Regulation is often discussed in abstract terms — frameworks, powers, governance.What is less frequently acknowledged is the human cost when systems malfunction.
In Western Australia, submissions to the parliamentary inquiry described psychological distress, anxiety, depression and, in some cases, suicidal ideation linked to prolonged regulatory action. These were not fringe claims. They were echoed across dozens of accounts.
Victoria has not formally examined this issue. But anecdotal case studies suggest similar patterns: extended investigations, limited communication, exhaustion of personal resources and long-term reputational damage without resolution.
This raises an important question: should practitioner wellbeing be considered a regulatory issue? The answer must be yes — not because regulators should abandon enforcement, but because unsustainable harm undermines the very system regulation seeks to protect.
A profession operating under chronic fear and uncertainty does not serve the public interest.
Other regulatory systems increasingly recognise that education, early intervention and proportionate responses often deliver better outcomes than prolonged adversarial processes. Yet legal regulation has been slow to adapt.
An independent inquiry could examine whether Victoria’s framework adequately balances public protection with human impact — and whether alternative disciplinary pathways could reduce harm without compromising standards.
Strong regulation is not harsh regulation. It is fair, proportionate and humane.