Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

While gagging doctors who questioned child ‘gender medicine’, Australia’s peak medical regulator was secretly planning to embed gender ideology into its regulatory processes over a three-to-five year horizon, even as it fought FOI requests to keep the details hidden.

Australia’s peak medical regulator has been accused of ‘ideological capture’ after documents released under freedom of information reveal it built a regulatory strategy around the gender ideology of trans lobby group ACON — prompting critics to demand it sever the partnership.

The Australian last week published correspondence in which the chief executive of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), Justin Untersteiner, explained that the regulator’s engagement with ACON and accreditation group Rainbow Health Australia guides “the way we regulate and fulfil our purpose of ensuring the preservation of public safety.”

ACON, formerly the AIDS Council of NSW, lost its partnership with the ABC earlier this month after bombshell revelations the national broadcaster’s news and programming had been heavily shaped by the powerful lobby group.

Women’s Forum Australia CEO Rachael Wong said an institution captured by an “anti-scientific ideology” could not be trusted with public safety. She called on AHPRA to follow the ABC by also severing its relationship with ACON.

“AHPRA must urgently cut ties with ACON if it is going to regain its independence and the public’s trust,” Ms Wong said.

A spokeswoman for Parents of Adolescents with Gender Distress likewise told The Australian that AHPRA’s guidance from ACON had compromised its ability to act impartially.

“Gender clinicians who publicly advocate for these controversial interventions face no restrictions, while practitioners who voice valid critique have been unduly penalised,” she said.

The FOI Documents

The FOI documents obtained by The Australian reveal that AHPRA did not treat its relationship with ACON as a routine workplace inclusion exercise.

A February 2024 National Executive agenda paper marked “In Confidence” detailed the development of a “National Scheme LGBTIQA+ Equity and Inclusion Strategy,” that would “include reforms of people, policies and regulatory processes over a 3-5 year time horizon.”

According to AHPRA’s own document, the objective behind the reforms extended beyond internal HR and involved “improving access to the National Scheme, external engagement initiatives and National Board portfolios.”

The regulator also based its case for the LGBTIQA+ strategy on the disputed claim that transgender people aged 14–25 are 15 times more likely to have attempted suicide, without noting the contested nature of that figure.

AHPRA fought hard to keep documents hidden, according to The Australian. It claimed that releasing its unfiltered correspondence with ACON would be “contrary to the public interest” because it might discourage parties from providing “unconventional, controversial, challenging or novel” views.

A coalition of 46 registered doctors and health practitioners “has pleaded with AHPRA for more than two years to abandon its ties to ACON,” The Australian also reported.

In late 2024, the band of concerned professionals wrote to the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman asking it to investigate whether AHPRA’s involvement with ACON was consistent with its statutory obligations and whether it created “conflicts of interest or ideological entanglement.”

AHPRA’s ties to ACON and Rainbow Health “positions the regulator as a partisan actor in a contested area of clinical practice”, the doctors wrote.

However, the ombudsman declined, stating that “AHPRA’s engagement with Rainbow Health and ACON demonstrates its efforts in engaging with all communities” and that an investigation into the matter would not be “appropriate or in the public interest”.

A Pattern of Selective Regulation

The FOI revelations add to mounting concerns about how AHPRA has used its regulatory powers against practitioners critical of gender ideology. As reported by The Daily Declaration, AHPRA has:

• Banned Queensland psychiatrist Dr Andrew Amos from making online statements about ‘gender medicine’ and barred him from direct clinical contact, though no finding of patient harm has been made against him.
• Launched an investigation into child psychiatrist Dr Jillian Spencer after she shared on social media an article in which she was quoted about Dr Amos’s case. Dr Spencer was sacked by Queensland Health in September 2025 after raising concerns about child gender treatment practices — a termination issued one month before an independent panel was due to deliver its findings.
• Dismissed a complaint against Dr Michelle Telfer, chief of medicine at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, finding she was “meeting accepted standards of practice” — even after a Family Court judge found her expert evidence “misleading” and advocate-like rather than objective.
• Registered as “female”, Beth Upton, a male doctor at the centre of a landmark UK legal dispute over women’s spaces, allowing Upton to work in two NSW hospitals.

According to Ms Wong, AHPRA has “persecuted doctors trying to raise the alarm about the harm being done to children” while registering “multiple trans-identified male doctors as ‘female’ knowing full well the issues this raises for single-sex spaces and care.”

AHPRA told The Australian it “rejected any suggestion that engaging with community organisations creates bias in our regulatory processes.”

It said its “legislative mandate, governance structures and decision-making frameworks are specifically designed to uphold impartiality and fairness” and that any regulatory action is “based on the available evidence and the public safety risk.”

In response to questions from The Daily Declaration, a spokesperson for AHPRA and the National Boards said the regulator “engages with a broad range of community and professional organisations to help ensure the regulatory system is safe, inclusive and responsive to the needs of all Australians.”

“All regulatory decisions are made impartially, based on evidence, public safety, risk and in accordance with legislation,” the spokesperson said.

The response did not address the specific questions The Daily Declaration put to AHPRA, including the content of the February 2024 strategy documents, the pattern of regulatory decisions involving Drs Amos, Spencer and Telfer, or the registration of Beth Upton as female.