Following concerns raised by Women Speak Australia about the regulation of health practitioners’ social media activity, AHPRA has responded to WSA’s request for clarification. However, important questions about the practical limits of regulatory oversight and the protection of lawful public debate remain unanswered.
Background
In an article published on 18 June 2026, When Psychologists Need Training to Post on Social Media: Concerns About AHPRA Regulation, Women Speak Australia raised concerns about the uncertainty surrounding AHPRA’s social media guidance and its potential implications for health practitioners participating in public discussion.
Following that publication, WSA sought further clarification from AHPRA. The correspondence raised seven questions about the practical limits of regulatory oversight, including how public confidence is assessed, what evidence is required before regulatory action is considered, and what safeguards exist to protect legitimate professional, scientific and policy debate.
WSA also asked whether the absence of patient harm, a patient relationship or a therapeutic relationship is taken into account when complaints concern a practitioner’s public expression outside clinical practice. It further asked whether AHPRA had considered the potential chilling effect of its guidance on practitioners’ willingness to participate in public discussion.
AHPRA’s National Complaints Team responded under reference COM 015838.
What AHPRA said
In its response, AHPRA explained that the National Boards’ social media guidance applies to all registered health practitioners. The guidance outlines how allegations of inappropriate social media use may be considered under the National Law and professional standards.
AHPRA referred to the February 2025 reminder issued by AHPRA and the National Boards concerning practitioners’ obligations to provide care free from discrimination and racism. It stated that social media activity projecting discriminatory views may affect public safety and risk undermining public confidence in seeking healthcare.
Importantly, AHPRA reaffirmed that practitioners retain freedom of expression and may advocate for causes through social media, provided their activity does not involve abuse or discrimination or present a risk to the public.
The response also stated:
“National Boards do not seek to regulate lawful speech outside the clinical setting, but they are obligated under the National Health Practitioner Regulation Law to consider any concerns raised with AHPRA about a registered practitioner that suggest the practitioner is not meeting the standards set for their profession.”
AHPRA explained that notifications are assessed on a case-by-case basis. The relevant National Board is responsible for assessing and investigating matters, with AHPRA providing administrative support. It also stated that practitioners are not investigated purely for holding or expressing their views.
The response outlined other professional obligations, including confidentiality and privacy, professional boundaries, respectful communication and the prohibition on false, misleading or deceptive information, including claims unsupported by acceptable evidence.
These are legitimate aspects of professional regulation. The protection of patients and the maintenance of professional standards are important responsibilities of the regulator.
However, the central questions raised by WSA concerned how these broad principles are applied when a complaint relates to lawful public commentary outside clinical practice.
Questions remain unanswered
While AHPRA restated its guidance and outlined its case-by-case approach to notifications, it did not provide specific answers to several questions raised by WSA.
In particular, the response did not explain:
- Public confidence: How is the impact on public confidence assessed objectively? Whose confidence is relevant, and what criteria are applied?
- Evidence and thresholds: What evidence is required before a practitioner’s lawful public expression may lead to regulatory intervention?
- Absence of patient harm: What consideration is given to the absence of patient harm, a patient relationship or a therapeutic relationship when a complaint concerns expression outside clinical practice?
- Safeguards for debate: What safeguards prevent complaints from being used to target or suppress legitimate scientific, professional or policy debate?
- Chilling effects: Has AHPRA examined whether its guidance or complaints processes discourage practitioners from participating in lawful public discussion?
AHPRA’s assurance that practitioners are not investigated purely for holding or expressing views is welcome. But without a clearer explanation of how that assurance operates in practice, uncertainty remains.
Why this matters
Health practitioners should be accountable for their professional conduct. Regulatory bodies must be able to act where there is evidence of unsafe practice, professional misconduct or conduct that genuinely puts the public at risk.
However, there must also be a clear distinction between professional misconduct and lawful expression of an opinion, particularly when practitioners contribute to public debate on matters involving science, medicine, ethics and public policy.
The fact that a view is controversial, unpopular or disagreed with by others should not, in itself, make it a matter for professional investigation.
Complaints and investigations can have serious consequences for practitioners, even where no adverse finding is ultimately made. Uncertainty about what may trigger regulatory scrutiny can discourage professionals from speaking openly, questioning prevailing assumptions or contributing their expertise to important public discussions.
This is particularly concerning where public debate involves contested medical evidence, healthcare policy and matters affecting women, children and families.
Women Speak Australia’s position
Women Speak Australia supports professional regulation that is proportionate, transparent and accountable. Protecting patients and maintaining professional standards must remain central to the regulatory system.
At the same time, health practitioners must be able to participate in lawful public debate without fear that expressing a professionally held or evidence-based opinion will, simply because it is contested, expose them to regulatory scrutiny.
AHPRA has reaffirmed the principle that it does not seek to regulate lawful speech outside the clinical setting. WSA welcomes that assurance. What remains necessary is greater clarity about the criteria, evidence and safeguards that ensure this principle is upheld in practice.
The ability of health professionals to question, debate and scrutinise matters of science and public policy is essential to informed decision-making. Professional regulation should protect the public without unnecessarily restricting that contribution.
Women Speak Australia will continue to advocate for transparency, accountability and the protection of lawful professional and scientific debate.