Psychology Board of Australia v Noordink [2025] QCAT 165

• [4] His conduct involves a female patient, MK, who suffered autism spectrum disorder ('ASD'). It continued over the period from 20 October 2020 to 20 November 2020. The respondent accepts the truth of each of the five allegations against him.
• [5] As a result of his conduct, MK felt violated, intimidated and terrified of seeking further therapy aggravated by virtue of her ASD.
• [6] The respondent's conduct was a clear and significant breach of his professional obligations, having serious negative effects on MK including suicidal ideation and associated distress. The respondent's admitted conduct involved making inappropriate and sexualised comments to MK and making and attempting to make physical contact with her that was unwelcome and without consent. This conduct constitutes the first ground alleged against the respondent.
• [7] His misconduct continued and, in my view, was significantly amplified by writing to MK during the course of the Board's investigation. He wrote to her by email on 11 April 2021. This conduct constitutes the second ground alleged against the respondent.
• [8] The email is in my view a very grave indictment of Dr Noordink's professionalism and also of his personal character. It was in my view a blatant attempt at emotional blackmail and in many ways can be seen as worse than the conduct itself which led to the allegations against him. He told MK her complaint could end his work as a psychologist (which in my view it very clearly should) with consequent distress to patients including, "a 95 yo lady in tears" because he could now not help her. He had the sheer goll to tell MK he forgave her for the part she played in ending his work as a psychologist.
• [9] Sending the email was a gross breach of his professional obligations and in my view a very significant indictment of his personal character, humanity and morality.
• [10] The third ground concerns the inadequacy of the care that Dr Noordink provided to MK over the period of his treatment.
• [11] This was based on the examination of his notes by a clinical and forensic psychologist, Dr Paul Pusey, who also considered MK's statement to Ahpra and her medical records. Dr Pusey opined, and I accept, that during the course of his treating relationship with MK, Dr Noordink:

(a) failed to provide a rationale for his choice of treatment modality namely acceptance and commitment therapy;

(b) used that therapy when it was inappropriate to do so with a patient diagnosed with ASD;

(c) failed to adequately consider and discuss with MK whether any modifications to that treatment were required given her diagnosis;

(d) failed to obtain informed consent from MK in respect to the treatment;

(e) failed to establish a baseline measure from which to measure MK's progress;

(f) failed to obtain professional supervision in respect of his treatment of MK; and

(g) failed to have the adequate level of competence and/or knowledge to treat a patient with ASD.

• [12] In my assessment such misconduct, considered with the other misconduct already referred to, bolsters the strength of the finding of professional misconduct against Dr Noordink.
• [13] The fourth ground relates to Dr Noordink's failure to keep adequate records of his treatment, which is also based on Dr Pusey's examination of his records and his opinion that the record keeping was inadequate.
• [14] The final ground against Dr Noordink concerns him providing false and misleading information to the Health Ombudsman, the Board and Ahpra. On 15 January 2021, he denied to the Health Ombudsman all of the now admitted conduct, the subject of ground one. He repeated that denial to the Board and to Ahpra on 26 March 2021 despite his written response to MK on 11 April 2021 acknowledging his conduct.
• [15] In short, he blatantly lied knowing the truth would be harmful to his self-interest.

• [16] The totality of his conduct very clearly amounts to professional misconduct very substantially below the standard to be expected of a registered health practitioner.
• [17] As has been noted in numerous cases when parties agree on proposed findings and sanctions, a Tribunal should make orders consistent with that agreement, provided the agreed position is within the range of appropriate orders.[1]
• [18] In my assessment, the agreed position of imposing a reprimand and 18-month disqualification period pursuant to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland) ('National Law') is within an appropriate range having regard to the time which has already elapsed since Dr Noordink surrendered his registration in April 2021, that is about 4 years ago although, it seems he has been conducting some professional services other than psychological services.
• [19] Effectively, his conduct means he will not have been practising for over five and a half years when that disqualification ends in 18 months' time in October 2026. He will by then be well into his seventies. I mention those matters because in my view the first and second allegations seen together in particular represent such a significant departure form professional standards, and indeed from standards of common humanity and decency that I have grave misgivings about Dr Noordink ever practising again as a registered health practitioner in any field.

• [20] In the circumstances, I will make orders as proposed by the Board and agreed by Dr Noordink in the following terms:
  1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, Dr Noordink has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law in relation to ground 1.

1. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, Dr Noordink has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law in relation to ground 2.
2. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, Dr Noordink has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to subparagraph (a) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law in relation to ground 3.
3. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, Dr Noordink has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to subparagraph (a) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law in relation to ground 4.
4. Pursuant to s 196(1)(b)(iii) of the National Law, Dr Noordink has behaved in a way that constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of that term in s 5 of the National Law in relation to ground 5.
5. Pursuant to s 196(2)(a) of the National Law, Dr Noordink is reprimanded.
6. Pursuant to s 196(4)(a) of the National Law, Dr Noordink is disqualified from applying for registration as a registered health practitioner for 18 months.
7. Pursuant to s 196(4)(b)(i) of the National Law, Dr Noordink is prohibited from providing, whether as an employee, contractor, manager, or volunteer, and whether directly or indirectly, any health services until such time as he again becomes a registered health practitioner.

[1] Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Martin [2013] QCAT 376.