Responses to common questions asked by SPA’s members
Has Speech Pathology Australia advocated for statutory regulation before?
Yes, Speech Pathology Australia has advocated for statutory regulation in the past. Speech Pathology Australia has sought for speech pathologists to be regulated under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) three times. NRAS is the framework overseeing the regulation of what are commonly referred to as the 16 ‘Ahpra-registered’ professions in Australia.
Requests made in 2008 and 2011 were unsuccessful. The issue was raised again in 2014 as part of the Review of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme.
The primary reason provided for the decisions not to regulate speech pathologists under NRAS was that the six criteria for assessing the need for statutory regulation of health occupations were not met.
Most notably, the activities of speech pathologists were not deemed to pose significant risk of harm to the health and safety of the public, and, as speech pathologists work in a range of sectors, it was not clear whether it was appropriate for Health Ministers to exercise responsibility for regulating the occupation.
The NRAS Complexity Review’s Consultation Paper 2 has proposed that the criteria used to assess regulatory risk be reviewed and expanded — including consideration of additional factors such as lifelong harm, the provision of care to "predominately vulnerable"1 cohorts and the typical practice setting.
1 The term “vulnerable” is used only to directly reflect the language of Consultation Paper 2. Speech Pathology Australia has provided feedback to the Review team that this terminology may not align with strengths-based language and supports the use of person-centred terminology where possible.
Would a shift to statutory regulation lead to changes in fees for speech pathologists?
As the specifics of the proposed framework remain unknown, there is insufficient information available to predict whether a shift to statutory regulation for speech pathologists would cause fees to increase, decrease, or remain similar to those under the current self-regulation model. However, some potential factors and considerations are explored below.
Whether participation in a regulatory scheme is voluntary or mandatory
Participation in SPA’s self-regulation framework, and associated fees, are voluntary. If speech pathologists were to transition to a statutory regulation model, a registration fee might apply.
The overall cost impact would depend on the specific regulatory model adopted, whether participation was mandatory to be eligible to practise, and associated administrative requirements for regulators.
The model proposed in the Consultation Paper 2 of the NRAS Complexity Review is a mandatory regulatory scheme. If implemented, speech pathologists would be required to register in order to practise.
Registration fees vary across NRAS-regulated professions
Under NRAS, registration fees range from $127 to $1,027 per profession, with additional optional professional association membership fees varying by profession. It is difficult to predict the exact cost of statutory registration for speech pathologists as this would depend on the specific details of the regulatory model proposed.
Ahpra has stated that “The National Scheme is self-funded with each Board responsible for meeting the full costs of regulating their profession. The fees for each National Board also reflect the risk and complexity of the individual professions, as well as the resources needed to address them”. Fees may also be influenced by the size of the workforce, the number of complaints received, and the costs associated with addressing complaints.
All regulatory frameworks require regular fee reviews to ensure they are sustainable
Regardless of the regulatory model, fees will need regular review to ensure the system remains sustainable and operates on a cost-recovery basis.
Would complaints handling or enforcement of ethics and standards change if statutory regulation was introduced?
Under the model proposed in Consultation Paper 2 of the NRAS Complexity Review, complaints handling and enforcement processes would change. Complaints would be managed by Health Complaints Entities under a new nationally consistent framework, with input from professional bodies to support appropriate responses and ensure profession-specific expertise informs regulatory decisions. However, as the model is not yet finalised or endorsed, the exact nature of these changes remains subject to further design and consultation.
Would the setting of professional standards and the accreditation of university courses change?
SPA currently performs these roles for speech pathology.
Under the model proposed in Consultation Paper 2 of the NRAS Complexity Review, the setting of registration and accreditation standards would be the responsibility of the proposed Allied Health Professions Regulatory Council. However, the consultation paper provides limited detail about which entity would be responsible for conducting accreditation assessments of university programs or skills assessments for overseas-qualified practitioners.
SPA has proposed that accreditation assessments of university programs and skills assessments for overseas-qualified practitioners should continue to be administered by SPA, given our existing infrastructure and profession-specific expertise. Additional information about SPA’s proposed model can be found on pages 10-11, 14-15, and 18 of our submission in response to Consultation Paper 2 of the NRAS Complexity Review.
For information on how these roles and responsibilities are assigned in the current NRAS, please refer to Table 1 – Comparison of key features of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) and certification of speech pathologists through Speech Pathology Australia (SPA).
What are the pros and cons of statutory regulation compared to self-regulation?
The potential benefits and drawbacks of statutory regulation compared to self-regulation depend significantly on the details of the regulatory model adopted, which are currently unknown. Additionally, perceptions of what constitutes a "pro" or "con" may differ depending on individual priorities and perspectives. To provide transparency, some potential implications of both approaches are discussed below. The implications of transitioning to statutory regulation would vary depending on the chosen framework (i.e., integration into NRAS or a novel model).
Title protection
Statutory regulation under the proposed model would provide title protection, ensuring that only individuals meeting specific, enforceable standards can call themselves a "speech pathologist." This may safeguard the public by deterring unqualified individuals from misrepresenting their qualifications.
Mandatory participation
Statutory regulation under the proposed model would require all practising speech pathologists to be registered. This is intended to allow for a complaints process that is consistent across the profession, a public register of practitioners, and enforceable sanctions for breaches of professional standards. By contrast, participation in self-regulation frameworks like SPA’s CPSP certification remains voluntary.
Uniform standards across the profession
Tied to mandatory participation, statutory regulation under the proposed model would aim to apply consistent professional and ethical standards to all speech pathologists, regardless of their affiliation with SPA.
Tailored professional standards and responsiveness
We have heard questions about whether statutory regulation might reduce the flexibility or responsiveness of standards, or make them less profession-specific.
If speech pathologists were to fall under either the higher-risk or medium-risk regulatory pathways, there may be a desire to streamline standards across professions for consistency. However, Consultation Paper 2 outlines that Professional Bodies would be able to propose profession-specific standards for consideration. It also states that, as far as possible, registration standards for practitioners should build on those already developed by self-regulated professions. This provides a clear opportunity for any future standards to reflect the specific needs and context of speech pathology.
SPA is a full member of NASRHP, which requires self-regulatory organisations to meet 11 benchmark standards closely modelled on those of NRAS (Ahpra-regulated professions). This alignment supports SPA’s self-regulation framework to align with national benchmarks.
Any changes to standards under statutory regulation would likely require broad consultation and significant lead time due to the potential for downstream effects on university course accreditation and assessment of overseas-trained practitioners.
Costs to speech pathologists
Statutory regulation has the potential to affect costs to speech pathologists, depending on the model adopted. Further details are outlined above under the question “Would a shift to statutory regulation lead to changes in fees?”
Enforcement of professional and ethical standards
Under the current self-regulation model, SPA’s enforcement applies to CPSPs and members, meaning non-CPSPs are subject only to the National Code of Conduct, which varies by jurisdiction. The model proposed aims to introduce a more consistent and legally enforceable approach across the entire profession, noting that this would depend on the structure of the adopted framework.
In its submission in response to Consultation Paper 2 of the NRAS Complexity Review, SPA outlines a number of specific requirements to strengthen both the National Code of Conduct for Health Care Workers and the proposed national complaints framework. These include co-designing the framework with Professional Bodies, incorporating mechanisms for continuous quality improvement, and updating the Code to ensure breaches of professional standards can trigger regulatory action. Further detail is provided across pages 23–29 of the submission.
Workforce data collection and workforce planning
Statutory regulation could improve workforce data collection by integrating speech pathologists into the National Health Workforce Dataset used for NRAS-regulated professions. This would provide more accurate information on workforce size, distribution, and trends, supporting better workforce planning and resource allocation. In contrast, self-regulated professions like speech pathology lack a centralised dataset, relying instead on sources such as voluntary labour force surveys, which may lead to gaps in understanding where and how many speech pathologists are practising. This uncertainty can make workforce planning more challenging.
National practitioner register and national register of Prohibition Orders
The proposed model would establish a publicly accessible national practitioner register, allowing consumers, employers, and regulators to verify whether a speech pathologist is registered and whether any conditions or restrictions apply to their practice. Additionally, a national register of Prohibition Orders would record practitioners who have been prohibited from practising due to serious breaches, helping to prevent them from offering services in another jurisdiction.
Consumer knowledge and experience
Consumers expect safe, high-quality care from healthcare professions but may not be well positioned to accurately evaluate what this entails in practice. Many may not be aware of the qualifications or certifications they should look for when choosing a speech pathologist. For example, they may not be aware of the Certified Practising Speech Pathologist (CPSP) post-nominal or understand its significance.
Under the proposed model, title protection would legislate that only registered professionals could use the title "speech pathologist," reducing the need for consumers to assess provider qualifications or certifications. Instead, they would be able to refer to a national register. This could simplify decision-making when accessing speech pathology services.
Some funding systems, such as Medicare and private health insurance, indirectly require CPSP status, offering some consumer protection, but consumers may be unaware of this requirement and may assume all speech pathologists are required to meet the same standards. Consumers may also be unsure of how to raise concerns or make a complaint. The proposed model would provide a standardised complaints pathway regardless of the profession, making it easier for consumers to navigate the process.
What would a move to statutory regulation of speech pathologists mean for SPA?
A move to statutory regulation would require SPA to change some of its operations. The details of the changes will be influenced by the type of regulatory model required.