Sexual Misconduct recorded on public register
One such amendment is the requirement for proven findings of sexual misconduct to now be permanently recorded against a practitioner’s name on the public register, rather than removed once sanctions lapse. The purpose of this reform is to support informed patient decision-making when selecting a health practitioner.
Notably, the amendment applies retrospectively and any tribunal findings of sexual misconduct since the start of regulation of each health profession will be captured. Ahpra has advised that affected practitioners will be notified prior to their information being published and given an opportunity to respond. Guidance materials setting out the process around the publishing of information on the register are available on the Ahpra website. The materials make clear that only limited exceptions to publication will apply, being:
| Exception | Explanation |
| a. Stay, overturn or modification of decision. | Where a decision by a tribunal of professional misconduct is appealed and the result is that the decision is stayed, overturned or modified to such an extent that the requirement to publish additional information no longer applies. |
| b. Contravention of an order of a court or tribunal. | If publishing the additional information would contravene the order of a court or tribunal, the information may not be recorded at all or may be recorded in a limited fashion to ensure the order is not contravened. |
| c. Impairment of practitioner. | A condition imposed or an undertaking accepted because a practitioner has an impairment will not be recorded if it is necessary to protect the practitioner’s privacy and there is no overriding public interest for the conditions or the details of the undertaking to be recorded (section 226(1) of the National Law). |
| d. Serious risk to health or safety of practitioner, or the practitioner’s family, or associate. | Additional information will not be recorded if the practitioner asks the board not to publish the information and 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 associate (section 226(2) of the National Law). |
Reinstatement Orders
Also in force from 10 April 2026 is the requirement for health practitioners who have had their registration cancelled or who have been disqualified from applying for registration by a tribunal, to obtain a reinstatement order from a responsible tribunal before applying to the National Board for re-registration. Whilst this process had previously been in place in NSW, it will now apply nationally.
The National Board remains responsible for deciding whether to grant registration and what conditions must be met, if any.
The purpose of this amendment is to improve public safety by ensuring a consistent national process for practitioners to regain registration which has previously been cancelled or disqualified.
Greater protections for notifiers
Other amendments which came into effect in December 2025 relate to stronger protections for individuals who raise complaints against health professionals (often referred to as “notifiers”).
It is now an offence for practitioners to enter into non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with notifiers that prevent them from making complaints to AHPRA and other health regulators.
Whilst NDAs can still be used, any agreement must clearly state in writing that it does not stop the person from making a notification or assisting regulators and others performing functions under the National Law.
The amendments also make it an offence to threaten, intimate, dismiss, refuse to employ, or subject a person to other detriment or reprisal because they intend to or have made a notification, or helped someone else to do so.
Previously, notifiers who raised concerns in good faith were protected from civil and criminal liability. The recent amendments now include protection from reprisals, harm, intimidation, harassment, and coercion.
Significant financial penalties of up to $60,000 for individuals and up to $120,000 for corporations apply for practitioners found to have retaliated against a notifier.
