Queensland review considers changes to health practitioner disciplinary jurisdiction

Queensland’s health practitioner disciplinary framework is under review, with potential implications for how - and where - disciplinary and review matters involving registered health practitioners are heard.

As part of the statutory review of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, the Honourable David Thomas has released Issues Paper 6 (December 2025) examining QCAT’s health practitioner disciplinary jurisdiction and seeking stakeholder feedback (Paper). Submissions close 27 January 2026. 

The current framework

Queensland operates a co-regulatory model under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) and the Health Ombudsman Act 2013 (Qld). The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) currently plays a central role, including:

• determining disciplinary referrals (including professional misconduct and impairment matters); and
• hearing review applications (including urgent decisions such as immediate action and prohibition orders). 

Key issues under review

The Paper highlights the following issues: 

• Delay and system pressures
  The Paper identifies ongoing concerns that QCAT is facing challenges in progressing health practitioner matters in a timely way, with data indicating lengthy timeframes for finalisation in some matters. As at 25 September 2025, QCAT data indicated that health practitioner disciplinary matters took around 86 weeks to resolve (noting that three quarters of matters were finalised within that time, but one quarter took longer depending on complexity).

• Tribunal constitution: is a judge always required?
  Queensland generally requires health practitioner disciplinary matters to be heard by a judicial member, which is unusual compared with other jurisdictions. The Paper questions whether this requirement drives delay or contributes to a bottleneck, particularly where matters are less complex or proceed on agreed facts. 

• Assessors: necessity and availability
  QCAT’s model relies heavily on professional and public assessor panels, designed to ensure appropriate clinical expertise and community expectations inform factual questions. The Paper highlights practical issues with assessor scarcity in some fields and explores whether assessors should always be mandatory, particularly where the hearing does not turn on contested clinical evidence. 

• Costs: should Queensland’s approach change?
  In Queensland, the general QCAT costs position applies - parties bear their own costs unless the “interests of justice” otherwise require. By contrast, in many other jurisdictions, costs may be awarded where “appropriate”, and in some (such as NSW) costs may more commonly follow the event. The Paper asks whether a different model should apply to disciplinary proceedings, including whether costs outcomes should better reflect protective (rather than adversarial) proceedings while remaining fair to practitioners. 

• Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
  The Paper also considers the use of compulsory conferences and other ADR processes. While disciplinary matters must still ultimately be determined in the public interest, ADR can help narrow the issues, clarify evidence and improve efficiency. The Paper also notes, however, that conferences can place significant demands on tribunal resources.

The bigger question: should QCAT retain the jurisdiction?

Beyond operational reforms, the Paper is examining whether health practitioner disciplinary matters should stay in QCAT, or move to an alternative forum.

Options discussed include retaining jurisdiction in QCAT with procedural/structural reform, transferring the jurisdiction to the District Court (as a list), or establishing a specialist tribunal model within the District Court (reflecting aspects of previous tribunal models). 

Key takeaways for insurers, MDOs, and healthcare providers

Queensland’s review of QCAT’s health practitioner disciplinary jurisdiction represents a significant opportunity to reassess whether the current framework is delivering timely, consistent and effective public protection outcomes.

If reforms proceed, changes to forum, procedure, decision-maker constitution and costs may materially affect the strategy, timing and cost dynamics of disciplinary and review matters for practitioners, insurers, MDOs and healthcare organisations across Queensland.

With reforms on the table ranging from procedural streamlining (including tribunal constitution, assessors, costs and ADR) through to the possibility of transferring the jurisdiction to the District Court or a specialist tribunal model, stakeholders should closely monitor developments and consider engagement in the consultation process.