Regulating digital mental health services in Australia

Menu
Get in touch

Strengthening oversight and clarifying complaints mechanisms

Grant Pink (journal article)

Australian Journal of Public Administration (2025)

In Australia, ambiguity remains about which regulatory bodies are responsible for addressing the ‘significant risks’ noted in the National Safety and Quality Digital Mental Health Standards. These risks include threats to privacy, safety, and data security. This open access Practice and Policy note makes recommendations based on a mapping of Australian regulators potentially involved when a digital mental health service is found to pose such a risk. In practice, an average of three regulators may be relevant for each area of risk, and more than double in some instances. Such complexity can confound clarity about where to lodge complaints or concerns, and how any identified ‘significant risk’ is to be managed. This paper proposes ways to clarify referrals between the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, accrediting agencies, and other key regulators and recommends (1) further regulatory mapping and planning, (2) clearer complaints and feedback pathways, and (3) an evaluation of current regulatory infrastructure to ensure fitness for purpose.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.70013

Piers Gooding, Research Lead (2021–23). Piers is a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne Law School. He is a socio-legal scholar whose research focuses on the law and politics of disability and mental health. Piers has acted as a board member and advisor in a range of local, national and international bodies working on the rights of disabled people, and has advised policy-makers at national and international levels. He posts here on Twitter and you can read more about his work here.