Today’s case – Collett v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2026] QIRC 084 – has only a very tenuous connection to ‘emergency’ law but I’ll report on it anyway as it involves definitions under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. 

The applicant Ms Collett is an employee of Queensland Health.  She was required to undergo, and did undergo, an Independent Medical Examination (IME).  She was then directed to attend a further IME with ‘a specialist neuropsychologist’.   She objected and argued that only a registered medical practitioner – a ‘doctor’ – can conduct an IME.

Relevantly, the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 104 says:

The employee’s chief executive may—

(a             appoint a doctor to examine the employee and give the chief executive a written report on the examination; and

(b)           require the employee to submit to the medical examination.

Ms Collett relied ‘on the publication, Supporting employees affected by illness and disability: a practical guide to independent medical examinations for the Queensland Public sector’ ([8]) (‘the Guide’). The QIRC rejected that argument for reasons that in my respectful opinion, are clearly wrong.

The use of the term ‘doctor’ in the Public Sector Act is unhelpful.  As a colloquial title most people understand ‘doctor’ to mean a medical practitioner, but the term doctor is not a protected title.  Many people call themselves ‘doctor’ including, no doubt, many psychologists.  Many might have doctoral degrees and therefore use the title in a formal rather than honorary sense.  I am a ‘doctor’ (a Doctor of Philosophy or PhD) but I’m sure no-one would suggest that the ‘employee’s chief executive’ could appoint me to conduct a medical examination.  The term ‘doctor’ must mean something other than a person who adopts the honorary title ‘doctor’ or who holds a doctoral degree.

The term ‘doctor’ is not defined in the Act, but it is defined in the Guide.  At [12] the Commission said ‘… the glossary defines ‘doctor’ as: ‘medical practitioner’ registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to practice in the medical profession (other than a student)’.

The Commission then looked to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. They said (at [13])) that in Schedule 4 to the Act:

… there are definitions, which includes a definition for ‘medical practitioner’:
“health practitioner” means an individual who practises a health profession. 

They then looked at the definition of health profession which lists the 15 registered health professions, which includes psychology, and concluded (at [15])

… the HPRNL Act defines a health practitioner as someone who practices the profession of psychology. Accordingly, I find that a psychologist (who is not a student) comes within the definition of a ‘doctor’ as that phrase is used in the Guide. It is on this basis that I find that Ms Collett’s construction of the Guide must be rejected.

That’s correct, that is how the HPRNL defines a ‘health practitioner’ but that is not how it defines a ‘medical practitioner’.  The terms are not synonymous.  A psychologist, a paramedic, and a nurse are all ‘health practitioners’ but only a person registered by the Medical Board in the medical profession is a ‘medical practitioner’.  That is clear from the definition in the Guide – that is a medical practitioner is a person registered ‘to practice in the medical profession’ and by s 113 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law that says only a person registered in the medical profession can use the term ‘medical practitioner’.  See also the Medical Board of Australia https://www.medicalboard.gov.au/ – ‘Regulating Australia’s medical practitioners’ (emphasis added).

Conclusion

What the Commission failed to see is that there are 15 separate health professions each governed by their own board.  Anyone registered in any of those professions is a ‘health practitioner’; only a person registered in the medical profession is a ‘medical practitioner’.  To say that the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law contains a definition of ‘medical practitioner’ and to then quote a definition of ‘health practitioner’ is an obvious an error – and with respect a fundamental error that a first-year law student should not make.  If the author of this judgment submitted an essay with this error on it to their introductory course on statutory interpretation they would be bound to fail.   That a person sitting in a position of making judgments that affect the rights of others would make this mistake is a real worry.  Now the applicant must decide whether to accept the outcome or invest more time and money on an appeal asking an appeal panel to tell this decision maker how to read.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.