-making process to either AHPRA’s administrative complaints system, or the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman. Practitioners also have the option of seeking judicial review.
What will be published?
For practitioners who have been found to have engaged in professional misconduct by the Board, the following information will be published on the Register:
- a statement that the practitioner engaged in sexual misconduct
- any sanction (such as a reprimand, imposition of conditions, suspension or cancellation of registration), and
- a link to the tribunal’s decision (if available).
If the practitioner’s registration has been cancelled, or the practitioner is no longer registered, the Register will also show:
- whether they are banned from reapplying for registration
- how long they are banned for, and
- whether they are banned from providing health services or using certain titles.
Information subject to non-disclosure orders (such as names of patients, clients, witnesses etc.) will not be published.
For each practitioner, the Board will consider whether any exceptions apply, in which case information will not be published to the Register. For example, where a decision has been overturned or modified to such an extent that the requirement to publish additional information no longer applies, or if the Board believes that the inclusion of the information would present a serious risk to the health or safety of the practitioner or the practitioner’s family or associates.
Implications for medical practitioners
These changes represent a significant shift for medical practitioners and may have a long‑lasting impact on a practitioner’s reputation.
In some cases, the outcome will be clear from the relevant tribunal decision. In other cases, there will be an element of discretion in determining whether information should be published on a practitioner’s registration.
Where discretion applies, this may be of particular concern for practitioners. In those circumstances, practitioners are given an opportunity to make submissions before a decision is made, and those submissions should be carefully considered.
More broadly, publication of information on the Register means that regulatory outcomes may be visible to patients, employers, insurers and other third parties.
If you have concerns about how these changes may affect you, or you wish to review a decision, you should contact your MDO.
