Professional misconduct: the most serious conduct finding

The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law defines professional misconduct in three limbs. Conduct only needs to meet one of them.

1. Substantially below the standard. Unprofessional conduct that amounts to conduct substantially below the standard reasonably expected of a registered health practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience.
2. A pattern. More than one instance of unprofessional conduct that, considered together, amounts to conduct substantially below that standard.
3. Not fit and proper. Conduct, whether or not it occurred in connection with practising the profession, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration.

The word substantially carries the weight in the first two limbs. It separates professional misconduct from the larger body of unprofessional conduct that Boards and panels manage every year. The third limb is different in kind: it asks about character and trustworthiness, and it can reach conduct in a practitioner's private life.

Professional misconduct is the most serious finding in the conduct stream. For the lower category, and how matters move between the two, see our page on unprofessional conduct.

National Boards, their committees and panels can caution, accept undertakings, impose conditions and, in the case of a panel, reprimand. They cannot make a finding of professional misconduct. Where a Board reasonably believes a practitioner's conduct may amount to professional misconduct, or that suspension or cancellation may be warranted, the matter is referred to the responsible tribunal in the relevant state or territory, such as NCAT in New South Wales, VCAT in Victoria, QCAT in Queensland or the State Administrative Tribunal in Western Australia.

In New South Wales and Queensland the path is different. In New South Wales, the Health Care Complaints Commission and the relevant professional council manage complaints, and the most serious matters are heard by NCAT. In Queensland, the Office of the Health Ombudsman deals with the most serious matters itself and can refer them to QCAT.

A tribunal hearing is a formal legal process. There are written submissions, evidence, often witnesses, and a published decision. That is why legal representation, usually arranged through your insurer or defence organisation, is so important at this stage.

Tribunals act protectively, not to punish, but protection includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and deterring similar conduct by others. Published decisions show the same considerations again and again:

• The seriousness of the conduct, including harm or risk of harm, abuse of trust and how long it went on.
• Honesty. Dishonesty in records, billing, declarations or dealings with the regulator is treated as among the most serious conduct, and a cover-up is often viewed more harshly than the original problem.
• Insight and remorse, shown in what the practitioner says and does, not just in a statement prepared for the hearing.
• Remediation and conduct since: what the practitioner has done in the time since the events, including learning, supervision, treatment where relevant and compliance with any interim conditions.
• The risk of recurrence and whether conditions could manage it, or whether only suspension or cancellation will protect the public.
• Public confidence. Some conduct, such as a sexual relationship with a patient, is so damaging to trust that cancellation is common even where the practitioner shows insight.

Time matters. Tribunal matters often take a long time to reach a hearing. How you use that time, and whether your insight and change are sustained and documented across it, can be as relevant as anything you say on the day.

Tribunal decisions are generally published, and reprimands, conditions, suspensions and cancellations appear on the public register. Following amendments to the National Law, from 10 April 2026 a tribunal finding of professional misconduct involving sexual misconduct is recorded on the public register, and on the register of cancelled practitioners, with a link to the published decision. This applies to findings back to the start of the National Scheme in July 2010 and is permanent. A nationally consistent reinstatement process also applies to people whose registration has been cancelled.

From 1 December 2025, further protections apply to people who raise concerns. It is an offence to threaten, intimidate or cause detriment to a person because they have made or may make a complaint, and non-disclosure agreements cannot prevent a complaint to Ahpra. Practitioners should take particular care that nothing they say or do could be seen as discouraging a complainant or witness.

In professional misconduct matters, education is never a substitute for legal advice, and it cannot by itself show insight. What it can do is give structure to the learning a practitioner needs to understand why the conduct was wrong, and provide a documented starting point for change that is then shown in practice, supervision reports and reflective writing over time.

Practitioners preparing for a hearing often benefit from learning in three areas: understanding the process itself, building genuine insight through structured reflection, and addressing the specific subject of the conduct, such as boundaries, probity or prescribing. Our course Preparing for a Panel or Tribunal Hearing explains the process in plain terms, and the remediation evidence portfolio can help you organise evidence with your lawyer.

No course can guarantee any regulatory or tribunal outcome. Whether and how to put learning before a tribunal is a decision for you and your legal representative, and any course relied on for a condition or order should be confirmed as acceptable first.