When Criticizing the Regulator Becomes a Risk: Trust, Speech, and the MBA Code of Conduct

The Medical Board of Australia’s Code of Conduct (2024) includes the following clause:

“Practitioners must not engage in conduct that is likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the safety of health services or the integrity of the profession.”

On its face, this appears reasonable. A profession that relies on public trust must surely guard that trust.

Yet AHPRA, the regulator tasked with enforcing this Code, retains significant latitude to interpret a practitioner’s speech, advocacy, or public commentary as a disciplinary issue — even if:

·       No harm has occurred

·       The practitioner was acting in good faith

·       The statements were demonstrably true

Do these powers actually protect the public — or do they protect the regulator from scrutiny?

Here lies the paradox: it is the regulator, not the profession, that is suffering a crisis of confidence.

According to AHPRA’s own 2023 Practitioner Experience Survey:

·       Only 38% of medical practitioners agreed that AHPRA “treats people fairly and respectfully.”

·       Fewer than 40% believed AHPRA had sufficient clinical understanding to assess concerns.

·       Over 50% reported distress or mental health impact resulting from interactions with the regulator.

(Source: AHPRA Practitioner Experience Survey Highlights, 2023)

AHPRA’s powers are broad — so what actions or omissions have resulted in such a poor reputation?

How many practitioners — fearful of consequences — refrain from public commentary, whistleblowing, research interpretation, or health advocacy? How many choose silence over scrutiny, despite witnessing regulatory failure or systemic harm? Is fear a legitimate way to regulate the professions that care for us when we are in ill health?

In such an environment, it becomes almost impossible to separate the protection of public trust from the protection of institutional authority. And that is dangerous — not just for professionals, but for the public itself.

The Code of Conduct adds real value by mapping out expected behaviours. But as it stands, there is a presumption — without guarantee — that the regulator will always act with balance, insight, and good faith. It is a top-down, paternalistic model of institutional governance. It assumes the regulator is immune to the usual human frailties: bias, conflict of interest, vanity, and error.

It begins to sound a lot like might is right.