Meeting Report AHPRA and Pacifica Congress:

Management of Complaints Against Australian Psychologists Acting as Single Expert Witnesses

Held: 13 October 2025 | AHPRA, Melbourne

Overview

On 13 October 2025, representatives from Pacifica Congress met with senior officials from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) to discuss the management of complaints against psychologists acting as Single Expert Witnesses (SEWs) in family law and forensic contexts. The meeting addressed the growing concern that existing complaint-handling processes fail to account for the unique challenges of expert witness work, creating risk for practitioners, families, and the broader justice system.

Attendees

Pacifica Congress: The Hon. Steven Strickland KC (President), Dr Phil Watts, Nia Barnes, Dr Sara Salessi, and Vincent Papaleo.

AHPRA: Monica Lambley (Acting Executive Director, Health Regulation) and Dr Jamie Orchard (General Counsel).

Purpose of the Meeting

Pacifica Congress outlined its concerns about the way complaints (or “notifications”) are managed against psychologists serving as Single Expert Witnesses in the family law system.

The delegation emphasised the need for reforms to protect both public safety and procedural fairness, particularly in light of the increasing number of vexatious or poorly substantiated complaints.

Key Issues Discussed

1. Anonymous and Hearsay Complaints

Anonymous or third-party complaints pose significant fairness challenges. Practitioners cannot adequately respond or assess risk when the complainant’s identity or basis of claim is unknown.

2. Double Jeopardy and Absence of Time Limits

Psychologists can face repeated complaints about the same conduct, even after exoneration, with no statute of limitations. This leaves SEWs exposed to indefinite professional risk and psychological strain.

3. Confidentiality and Legal Constraints

Investigations often intersect with family law proceedings, risking breaches of court orders and the privacy of non-complaining family members. Practitioners may feel pressured to disclose legally protected documents.

4. Procedural Delays and Fairness

Long delays, vague allegations, and short response deadlines undermine fairness. Even dismissed complaints can cause serious reputational and emotional harm due to protracted investigation periods.

5. Social Media Harassment

The group discussed the rise of online harassment and misinformation targeting psychologists in family law cases, with calls for stronger protection and coordinated responses.

Proposed Reforms

Pacifica Congress put forward several recommendations to AHPRA, including:

• Establishing a dedicated complaint pathway for expert witness work.
• Introducing identity disclosure requirements and triage mechanisms to screen out low-merit or vexatious complaints.
• Implementing reasonable investigation timeframes and procedural fairness safeguards.
• Ensuring confidentiality protections for non-complaining family members.
• Developing training for investigators familiar with family law and expert witness contexts.

Conclusion

The meeting marked a constructive step toward reforming the complaint-handling process for psychologists in the family law arena. Both Pacifica Congress and AHPRA recognised the need for a more balanced, transparent, and context-sensitive approach that upholds fairness while protecting public trust.

Pacifica Congress thanks AHPRA for its engagement and looks forward to continued collaboration to achieve meaningful reform in this complex and vital area.