I am a registered psychologist with extensive additional training in advanced trauma modalities. But under Australia’s current advertising guidelines for health practitioners, I am unable to say that clearly in public-facing communication.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency prohibits psychologists and most other registered health professionals from using words like “specialise,” referencing treatment outcomes, or publishing testimonials. The intent is sound — protecting the public from misleading claims — but in practice, these rules prevent clinicians from clearly communicating what they are trained to do.

Under Section 133 of the National Law, registered professionals must avoid statements that could be considered “misleading” or “likely to create an unreasonable expectation of beneficial treatment”. Yet, these terms remain ambiguously defined. Even describing oneself as “experienced in trauma treatment” can draw scrutiny. The safest language available often amounts to “I have an interest in trauma.”

Meanwhile, unregistered providers — coaches, mentors, and wellness practitioners — operate with no such constraints. They are not regulated by AHPRA, and are free to advertise with confidence: listing outcomes, client reviews and even using diagnostic-sounding terms. They are not required to adhere to a code of ethics, undertake continuing professional development, or carry insurance. Yet they are able to promote themselves more persuasively than those bound by the regulatory framework.

This discrepancy has consequences. Consumers seeking help for serious conditions such as trauma or neurodivergence are presented with a confusing array of options – and limited means of discerning which providers are clinically trained and accountable. A client cannot easily distinguish between someone with three hours of online training and someone with three years of postgraduate supervision in a particular presentation or treatment type.

These restrictions may inadvertently discourage transparency and drive experienced professionals away from the public health landscape. Many psychologists feel they must choose between staying silent or deregistering entirely to describe their work more openly – especially as burnout rates rise and unregulated competition grows.

Regulation is vital. Safeguards must exist to protect the public from false claims and exploitation. But a regulatory approach that prevents skilled professionals from stating their qualifications and scope of practice risks undermining the very trust it aims to preserve.

If public protection is the goal, clarity — not silence — should be the priority.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.