No More. It Ends Here.
- AHPRA / Medical Board Aust. (MBA) does not represent the beliefs and standards of the Medical Profession. They must step down immediately. . GUVNOT.COM/1/11
This issue is really the crux of the entire argument against AHPRA and the medical boards.
Approximately 50% of full-time medical practitioners are likely to receive a medical education punishment within the next 10 years. Medical indemnity premiums are likely to double in real terms over the next 10 years, (or quadruple if you include inflation as a factor).
A doctor was currently investigated for providing a medical certificate with his best judgment, with the situation being taken to court. Unless you can have a witness statement from the doctor stating guilt for giving a certificate inappropriately, such an event with no evidence or witnesses, should never have progressed to court.
Doctors make judgment calls and decisions every day. If the most basic decision or judgment call, creates a “legal” event, medical practice becomes a very dour profession.
e.g. Medical Certificates – sick certificates
e.g. Workers Comp statements
e.g. Superannuation withdrawal claims
e.g. Choosing medications or referrals
e.g. I will operate vs I will not operate
Challenging many of the decisions doctors make daily, raises the issue of how dangerous working in the medical profession really is.
Now, it is likely that a large proportion of doctors will experience a profession terminating threat every decade.
A simple statement by any patient that you may have “touched” them is probably enough to guarantee that you will not work for the next three years. With luck you may even be able to practice again at the end of it, if you are still alive. AHPRA / the Medical Boards do not need evidence of wrongdoing. If they accuse you, you are guilty. If you go to court, it is unlikely that you will win . The conviction rate of AHPRA / the Medical Boards / Tribunal against doctors approaches 100%. In the 2022-23 financial year, Only 50% of cases taken to court by ASIC resulted in a conviction,(these are actions taken against members of the general public committing financial offences).
These facts tell their own story.
20 of 60 doctors in Victoria have been forced to cease practice or substantially reduce their practice in caring for opioid replacement therapy patients.. Several of the main practitioners in Brisbane have been forced to cease practice or substantially reduce their practice in caring for opioid replacement therapy patients.
These facts that suggests that AHPRA / the Medical Boards are acting deliberately (with insight) against these doctors with the deliberate aim of stopping their practice – and in arguably threatening the patient’s survival by denying them access to treatment or therapy.
If AHPRA / the Medical Boards do not represent the beliefs and standards of the medical profession, they must not be allowed to continue working or operating in the medical industry. They must step down immediately.
work-together
Our Agenda: What We Want to Achieve
One of the biggest problems in the medical industry is the lack of unionism and cooperative support at the coalface confronting a united regulatory body- AHPRA and the Medical Boards.
Doctors should be supported by their own organisations- namely AMA, RACGP, AGPAL/ accreditation organisations. But that cannot happen.
The RACGP is a regulatory organisation that is in charge of training and qualifications: namely the FRACGP qualification, accreditation standards and CME / PD. It is an organisation suffering from "Regulatory Capture" due to its close ties to the Government. So much of its income is dependent on Governmental Largess that it tends to be very considerate of the needs of its big partner- more so than its members. Several Years ago, the government's act of removing training funding from the RACGP probably taught it a lesson in servility. Similarly, the creation of CME/ PD houses means that income from this source is likely to become progressively more limited. This regulatory organisation that should be serving GPs, but has ended up being captured by government influence due to funding constraints.
The AMA is in many ways a doctor's club- limited by a diverse membership with diverse interests- in effect, it being difficult to support Petros without upsetting Paulos. It attempts to insert representative doctors into many issues but they often work for free and to maintain involvement requires treading a careful political line with your own members and especially with government - in effect being required to consider the Government's agenda as well as its own. AMA representatives are usually invited onto committees by government request only. If you upset the government- no invitation to play ball.
The Accreditation Organisations are best described as "mechanisms" that undertake specific tasks and are also caught by government influence, requiring increasing regimentation of the industry by a parsimonious government, intent on finding the cheapest possible solution for all its demands. Although they have a large impact on practice, they take the side of imposing regulation rather than rationalizing it, in the medical industry - especially General Practice.
Our solution is simple: get groups of people to find each other, select an Agenda and work for change.
Bloodweaver.com is a mechanism to enable this process.
Small groups of people are more likely to agree on strategy than our current representative behemoths. A small-group of people in-effect becomes a mechanism to fund itself, and to marshal and direct resources. They can take on politically incorrect agendas. As a group, they can pursue change far better than any individual. And there can be a host of them chasing different agendas, making it very difficult for organisations like AHPRA/ the Medical Boards to confront. These behemoths (AHPRA / Medical Boards), rely on the Anomie of medical practice for their power.
One to rule them,
One to find them,
One to bring them in,
And with darkness bind them.
So let's talk about what we can do to break AHPRA's/ the Board's power.
From index11.html Follows:
The third critical focus point
The third critical focus point of our campaign is to neutralise the powers that AHPRA/the Medical Boards use to hurt doctors. The most critical of these is to use the excuse that doctors’ medical records are not adequate.
Another critical factor is the use of Professional Opinions to outweigh Outcomes as evidence. There's always some shithead willing to say anything for money.
We (AHPRA) are right because we say we are right. It is irrelevant that our actions cause death and destruction (Outcomes), because we say we are doing the right thing. Our employees say so to.
The names of all the participants in an action must be included in every form or letter. It is not appropriate to simply hide behind the name AHPRA. Name the members of AHPRA, name the members of the AHPRA Medical Board and name every project officer.
This links specific people to specific actions: no one to hide behind any more.
The fourth critical focus point
The fourth critical focus point of our campaign is to neutralise investigative protocols used by AHPRA/the Medical Boards.
Doctors should not be required to confess,, especially where harm has not occurred.
Doctors should be allowed to disagree and not to be punished for disagreeing with the judgment of AHPRA/the Medical Boards.
The burden of proof should be as for the community. AHPRA/the Medical Boards should be required to “prove” – that harm has occurred. A patient complaint should always exist, specifically about any matter being investigated.
Complainants acting illegally, or lying or showing evidence of psychiatric symptoms in their complaint, must be dismissed.
AHPRA/the Medical Boards should not have the capacity to use anonymous complaints or to hide the identity of the complainant. It is the right of every person to face their accuser.
AHPRA/the Medical Boards need to prove that their point of view is correct and that harm would not occur as a result of their proposed actions.
-
And if harm does occur due to the actions of AHPRA/the Medical Boards, that’s perhaps called GBH: Grievous Bodily Harm and charges must needs follow against the organisation. It is only by making AHPRA/the Medical Boards fully responsible for their actions, that the community and doctors will be safer and treated fairly.
-
All complaints against AHPRA must be ALWAYS investigated by an independent authority and charges must be laid where appropriate.
There's nothing like knowing you can go to prison
for your actions,
to make AHPRA make its decisions
with much much more consideration.
-
All complaints against AHPRA must be ALWAYS investigated by an independent authority and charges must be laid where appropriate.
THE AHPRA POINT OF VIEW: On whether AHPRA/MBA “represents the profession” and should step down
Let’s correct the category error first: AHPRA and the National Boards are not designed to “represent the beliefs” of the profession. They exist to protect the public under the National Law, and that purpose is not a popularity contest. If you want a body that mirrors member sentiment, join (or run) your College or Association. If you want an entity that can lawfully set minimum safety expectations across jurisdictions, you get a statutory regulator.
The demand that “AHPRA must step down because doctors disagree” conveniently ignores why governments created legislated oversight in the first place: variable practice, uneven standards, and the fact that self-regulation alone has repeatedly failed communities. We are not here to validate individual certainty; we are here to ensure baseline competence, transparent processes, and public confidence—especially when a practitioner’s judgement is contested and the patient cannot safely “shop around”.
The rhetoric that “every complaint equals guilt” is theatrical, but it also reveals the real discomfort: that external scrutiny exists at all. In reality, most notifications do not result in practitioners losing registration or being disqualified (see AHPRA’s annual reporting on notification outcomes). Where immediate action is taken, it is because the legal threshold is serious risk as adjudicated by our experienced regulatory staff—not because someone’s feelings were hurt.
As for calls to remove community participation and replace ministerial appointment pathways with “vote-of-doctors-only” control: that would be a direct step back toward closed-shop regulation. Modern health regulation deliberately includes public-interest governance. It is meant to prevent professional convenience from outranking patient safety.
It is also a misunderstanding of modern governance to assume that those subject to regulation should feel “represented” by regulators. Regulation is not designed to reflect practitioner values; it exists to correct them where they diverge from contemporary public expectations. Discomfort arising from not seeing one’s own beliefs reflected in regulatory leadership is not a democratic deficit but a predictable feature of oversight in a system where professional culture has historically normalised practices that the community no longer accepts. The purpose of AHPRA is not to mirror professional identity, but to reshape it in line with evolving standards of safety, accountability, and social expectation.
If the profession wants fewer investigations, the solution is not to dismantle oversight; it is to stop pretending that “trust us” is a complete safety system. The community expects more than membership solidarity. So do we.
Erasmus (the old dog) : Call It As I See It
Legalistic view:
When a statutory regulator repeatedly develops standards and enforcement habits that the profession broadly experiences as detached from real practice, legitimacy erodes. A regulator may be lawful yet still become functionally unrepresentative—operating as an enforcement bureaucracy rather than a balanced steward of safety. At that point, calls for structural replacement (not “reform around the edges”) become rational.
Human consequences view:
Being governed by people who neither share your values nor feel obliged to understand them does something quiet but corrosive to professionals: it hollows out belonging. Over time, doctors stop feeling part of a moral community and start feeling like targets of a system they cannot influence. That is not just a governance problem — it is a psychological one. Systems that replace participation with compliance eventually lose the goodwill that makes safety cultures work at all.
Human interest view:
A system that treats ordinary clinical judgement as a standing suspicion produces a predictable outcome: good clinicians practise defensively, avoid higher-risk patients, or stop practising. This is not “quality”; it is workforce damage. When the regulator’s culture drives doctors out faster than it corrects genuine misconduct, it is no longer aligned with the profession’s standards or with community access to care.
Patient view:
Patients don’t benefit from a climate where doctors write notes for lawyers, choose low-risk pathways to avoid scrutiny, and withdraw from complex care. A regulator that loses clinician confidence also loses its practical ability to protect the public—because safety depends on cooperation, disclosure, and a functioning workforce.
Cynical aside:
If AHPRA/MBA doesn’t represent professional standards, it will still keep issuing them—until the only people left in the room are those who can tolerate the machine. Then the regulator can claim “compliance” while the community quietly loses access.
When the people making decisions about your career do not share your values, do not work in your clinical reality, and do not feel answerable to you in any practical way, the psychological effect is predictable: doctors stop trusting the system. They stop believing that fairness is possible. They become guarded, performative, and risk-averse. The quiet downstream consequence is not “better standards” — it is a profession trained to prioritise defensibility over judgement, to avoid complex patients, and to retreat from candour.
A system can be lawful yet still feel illegitimate to those living under it. When that gap persists, it does not stay theoretical. It becomes workforce attrition, reluctance to take on high-risk care, silence instead of disclosure, and an accelerating loss of experienced clinicians who no longer believe the system is capable of proportionality. Even patients who want strong regulation ultimately pay the price when regulation becomes culturally disconnected from the profession it governs.
