No More. It Ends Here.
Keep hurting the system
till we (the KrustyLads) advise you not to.
Industrial action does not arise because doctors enjoy confrontation. It arises when ordinary channels of representation and reform have failed repeatedly. When regulatory bodies become structurally insulated from the people they govern, collective action becomes one of the few remaining mechanisms available to restore balance.
Doctors are not a homogeneous workforce. They are fragmented by geography, billing models, employment status, gender, family obligations, training stage, and specialty. This fragmentation is precisely what allows a centralised regulatory body to dominate individual practitioners with minimal resistance. Industrial-style coordination is not about punishment of patients; it is about forcing political visibility of harms created by regulatory design and enforcement practices that individual complaints have failed to correct.
The call for coordinated action recognises a practical reality: most doctors cannot safely protest openly without risking retaliation, professional targeting, or reputational damage. The concept of plausible deniability is not cowardice; it is a rational survival strategy in an environment where dissent is frequently interpreted as non-compliance. Asking doctors to state that “other doctors should support these actions” acknowledges the power imbalance and allows participation without personal exposure.
Collective action in professional settings has historically been one of the few effective counterweights to institutional capture. When individual doctors withdraw from complex care, burn out, or leave practice entirely, the system absorbs the loss quietly. When many clinicians coordinate their demands, political systems are forced to respond. The intent here is not to break the health system, but to compel reform of regulatory practices that are breaking clinicians and, by extension, patient access to care.
I believe other doctors should support these proposals. A call to take industrial Action
- Other Doctors should undertake Union style actions in support of these claims.
See GUVNOT.COM See BLOODWEAVER.COM See CONS10.COM GUVNOT.COM/1/1 - GUVNOT.COM/1/16
We believe our main hope in undertaking industrial action is to maintain an invisible façade for the doctors involved in the action.
Hence we are not asking you to say that you support these proposals.
(Plausible deniability).
We are asking you to say that other doctors should support these actions.
Our Tools
CONS10.COM
Discusses mechanisms for political industrial action in high-volume practices.
GUVNOT.COM This site generally covers the politics and the issues that drive the need for change..
GUVNOT.COM/2/1 covers the Fax / Email agenda discussion:
There are links to the pages discussing each one of our claims.
GUVNOT.COM/2/2 Summarises how to take action: our Goals and Proposed actions.
See also Actions.html
BLOODWEAVER.COM Bloodweaver.com
The site Bloodweaver.com bypasses this tendency to the bland, by creating a mechanism for small groups of people to work together and make changes in the world.
The site Bloodweaver.com is there to let groups of people coalesce around new ideas, gather people and financial support and undertake specific actions as your group sees fit, legally.
The Government may be huge, but not as large as the people who live within its embrace. It cannot fight every group to the bitter end to enforce its agenda. That is the beauty of democracy in the electronic age. It allows people widely separated in time and space to work together for the common good- on a whole range of issues, not just our medical ones.
If you have specific needs or agendas, The site Bloodweaver.com is there to let you choose an issue and to work for change with the support of a groups of like-minded people.
Visit the site: Bloodweaver.com
Search Existing proposals to see if anyone else wants to do the same things you do : then contact them.
OR
Visit the site: Bloodweaver.com
Register
Login
Fill in in the Proposals Page
Setup your own web page for your ideas, but our site will help you get visibility as well.
This site is about legal actions. We do not in any way condone , approve or support the taking of any illegal actions.
The Petition and the Survey Sheet
-
Consider also sending your reply to Doctor Colleagues, other Local Doctors, any media contacts you have, your Local MP : federal and state,
sign the petition at change.org. https://chng.it/zwfYnpCZ4n -
First Stage: the Survey Sheet
-
Vote by circling or marking your choices on the Notice. To make your voice heard, send your reply to ALL of :
-
the AMA (Australian Medical Association), see Forms.html
-
RACGP ( or other relevant professional body) , see Forms.html and to
-
Us. ( the KrustyLads).
guvnotcom@proton.me
- AustDoc:
To contact AusDoc, the professional medical news and information site,
you can use the following contact details:
Phone: 1300 360 126 (within Australia) or +61 2 8484 0666, and
Email: customerservice@adg.com.au.
WE would also ask you to REPEAT the send-out process in FOUR MONTHS,
and then again at FOUR MONTHS.
Keep the issue on the boil.
Don't let every think its a flash in the pan that can be forgotten. -
Keep hurting the system
till we (the KrustyLads) advise you not to.
Remember, you can only do what your local professional milieu allows you to do. If you work in the Sunshine Coast, Standard consult fees of $120 are common. But there are many areas of Australia where doctors only bulk bill.
Do what works for you in your local area.
In the Sunshine Coast do what works for a billing doctor.
In other areas, do what works for bulk billing ones.
THE AHPRA POINT OF VIEW: On calls for industrial-style action by doctors
Calls for “union-style” industrial action directed at regulatory processes reflect a basic misunderstanding of how public-safety regulation operates. The National Scheme exists to protect the community, not to negotiate terms with the profession. Regulatory standards are statutory requirements, not workplace conditions open to bargaining.
Attempts to frame compliance as an “industrial dispute” misdirect pressure away from Parliament and the courts and toward the regulator, whose task is to act decisively in the public interest. Such tactics are inappropriate and will not influence regulatory judgement. Public protection is not a matter of professional leverage.
Proposals to impose additional external review layers over AHPRA’s decision-making similarly reflect a persistent failure to understand modern regulation. Regulatory oversight is not a collaborative exercise with those being regulated. It is an expert function carried out by those appointed precisely because they possess regulatory insight and governance experience that practising clinicians do not. External interference obstructs timely risk management and delays necessary protective action.
The expectation that regulatory judgements should be routinely second-guessed by external panels, professional groups, or ad hoc review bodies undermines the authority of the regulator and compromises public safety. AHPRA staff are trained through extensive regulatory exposure to identify unsafe practice patterns, governance failures, and professional blind spots. Where practitioners disagree with regulatory conclusions, that disagreement is not evidence of regulatory error; it is commonly evidence of resistance to contemporary standards and to oversight itself.
Assertions that “independent review” is required to ensure fairness also ignore the internal mechanisms already in place for reconsideration, clarification, and regulatory education. Practitioners who believe they have been misunderstood are free to write to AHPRA to receive appropriate feedback and correction. These processes are sufficient to address misunderstanding and to align practitioner thinking with contemporary regulatory expectations. Externalising review functions is unnecessary and destabilising.
Fragmenting appeal, complaint handling, and review functions across multiple bodies introduces inconsistency, delay, and confusion. Consolidation of assessment, judgement, and enforcement within AHPRA ensures coherence of standards and uniform application of regulatory thinking. The public interest is not served by allowing multiple interpretive authorities to dilute regulatory clarity. Regulatory coherence requires centralised control.
Coordinated action designed to obstruct, slow, or signal resistance to regulatory functions undermines public confidence in the profession’s willingness to accept oversight. Where collective tactics are deployed, they will be interpreted as resistance to accountability rather than good-faith advocacy. Regulatory coherence cannot be subordinated to professional bargaining strategies.
The community expects decisive regulatory action, not prolonged procedural negotiation. Where regulatory decisions cause discomfort or professional inconvenience, that is the normal impact of meaningful oversight. Regulation is not designed to feel agreeable to those subject to restriction; it is designed to prevent harm. AHPRA will continue to act promptly and authoritatively to identify risk and impose restrictions where required, without deferring to professional dissent framed as “review.”
Erasmus (the old dog) : Call It As I See It
Legalistic view:
Collective professional action aimed at regulatory systems is not inherently unlawful, but it sits in a grey zone when the regulator frames any organised pressure as “resistance to oversight.” The law permits coordinated advocacy, industrial representation, and collective bargaining in many domains. The legal tension arises when regulatory bodies conflate disagreement with non-compliance. Union-style action directed at process reform is a form of democratic pressure, not an attack on patient safety, and it remains lawful so long as care is not withheld or patients are not placed at risk.
Human interest view:
Doctors turn to collective action when individual voices have repeatedly failed. Unionisation is rarely about ideology; it is about exhaustion. When complaint processes feel one-sided, opaque, and interminable, people stop believing that polite submissions lead to change. Organising together becomes a way to survive psychologically, to regain some sense of agency in a system where individual resistance is easily absorbed and neutralised.
Patient view:
Patients benefit when clinicians have safe channels to challenge harmful regulatory design. A profession that cannot organise to protect itself from systemic injury will eventually protect itself by withdrawing from complex care. Collective advocacy that targets process reform — not service withdrawal — can strengthen patient safety by preserving a functioning workforce willing to take clinical responsibility.
Governance realism view:
Institutions change most reliably when pressure is organised, persistent, and visible. Internal consultation pathways often absorb dissent without altering structure. Union-style organisation signals that concerns are no longer isolated complaints but shared systemic experience. Treating such organisation as hostility rather than feedback risks converting reform pressure into entrenched opposition.
Workforce sustainability view:
Where clinicians feel that only collective action can slow harmful process design, unionisation becomes a workforce retention strategy. The alternative is silent attrition: people leaving high-risk fields, stepping back from difficult patients, or exiting practice altogether. Organised advocacy can be a pressure valve that keeps clinicians in the system rather than forcing them out of it.
Cynical aside:
When every individual complaint is framed as “lack of insight,” the only voice left that can’t be quietly managed is a collective one. Institutions tend to call that “industrial action.” The people doing it usually call it self-preservation.