Ahpra faces growing concern over its support for contested definition of antisemitism

As health and humanitarian organisations continue to raise the alarm over Israeli attacks on citizens and healthcare in Palestine, the national health regulator in Australia faces ongoing questions about how its actions are affecting advocacy by Australian health professionals.

Jason Staines writes:

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) may face a legal challenge to its adoption of a contested definition of antisemitism that many believe will discourage health professionals from advocating for the rights of Palestinians.

Civil Liberties Defence Centre lawyer Nicholas Hanna told Croakey today that work was continuing on a possible legal challenge to Ahpra’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

“We’re still in the process of obtaining advice from Senior Counsel as to the grounds and timing of the challenge,” he said. “At the same time, we are seeking to obtain further relevant evidence regarding Ahpra’s decision from various sources.”

Meantime, Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation told Croakey that it had been meeting with Ahpra over its concerns about the move.

The union was concerned the decision could be “weaponised” through vexatious complaints, Federal Secretary Annie Butler said today.

The ANMF was also concerned about how employers would interpret the Ahpra announcement, with some members reporting being told they could not hold or express political views outside the workplace, she said.

A webinar convened by the Civil Liberties Defence Centre earlier this month brought together clinicians, lawyers and health advocates who said the decision has created uncertainty about how health practitioners can speak publicly on concerns about Israel’s war in Gaza and Palestinian human rights.

The panel included included neurosurgeon Dr Ruth Mitchell, general practitioner Dr Ziad Basyouny, dentist Dr Colm Gavin and Nicholas Hanna in conversation with psychologist Jocelyn Brewer.

While acknowledging the need to combat antisemitism and all forms of racism in healthcare, participants questioned whether the IHRA definition and its accompanying examples could discourage legitimate professional advocacy or expose practitioners to complaints.

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was not necessarily that practitioners would ultimately face disciplinary action, but that complaints and lengthy investigations could themselves have significant personal and professional consequences.

Hanna told Croakey he had been contacted by numerous healthcare workers concerned about what Ahpra’s decision would mean for their ability to speak publicly on these health and human rights concerns.

He recently assisted a medical practitioner preparing a response to an Ahpra notification relating to public comments about the destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system. Hanna declined to discuss the allegations because the matter remains active, but said he believed the notification was politically motivated and vexatious.

The Australian Salaried Medical Officers’ Federation (ASMOF) NSW has also expressed concern, saying it was “deeply concerned” by Ahpra’s decision while reiterating its opposition to antisemitism and all forms of racism and discrimination.

In a statement this week, the union said aspects of the IHRA definition risked conflating legitimate criticism of government policies with antisemitism, creating uncertainty for doctors engaging in lawful public commentary, humanitarian advocacy and evidence-based discussion on matters of public interest.

ASMOF NSW also expressed concern that the decision could facilitate “vexatious, politically motivated or bad-faith notifications” and called on Ahpra to strengthen safeguards against misuse of the complaints process, consult more broadly with practitioners before implementing measures affecting professional obligations, and provide clearer guidance on lawful public advocacy.

Advocacy matters

The debate over Ahpra’s decision is unfolding against a backdrop of continuing international concern about the humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, where health organisations, United Nations agencies and human rights advocates continue to express alarm over attacks on civilians and the healthcare system.

In a joint statement issued after visiting the Middle East this month, former Irish President Mary Robinson, former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, Graça Machel and Pakistani human rights advocate Hina Jilani warned that “Palestine must not disappear”.

Members of the global leaders group, The Elders, they accused the Israeli Government of pursuing policies aimed at making “Palestine disappear physically, economically, culturally and politically”, and called on governments to uphold international law and take meaningful action rather than expressing concern alone.

Health organisations have also continued to highlight the consequences for healthcare itself.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) this week renewed calls for the immediate release of Palestinian healthcare workers detained by Israel, saying 95 remain in detention while more than 1,700 health workers have been killed since October 2023, including 15 MSF staff.

The organisation described the detention of medical personnel and attacks on health workers as unacceptable and warned that “silence has become complicity”.

The humanitarian situation also continues to deteriorate. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), repeated displacement, shortages of shelter and cooking fuel, and continuing military operations are leaving families in increasingly precarious conditions across Gaza.

The UN Human Rights Office has meanwhile reported intensified attacks on civilian infrastructure and renewed concern about civilian casualties. UN officials have also warned of escalating settler violence in the occupied West Bank and reiterated that civilians must be protected under international humanitarian law.

Against that backdrop, many healthcare workers argue that speaking publicly about humanitarian and medical issues in Gaza is not simply political advocacy but part of their professional and ethical responsibilities.

In Australia

Earlier this month, the ANMF issued a statement of concern, calling on the Ahpra Board to immediately suspend the endorsement and application of the IHRA definition, to strengthen safeguards against vexatious, politically motivated or bad-faith notifications, and to establish a transparent consultation process with stakeholders.

Federal Secretary Annie Butler told Croakey this week that racism was an increasing problem reported by members across the health system and contributed to rising levels of workplace violence and aggression.

“We fully support all efforts to eliminate racism in healthcare. Our members report this as an increasing problem, widespread across all sectors, and it’s a significant contributor to the increased workplace violence and aggression our members are experiencing,” she said.

Butler said the union’s principal concern was how employers might interpret the Ahpra announcement.

“Not all employers understand these layers to the way that Ahpra approaches matters, and our members have experienced employers just taking a very blunt approach in response,” she said.

“Our members are being told not just what they can do in the particular workplace … but telling members what they can and can’t do outside the workplace. That’s not appropriate.”

The union was also concerned the decision could be “weaponised” through vexatious complaints.

“We’re concerned about vexatious complaints because that already happens. We’re concerned about this being weaponised and used for the wrong purpose … and not properly focused on what we should be doing, which is eliminating antisemitism and all forms of racism.”

Although Butler said the union had not been consulted before Ahpra announced its decision, the regulator had since met with the ANMF and was engaging with its concerns.

Asked whether Ahpra had been proactive, Butler instead described the regulator as “responsive”.

“Nobody knows better what happens at the workplace level than actual workers and their representatives,” she said.

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has also continued to engage with Ahpra on the issue. In a statement to Croakey, the College said it condemned “antisemitism and all forms of racism and discrimination” and had raised its concerns directly with the regulator.

The RACGP said it would continue to seek assurances that Ahpra’s decision did not contribute to an increase in vexatious complaints against health practitioners and that practitioners were provided with clear guidance about expected standards of conduct.

Those concerns build on issues the College raised last year, when it urged Ahpra to deal more quickly with complaints relating to practitioners’ social media posts about Gaza after reporting that some members had undergone lengthy investigations without disciplinary action ultimately being taken.

The newly formed Australian Healthcare Alliance for Palestine has called on Ahpra to provide greater transparency around the governance, consultation and decision-making process that led to adoption of the IHRA definition.

During the webinar, Hanna outlined plans for the Civil Liberties Defence Centre to establish a free legal advice line together with a referral network capable of connecting practitioners with lawyers willing to provide pro bono representation where appropriate.

The proposal reflects concerns expressed during the webinar that practitioners facing complaints may require legal guidance and practical support, regardless of the eventual outcome of any regulatory process.

Nikolai Haddad, Executive Director at the Civil Liberties Defence Centre, told Croakey healthcare workers were one of the organisation’s highest priorities. He said the Centre had been established to support people facing legal issues arising from advocacy for human rights in Palestine and Lebanon. Doctors, nurses and other health professionals were a particular focus because many had experienced disciplinary complaints, employment issues and harassment after speaking publicly.

Haddad said the Centre had seen an increase in requests for advice from healthcare workers concerned about their jobs, freedom of expression and professional rights since the webinar. The Centre’s immediate priority was to establish a national legal advice line and referral service, supported by volunteer and pro bono lawyers across Australia, which he said he hoped would be operating in the coming months.

Regulator’s position

Ahpra announced on 17 June that it would adopt the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism as a reference tool when considering regulatory responses to complaints involving alleged antisemitism.

The announcement, made jointly with Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Jillian Segal, represented a significant shift in Ahpra’s position. The regulator had previously argued there was insufficient clarity around distinguishing legitimate political commentary about Israel from antisemitism, but said Segal’s accompanying handbook now provided that distinction.

In explaining the decision, the regulator said it would use the IHRA definition only as a reference tool where relevant, supported by the Special Envoy’s handbook, and that there had been no changes to the National Codes or the guidance underpinning them.

Ahpra has also said the handbook helps distinguish between antisemitism and legitimate political debate, including discussion about Israel, and that complaints continue to be assessed individually under existing regulatory frameworks.

Croakey approached the Ahpra communications team and members of the board for comment for this article, but is yet to receive any responses.

See Croakey’s archive of articles on Gaza and on racism