AHPRA CEO Justin Untersteiner told the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion that, despite concerns from multiple unions, the regulator would not be reversing its decision to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.
At the same time, he also attempted to dispel concerns that practitioners would be pulled up for expressing concern about the humanitarian conditions in Gaza.
“We believe that health practitioners, like any member of our community have the right to free speech and a right to express views about political issues or otherwise,” Mr Untersteiner told the commission on Wednesday.
“But that right will be constrained if it starts to lean into discriminating against an individual or a group of individuals. All Australians should have the right to feel safe in accessing healthcare no matter what their religion, race or background is.
“When we have practitioners who, for instance, post on social media in a way that is discriminating or causing harm to individuals, the effect of that is not just on the individual it’s targeting but it can actually lead to patients who need care not getting the care that they that they need.”
In the context of the wider conversation about antisemitism and how AHPRA’s adoption of the IHRA definition – which some groups say conflates criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism – Mr Untersteiner said this principle had been “misconstrued”.
“[There is an idea that] AHPRA adopting the IHRA definition means that people are no longer able to express their views about international conflicts, and again that is not true,” he said.
“We will not take a regulatory action for doing that as long as it’s done respectfully and accurately. As soon as that veers into discrimination or racism, you certainly have the attention of us as a regulator.”
He also said that AHPRA had “resisted” adopting the IHRA definition in the first instance because it had heard concerns about it potentially “stifling free speech”.
It ultimately changed its mind when the office of the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism released a handbook in April of this year.
“It’s very clear [from the handbook] that criticism of the Israel government would not constitute antisemitism, and that’s often where there has been criticism in the past,” Mr Untersteiner said.
“It also is very clear that it’s not to become part of law … it’s a reference tool to be used in a in a system. We found that exceptionally helpful, and it was on the basis of that handbook as well as all the feedback that we’d have over a period of time that we felt it was the right decision then to adopt [the definition].”
Counsel representing the Jewish Council of Australia – a Jewish-led organisation which supports calls for Palestinian freedom – questioned Mr Untersteiner on whether the adoption of the IHRA antisemitism definition could have a chilling effect on public discourse.
She specifically asked whether AHPRA was concerned about practitioners believing that the use of the word “genocide” could potentially invoke a claim of antisemitism against them.
“I’m not convinced that that is how this is applying and playing out in reality,” Mr Untersteiner said.
“We’ve been very clear here that we are using this as a reference tool. It’s not a legal document that binds us in a particular way. It’s a reference tool.
“We use a number of reference tools. The purpose of us using a reference tool is to help guide us in terms of triage categorization, but it doesn’t mean that it binds us to any particular pathway.”
Related
Noting an uptick of notifications related to allegations of antisemitism since 2023 – the vast majority of which were closed with no further action – Mr Untersteiner said the regulator was considering options to reduce stress and trauma for practitioners who receive a notification.
“… If we see a complaint has come through that is just purely questioning someone’s legitimate right to political free speech, we are considering the option of not contacting the practitioner to let them know about the complaint, so they don’t have to worry,” the AHPRA exec said.
When asked by the counsel representing multiple Jewish community groups whether letters from unions like ASMOF NSW and the NSW Australian Nurses and Midwifery Federation would prompt AHPRA to change its mind on adopting the IHRA definition, Mr Untersteiner replied in the negative.
The Royal Commission also heard from two doctors representing the Australian Jewish Medical Federation. One of these clinicians, gastroenterologist Dr Adam Gordon, called for the removal of all political advocacy from healthcare.
“I speak to patients from other minority ethnic communities and also doctors from other ethnic minority communities and they’re of the same view,” he said.
“Everyone wants the health system to be safe and equitable for everybody. There shouldn’t be this additional concern placed on patients about where they fit in terms of the political advocacy of the day.
“Healthcare should be a sacred space.”
Comments on this post have been turned off due to the sensitive nature of the topic.
The post AHPRA won’t reverse antisemitism definition, despite pushback appeared first on Medical Republic.
Add Comment