Email sent to AHPRA Public Interest Disclosure Team on 04.04.26
Subject: Public Interest Disclosure – Alleged substantial misuse/waste of resources and maladministration in the administration of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Dr Jillian Spencer case)
Dear AHPRA Public Interest Disclosure team,
I am making this disclosure as a member of the public under AHPRA’s Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower) Policy.
Disclosable conduct alleged:
I have reasonable grounds to believe that AHPRA (and the Medical Board of Australia) is engaging in serious maladministration and substantial and specific misuse or waste of public resources in the way it is administering the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law in relation to Dr Jillian Spencer, a child and adolescent psychiatrist.
Key facts:
- Dr Jillian Spencer has been under investigation by AHPRA following a notification about her sharing, on social media (X), a legitimate news article from The Australian newspaper. The article quoted her expressing evidence-based concerns about gender-affirming medical interventions (puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) for minors. The notifier was not a patient of Dr Spencer but a member of the public who objected to her criticism of the practice and her encouragement of a petition.
- This investigation is occurring despite:
- The landmark Cass Review (UK, 2024), which found the evidence base for puberty blockers in gender-distressed minors to be “remarkably weak” and led the NHS England to largely ban their routine use outside clinical trials.
- Subsequent policy shifts in multiple countries (UK, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and others) that have moved away from the gender-affirming model toward exploratory psychotherapy and holistic mental health care as the first-line approach.
- No complaints from any of Dr Spencer’s patients and no allegations of clinical harm to any individual patient.
- Dr Spencer was suspended from clinical duties at Queensland Children’s Hospital in 2023 after raising similar patient-safety concerns internally. She now faces possible deregistration while the hospital has issued her with a termination notice. Concerns have also been raised by the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission about the lawfulness of aspects of her original suspension.
Why this amounts to maladministration and waste of resources:
Continuing a formal AHPRA investigation and potential disciplinary process against a highly qualified specialist for sharing mainstream media reporting and participating in a legitimate scientific and clinical debate appears to prioritise ideological conformity over evidence-based medicine. This is occurring at a time when major international reviews have validated the very concerns Dr Spencer has raised.
Such action consumes significant AHPRA staff time, investigative resources, legal costs and Board member time — all funded by public money and practitioner registration fees — without any apparent corresponding risk to public safety from Dr Spencer’s actual clinical practice.
This pattern (seen also in other cases such as Dr Andrew Amos) risks undermining public confidence in the National Scheme and diverts resources away from investigating genuine clinical misconduct or patient harm.
Requested action:
I ask that AHPRA:
- Immediately review and, if appropriate, close the investigation into Dr Jillian Spencer on the grounds that it does not meet the threshold for action under the National Law.
- Conduct an internal review of how notifications based solely on protected speech in scientific debates are being assessed and prioritised.
- Provide a response to this disclosure outlining what steps will be taken.
I believe this disclosure qualifies for protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Policy as it concerns serious wrongdoing in the administration of the National Law.
I make this disclosure in good faith and in the public interest. I’m attaching evidence files such as The Cass review and international studies which support Dr Jillian Spencer cautious approach on treatment of children with Gender Dysphoria.
Kind regards,
Dr. Elizabeth Caballero
Retired General Practitioner
Women Speak Tasmania
Sources:
The Cass Review 2024 UK –https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143933/https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/
The Myth of “Reliable Research” in Pediatric Gender Medicine: A critical evaluation of the Dutch Studies-and research that has followed. 2023 – https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36593754
Medical treatment methods for dysphoria associated with variations
in gender identity in minors – recommendation. 2020 – https://palveluvalikoima.fi/documents/1237350/22895008/Summary_minors_en.pdf
Adolescent development and psychosocial functioning after starting cross-sex hormones for gender dysphoria. 2019 – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08039488.2019.1691260
All-cause and suicide mortalities among adolescents and young adults who contacted specialised gender identity services in Finland in 1996–2019: a register study. 2024 – https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/27/1/e300940
Women Speak Tasmania blog. March 2026 – Challenges Doctors Face When Challenging Gender-Affirming Care
Reply from AHPRA Public Interest Disclosure Team on 11.05.26
Complaint sent to the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman on 19.05.26
Dear National Health Practitioner Ombudsman,
I am lodging this complaint under the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to review administrative actions of AHPRA and the National Boards.
Background On 4 April 2026 I made a protected Public Interest Disclosure via AHPRA’s Whistleblower portal. The disclosure concerned serious maladministration and substantial waste of public resources in the ongoing investigation and potential disciplinary action against Dr Jillian Spencer, a highly qualified child and adolescent psychiatrist.
The core allegation was that AHPRA is prioritising ideological conformity over evidence-based medicine by investigating Dr Spencer for sharing mainstream media reporting and participating in legitimate scientific debate — conduct that does not pose any risk to public safety and is in fact supported by major international reviews (Cass Review 2024, Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish policy shifts, etc.). The full text of my disclosure is available here:
AHPRA’s response (11 May 2026) AHPRA replied on 11 May 2026 (letter attached) and decided not to treat my disclosure as a public interest disclosure under section 12 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (Qld). They concluded that it did not disclose a “substantial and specific danger to the health or safety of a person with a disability” and therefore would not be investigated further.
Why AHPRA’s decision is flawed and amounts to maladministration I respectfully submit that AHPRA has failed to properly assess my disclosure for the following reasons:
- Narrow and inadequate application of s 12(a) PID Act AHPRA acknowledged that my concerns “may fall within paragraph (a)” but then dismissed them without engaging with the substance. Continuing to investigate and potentially sanction a specialist for raising evidence-based safety concerns about puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors does create a substantial and specific danger to the health and safety of gender-distressed children and adolescents (many of whom have co-morbid disabilities, autism, trauma, etc.). The chilling effect on other doctors is already documented and deters proper clinical care.
- Failure to consider the evidence I provided My disclosure attached the Cass Review and multiple international studies showing weak evidence and net harm from the gender-affirming model. AHPRA’s letter makes no reference to this evidence and instead treats the matter as a general “social media” issue.
- Misapplication of the Kok precedent AHPRA relies heavily on Medical Board of Australia v Kok [2025] VCAT 650. That case involved specific posts found to contain harmful language. It does not stand for the proposition that any public comment on a contested medical issue can be investigated. Dr Spencer’s statements were measured, evidence-based, and aligned with current international best practice. AHPRA has not explained why the Kok reasoning applies here.
- Waste of resources and maladministration Pursuing this investigation diverts AHPRA resources from genuine patient-safety cases and undermines public trust in the National Scheme. No patient of Dr Spencer has complained; there is no allegation of clinical harm.
Outcome sought I ask the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman to:
- Conduct an independent review of AHPRA’s decision not to investigate my Public Interest Disclosure.
- Determine whether AHPRA properly applied s 12 of the PID Act and correctly assessed the risk to public health and safety.
- Recommend that AHPRA either: (a) close the investigation into Dr Spencer, or (b) provide a detailed explanation of how the investigation serves the public interest in light of current evidence.
Attachments
- My original Public Interest Disclosure email dated 4 April 2026 (online link above)
- AHPRA’s response letter dated 11 May 2026 (3 pages)
I make this complaint in good faith and am happy to provide any further information required. I understand the Ombudsman cannot re-decide the merits of the underlying investigation but can review whether AHPRA’s process was fair, reasonable and lawful.
Thank you for your assistance.
Kind regards
Dr. Elizabeth Caballero
Retired General Practitioner
President | Women Speak Tasmania