Health Professionals (Special Events Exemption) Act 2000

The Act contains several key definitions that shape its scope.

Special event. This is the foundational concept. A special event is a “specified event, or an event of a specified class” declared by the Minister via a special event order published in the Gazette. The order may be of general or limited application and can vary according to factors stated in the order. The Minister’s power is limited by section 4(2): the event must be a sporting, cultural or other event that, in the Minister’s opinion, will attract or involve a significant number of participants from another country or other countries. The phrase “other event” gives the Minister wide discretion. The Minister also specifies the exemption period, which may include periods before and after the event. For example, an order for the 2022 FIFA Women’s World Cup (hosted in Australia) could have covered training camps weeks before the first match and rehabilitation days after the final.

Exemption period. The period during which the exemption operates for a particular special event, as specified in the order. This is important because the authorisation under section 7 only applies during this window. A visiting health professional who arrives early or stays late cannot rely on the Act; they would need separate registration or another exemption.

Visiting health professional. To fall within this definition under section 5, a person must be: (a) an individual who is a resident of another country; (b) appointed, employed, contracted or otherwise engaged to provide health care services to a visitor; (c) have given notice in accordance with the procedure specified in the order; and (d) not registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law in respect of those services. The requirement to be a “resident of another country” means Australian citizens living overseas are caught? The Act says “resident of another country” - on a plain reading, an Australian who lives overseas is a resident of another country. That would require examining the facts. The phrase “not registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law” means that if a visiting professional happens to also hold Australian registration (for example, a dual-qualified medical practitioner), they cannot be a visiting health professional. They would be treated as an ordinary Australian practitioner. The notice requirement under (c) is a procedural hurdle - the special event order must set out how and when notice is to be given. Without giving notice, the person is not a visiting health professional, regardless of their other qualifications.

Visitor. Under section 6, a visitor is either: (a) a resident of another country who is in the State for the purpose of officially participating in the special event, or for preparing, training, practising, rehearsing or acclimatising for it; or (b) a resident of Australia who is a member of a group where the majority of members are residents of another country here for that purpose. The “preparing, training, practising, rehearsing or acclimatising” language is expansive. It covers support staff, trainers, and likely family members accompanying participants? The Act does not mention family members. But the phrase “in the State for the purpose of officially participating” would ordinarily include the participant only. However, “acclimatising” could extend to a wide entourage. The Australian resident catch in (b) is narrow: the individual must be a member of a group with a majority international. For example, an Australian physiotherapist travelling as part of a foreign cycling team might be a visitor, but a single Australian official travelling with the team would not qualify because the group requirement is not satisfied. The purpose must also be the same - preparing for the event.

Health care services. The definition in section 3 includes services ordinarily provided by an extensive list of professions: medical practitioners, nurses, dentists, dental technicians, dental prosthetists, pharmacists, chiropodists, chiropractors, osteopaths, optometrists, physiotherapists, psychologists, and optical dispensers. It also includes any other service prescribed by regulation. This list is exhaustive unless the regulations add more. Note that some professions like podiatrists (chiropodists included), speech pathologists, dietitians, and paramedics are not listed. If they are not prescribed, they cannot operate under this Act. An event organiser needing speech therapy for a visiting athlete would have to rely on other exemptions or registration.

Registration. Defined broadly as including licensing, approval, admission, certification (including practising certificates), or any other form of authorisation required by or under legislation for carrying on an occupation. This means the exemption covers not just registration boards but any state-based authorisation scheme for health occupations. However, it only covers authorisations required under state legislation; it does not cover federal authorisations (such as those under the Therapeutic Goods Act) or voluntary registration.

Prescription drug. Defined by reference to the Controlled Substances Act 1984. That Act defines prescription drugs by reference to the Poisons Schedules. The Act does not create its own list.

Supply. Has the same meaning as in the Controlled Substances Act 1984, which broadly covers giving, selling, distributing, or in any other way providing a substance.

These definitions together create a closed system. The Act does not attempt to define the standard of care, scope of practice, or ethical obligations of visiting health professionals. It relies on their foreign registration or credentials (implicitly) and on any conditions imposed by the order or regulations. The free-market assumption is that the professional’s home country regulatory system and their contract with the event organiser will provide sufficient protection. That is a significant reduction in regulatory burden, but it also transfers risk to the visitor and event organiser, who may have limited recourse in case of negligence (as discussed under gotchas).

The Act directly affects at least five categories of actors.

Visiting health professionals are the primary beneficiaries. They obtain authorisation to practise in South Australia without the cost, time, and bureaucracy of applying for registration under the National Law. For a medical specialist from the UK or a physiotherapist from Germany, avoiding the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) registration process saves thousands of dollars in fees, months of processing time, and the requirement to show English language competence or undergo assessments from the relevant national board. The Act also protects them from prosecution for holding themselves out as being able to provide health care services (section 10(1)(d)) and for using their usual titles (section 10(1)(e)). This means a “Doctor” or “Specialist” from another country can use those terms in South Australia without breaching protected title provisions in the National Law.

Visitors (as defined) gain access to health care from practitioners who may already know their medical history, speak their language, and understand the specific demands of elite sport or performance. This is a significant practical benefit. The Act also shields visitors from offences under the Controlled Substances Act for possessing or doing anything as a result of receiving health care services (section 10(2)). So if a foreign athlete receives a prescribed painkiller or anaesthetic from their team doctor, they are not prosecuted for drug offences, provided the doctor is operating under the Act.

Event organisers are indirectly affected because they must secure a special event order from the Minister. This requires them to lobby, submit applications, and satisfy the Minister that the event will attract significant international participants. Organisers also need to set up a notice procedure for visiting health professionals, and they may need to seek authorisations for prescription drugs and supply chains. The Act creates no duty on the Minister to make an order; it is discretionary. This introduces uncertainty. An organiser cannot guarantee their doctors will be exempt until the order is made. The compliance burden falls on the organiser to ensure their visiting professionals give notice and operate within conditions.

South Australian health regulators (AHPRA and the state boards) lose their normal jurisdiction over these practitioners. They cannot receive complaints or take disciplinary action (s 11(1)). However, they retain power to pursue criminal prosecutions for offences under the National Law (s 11(2)) - for example, if a visiting health professional treats a member of the public or continues practising after the exemption period ends. The Act creates a gap in regulatory oversight. The Minister, rather than the profession’s board, controls the conditions and authorisations. This shifts power from independent regulatory bodies to the executive.

Pharmacists and wholesale suppliers are affected by the prescription drug provisions. A pharmacist may be authorised by a special event order to fill prescriptions written by a visiting health professional, but only if the order expressly provides that authority (s 9(2)(b)). Without such an order, the pharmacist would commit an offence by supplying a substance on a foreign prescription. Similarly, wholesalers can supply substances to visiting health professionals only if authorised by the order and if the wholesaler holds a Controlled Substances Act licence. This adds a layer of administrative complexity for pharmacies near event venues.

Local health professionals are indirectly affected through reduced demand for their services during the event. If an Olympic team brings its own doctors, local practitioners in the host city may see fewer patients. This is a competitive effect, but it is temporary and tied to the event. There is no evidence the Act was designed to protect or disadvantage local professionals. However, the requirement that the event be “significant” in its international participation is a limit on the Minister’s power; a small event with only a few foreign participants cannot be declared, protecting local practitioners from a flood of foreign competitors for minor occasions.

The Minister for Health bears the responsibility of making orders, imposing conditions, ensuring adequate arrangements for prescription drugs, and conducting a review of the Act after five years. The Minister can also vary or revoke orders, and can exempt specific persons from the Act entirely. These powers give the Minister considerable control over the shape of the exemption.

The Act does not impose any explicit obligation on health care providers, insurers, or the general public. It is a relief measure, not a regulatory instrument. But the narrowness of the definitions means that many people who might expect to fall within its scope do not - for example, Australian residents accompanying foreign teams (unless part of a majority-overseas group), and visiting professionals who have Australian registration (they are not “visiting health professionals” because they are registered under the National Law).

The Act creates a set of rights for visiting health professionals and visitors, and imposes duties primarily through conditions.

Rights of visiting health professionals. Under section 7(1), a visiting health professional who has been appointed, employed, contracted or otherwise engaged to provide health care services to visitors is authorised to provide those services. This authorisation is a right to act in South Australia without being registered under the National Law. It includes the right to hold oneself out as able to provide those services (s 10(1)(d)), and to use the titles one ordinarily uses (s 10(1)(e)) - for example, “Dr” or “Specialist”. If the special event order authorises it, a visiting health professional may also give prescriptions for prescription drugs (s 9(2)(a)). This is not a general right; it is contingent on the order. The professional also has the right to be exempt from many criminal offences under the National Law and the Controlled Substances Act, as long as they act within the Act and any conditions (s 10(1)).

Rights of visitors. Visitors have the right not to be prosecuted for offences under the Controlled Substances Act as a result of receiving health care services under the Act (s 10(2)). This is a narrow but important protection - it means they can possess and use prescription drugs legally, provided the doctor and supply chain are authorised.

Duties of visiting health professionals. The Act imposes several duties, mostly by reference to conditions and temporal limits. Under section 7(2), the authorisation operates only during the exemption period and while the professional is complying with the Act and any relevant conditions. So the primary duty is to stay within the exemption period. There is no express duty to practise only within one’s scope of competence, but conditions imposed by the order or regulations may address that. Sections 8(1) and 9(4) empower the Minister to impose conditions on the provision of health care services and on prescription authorisations. It is a good-faith prediction that conditions will include requirements to work only at designated venues, to carry evidence of foreign registration, to not perform certain procedures, or to report adverse events. The professional also must comply with the notice procedure under section 5(c); without notice, they are not a visiting health professional at all. Further, they must not be registered under the National Law in respect of those services (s 5(d)) - if they hold Australian registration, they cannot use the exemption; they must practise as an Australian practitioner instead. The professional does not have a duty to report to any SA authority, but the Minister can impose reporting conditions.

Duty regarding prescription drugs. The Minister has a duty under section 9(3) not to make an order containing prescription authorisations unless satisfied that adequate arrangements are in place to ensure drugs will only be prescribed for and supplied to visitors. This duty is on the Minister, not on the professional directly. But a visiting health professional who prescribes without authorisation commits an offence under the Controlled Substances Act, since the exemption in s 10(1)(c) only applies if the prescription is given “in accordance with this Act”.

Complaints and disciplinary process - limited duty. Section 11(1) provides that no complaint can be made about a visiting health professional under the National Law, and no disciplinary action can be taken under such an Act. This means patients (visitors) cannot lodge a complaint with AHPRA about the quality of care. The visitor’s only remedies are likely through common law negligence claims (if they can establish jurisdiction over the foreign professional) or through the professional’s home country regulatory system. The Act places no duty on the visiting health professional to carry insurance or to submit to SA’s health complaints process. This is a significant gap. The only duty enforceable in SA is criminal compliance. The Act does allow criminal proceedings for offences (s 11(2)), so if a professional commits a crime such as assault, theft, or drug trafficking, they can be prosecuted.

Event organisers and suppliers. The Act imposes indirect duties on those who supply substances: under s 10(3), a person supplying a prescription drug must be authorised by the order and must comply with any conditions under the Controlled Substances Act. Similarly, wholesale suppliers must be licensed under that Act. So suppliers have a duty to check their authorisation before providing substances.

No duty to the public. The Act expressly limits services to “visitors”. If a visiting health professional treats any Australian resident who is not a visitor (for example, a local volunteer), that treatment falls outside the exemption, and the professional would be practising without registration, risking criminal charges under the National Law. This duty-right boundary is critical: the professional has the right to treat only these defined individuals.

The Minister’s duty to review. Section 14 imposes a duty on the Minister to review the Act within five years of assent, and to table a report within 12 months. This is a one-off review. It does not create a continuing oversight duty.

Collectively, the rights are generous for the professional, but the duties are narrowly defined and dependent on the Minister’s discretion. The Act does not codify a standard of care, continuing professional development, or cultural competence requirements. It defers entirely to conditions that can be imposed ad hoc.

The Act does not itself impose direct penalties for breach of its own provisions. Instead, the enforcement regime operates through two channels: criminal offences under the National Law and the Controlled Substances Act (which the Act exempts only if conditions are met), and regulatory penalties under the Act’s own regulation-making power.

Criminal liability for practising outside the exemption. The central enforcement mechanism is the removal of the exemption. If a visiting health professional provides services outside the exemption period, or to a person who is not a visitor, or without giving notice, or in breach of a condition, then they are no longer acting under the Act’s authorisation. Consequently, the protections in section 10 fall away, and the professional commits offences under the National Law (e.g., practising without registration) and possibly under the Controlled Substances Act. The National Law provides for maximum penalties of up to $60,000 for individuals for practising without registration (s 113 in the national model). Additionally, holding out as a registered health practitioner without being registered is an offence. So the effective penalty for non-compliance is the restoration of the full criminal law that would otherwise apply to an unregistered practitioner.

Controlled Substances Act offences. Section 10(1)(b) exempts visiting health professionals from offences for possessing or supplying substances in the course of authorised services. If they operate outside authorisation, they face offences under the Controlled Substances Act, which carries penalties including imprisonment for Schedule 8 drugs (e.g., morphine, dexamphetamine) and Schedule 4 drugs (e.g., many antibiotics, antidepressants). Section 10(1)(c) exempts unauthorised prescribing; without that exemption, prescribing a prescription drug without authority is an offence. Section 10(3) exempts suppliers; if they supply without authorisation, they lose their exemption.

Complaints and disciplinary immunity. Section 11(1) prevents any complaint under the National Law from being made, and prevents disciplinary action. This is not a penalty, but a limitation on enforcement. It means the usual professional standards mechanisms cannot be used. However, this does not prevent the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions from charging the professional with a criminal offence (s 11(2) expressly preserves that). So errant professionals face criminal prosecution, not professional discipline. This is a harsher route for low-level misconduct (e.g., poor record-keeping) which might normally lead to a caution or practice restriction, but here could lead to a criminal record if it coincides with practising outside the exemption.

Regulation-making power. Under section 13, the Governor may make regulations that are necessary or expedient for the purposes of the Act. The regulations may prescribe penalties not exceeding a $1,250 fine for breach of, or non-compliance with, a regulation. This allows the government to create specific offences, such as failing to give notice or failing to comply with a condition, with a modest fine. As of the Act’s text, no such regulations are mentioned, but they could be made. The $1,250 cap means that serious misconduct would need to be dealt with under the underlying criminal law, not under this Act.

Ministerial powers to vary or revoke orders. Sections 4(5) and 12(3) allow the Minister to vary or revoke the special event order or the exclusion order. This is a soft enforcement mechanism: the Minister can shut down the exemption for a particular event or for a particular professional mid-event. That would immediately expose the professional to criminal liability if they continued to practise. The threat of revocation could be used to compel compliance with informal directions.

Review and reporting. Section 14 requires a review after five years. If the review finds the Act is being abused or that visiting health professionals are posing risks, the Act could be amended. However, there is no enforcement mechanism for the review itself; it is a parliamentary accountability measure.

No civil penalty. The Act does not create any civil penalty provisions, such as infringement notices or civil pecuniary penalties. The only civil consequences lie outside the Act (e.g., common law negligence, breach of contract). The Act does not require insurance or provide a statutory cause of action for patients.

Practical enforcement difficulties. Because the exemption is time-limited and event-specific, enforcement authorities have a limited window to detect breaches. A visiting health professional may leave Australia before any investigation is completed. The Act does not require them to remain in the jurisdiction or to provide contact details. This creates an enforcement gap that relies on event organisers’ cooperation and on border control measures. If a serious incident occurs, the police might collaborate with international authorities, but that is resource-intensive.

In summary, the Act’s enforcement relies on the stick of removing the exemption and exposing the professional to pre-existing criminal law. It does not create a bespoke compliance regime. This is a low-burden approach but carries risks: professionals who are willing to flout conditions are deterred only by the prospect of criminal conviction and imprisonment, and the difficulty of cross-border enforcement may reduce that deterrence in practice.

The Act is expressly designed to carve out an exception from other laws, primarily the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) (the National Law) and the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). Its interaction with other statutes is limited but noteworthy.

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. This is the primary law from which the Act provides relief. The National Law requires health practitioners to be registered in order to practise a health profession. The Act overrides that by authorising visiting health professionals to practise without registration during the exemption period. Section 10(1)(a) specifically exempts a visiting health professional from offences under the National Law (including the offence of practising without registration). Section 10(1)(d) exempts from the prohibition on holding out as a practitioner. Section 10(1)(e) exempts from the prohibition on using protected titles. This means that during the exemption, the National Law does not apply to authorised acts. However, the exemption is personal and activity-specific: the visiting health professional remains subject to the National Law for any act outside the exemption (e.g., treating a local). Also, section 11(1) prevents any complaint being made under the National Law, meaning the complaints mechanism of the National Law is wholly displaced. But section 11(2) preserves criminal proceedings for offences under the National Law - so if a person outside the exemption practises without registration, they can be charged under the National Law. The National Law continues to apply to all other persons in SA.

Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). This Act controls the possession, supply, and prescription of drugs. The Health Professionals (Special Events Exemption) Act grants exemptions from offences under that Act: section 10(1)(b) exempts visiting health professionals from offences for possessing or supplying substances in the course of authorised services; section 10(1)(c) exempts giving prescriptions; section 10(2) exempts visitors from offences as a result of receiving services; section 10(3) exempts suppliers from offences if they supply on a visiting health professional’s prescription (with authorisation) or by wholesale to a visiting health professional (with authorisation). These exemptions are conditional: they only apply if the services are “authorised by this Act” and if the supply or prescription is “in accordance with this Act”. So the underlying Controlled Substances Act offences remain in the background but are suspended for compliant conduct. Additionally, section 9(3) requires the Minister to ensure adequate arrangements are in place before authorising prescriptions - this is a cross-reference to the Controlled Substances Act’s policy objectives.

Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010. This is the amending act that brought the current wording in line with the National Law. The interaction is historical: the 2010 amendment replaced references to the “Health Registration Act” with references to the National Law, ensuring the Act works alongside the new national scheme.

Other health practitioner legislation. The Act only exempts from “registration” as defined. If a specific profession in SA has registration requirements outside the National Law (for example, paramedics or Chinese medicine practitioners, which are covered by the National Law but with some state-specific provisions) the exemption would apply because the definition of “registration” includes any form of authorisation required under legislation. However, if a profession is not covered by the National Law and has its own separate state licensing regime, that regime would be caught by the definition “any other form of authorisation of a person required by or under legislation for carrying on an occupation” (s 3). So the exemption likely covers all state-based health professional licensing.

Common law and civil liability. The Act does not provide any immunity from civil liability. A visiting health professional remains liable for negligence, battery, breach of contract, and other civil wrongs. The Act does not require them to carry insurance, but common law claims could be brought in South Australian courts. However, jurisdictional issues may arise if the professional is overseas or only in SA briefly. The Act does not deal with the law of torts or contract.

Australian Consumer Law. The provision of services may attract guarantees under the ACL (e.g., due care and skill). The Act does not exempt visiting health professionals from those provisions. A visitor could bring a claim for breach of consumer guarantees.

Work health and safety laws. If a visiting health professional runs a clinic at an event, they are subject to SA’s work health and safety laws. The Act does not exempt them.

Privacy laws. The Act does not address privacy. Visiting health professionals would be bound by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) if they hold health information and are covered by the Act (likely if they are an organisation). The Act does not create an exemption.

Other states’ laws. The Act is a South Australian law. It has no effect in other states. If a special event spans multiple states (like a national sporting tour), visiting health professionals would need exemptions in each state or rely on other mechanisms. The Act does not provide for mutual recognition of SA orders.

Section 12 - Exclusions. The Minister can order that the Act does not apply to a specified person or class. This power allows the Minister to fine-tune interactions: for example, exclude a particular discipline from the exemption or exclude a known risky practitioner. This interacts with the general application of the Act by creating exceptions.

Regulations. The Governor may make regulations, which can prescribe other offences to which the exemptions apply (s 10(4)). This allows the Act to be expanded to cover other laws (e.g., the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act). So the interaction with other laws can be extended via regulation.

Overall, the Act creates a discrete island of non-application for certain laws, but only during the exemption period and for the defined persons and activities. It does not amend or repeal the underlying laws; it suspends their operation in a narrow set of circumstances. This means that any error in characterising a patient, treatment, or timing immediately re-exposes the professional to the full force of the underlying laws.

The Health Professionals (Special Events Exemption) Act 2000 was assented to on 11 May 2000 and commenced on 10 August 2000, as published in the South Australian Government Gazette on that date. The Act has undergone only one substantive amendment since its enactment, together with a minor editorial omission.

The Principal Act is Act No. 12 of 2000. It was amended by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (Act No. 5 of 2010). That amending act received assent on 1 July 2010 and the relevant provisions (Schedule 1, clauses 17 to 20) commenced on 1 July 2010, as published in the Gazette. The amendment was necessary to align the Act with the transition from the former state-based Health Registration Act to the national registration scheme under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, which took effect in South Australia on 1 July 2010.

The specific amendments made by the 2010 Act were:

• Section 3 - Interpretation: The definition of “Health Registration Act” was deleted, as that Act was repealed. The definition section now simply does not reference it.
• Section 5 - Definition of visiting health professional: The amendment replaced the requirement that the person be “not registered under the Health Registration Act” with “not registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law”. This was a mechanical update to reflect the new regulatory regime.
• Section 10(1) - Exemptions relating to offences: The amendment substituted references to the Health Registration Act with references to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. So the exemption from offences now applies to the National Law rather than the old Act.
• Section 11(1) and (2) - Complaints: These subsections were amended to replace references to “an Act” (meaning the former health registration acts) with references to the “Health Practitioner Regulation National Law”. Specifically, subsection (1) now prevents a complaint being made “under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law” and subsection (2) preserves proceedings for an offence against that Law.

These were all consequential amendments. No substantive changes to policy, scope, or conditions were made. The Act essentially continued as before, but now interfaces with the national scheme.

In addition, section 2 (the standard object or definitions section) was omitted under the Legislation Revision and Publication Act 2002, which is a textual consolidation power used to remove spent or unnecessary provisions. This omission does not affect the operation of the Act; it was likely a provision that had no continuing effect.

No other amendments are shown in the legislative history. The Act does not appear to have been amended to reflect subsequent changes in the National Law (such as the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Amendment Act 2022) or changes to the Controlled Substances Act. This suggests the Act is considered fit for purpose without further adjustment. The Act also has not been repealed, and its review under section 14 would have been due around 2005-2006 (within 5 years of 11 May 2000). It is unclear from the source whether that review was conducted and reported. The legislative history table does not mention any review or amendment following the review. This may indicate the review was done but not resulting in amendment, or that it was not conducted. The Act remains on the statute books.

The sparse amendment history reflects the fact that the Act is a targeted, temporary exemption tool rarely used in practice. Most major events in South Australia may have used this mechanism, but if they did, the Act itself needed no amendment. The only significant change was the shift to the national registration scheme, which was handled by a simple update.

The text of the Act and its legislative history provide no references to any judicial decisions, tribunals, or litigation involving the Health Professionals (Special Events Exemption) Act 2000. Neither the Act itself nor the notes in the legislative record cite any cases. The parliamentary materials and the version published do not include any case annotations.

This is not surprising given the Act’s nature. It is an exemption statute that operates administratively: the Minister makes an order, professionals give notice, and for the duration of the event, the Act shields them from prosecution. Disputes are unlikely to arise in court because the Act’s enforcement is criminal: if a professional steps outside the exemption, they are charged under the National Law or Controlled Substances Act, not under this Act. Any challenge to a Ministerial order (for example, a claim that the Minister exceeded power in declaring a particular event or imposing conditions) would be subject to judicial review under general administrative law, but no such cases are mentioned.

Further, the Act’s complaints bar (s 11) prevents disciplinary proceedings, so no tribunal decisions under the National Law could involve a visiting health professional. Any civil claim for negligence would be brought under common law, not under this Act, so even if a visitor sued a visiting health professional, the court might interpret the Act but the case would be reported as a common law case, not as litigation under this Act.

The Act also contains no dispute resolution mechanism, no right of appeal from Ministerial decisions, and no criminal penalty provisions for which a court would need to interpret the Act extensively. The only possible litigation could be a prosecution for an offence against a regulation made under the Act (maximum fine $1,250), but no such regulations are mentioned and any such case would be minor.

Thus, based on the source, there is no recorded litigation history. This is plausible. The Act is a narrow, rarely-litigated piece of machinery. The absence of cases should not be mistaken for evidence that the Act is never used; it may simply be that it operates without generating reported decisions.

The Act contains several subtle features that can trap practitioners, event organisers, and regulators who assume it provides a broad, unbounded exemption.

1. The exemption only covers visitors, not the general public. This is the most important limitation. A visiting health professional who treats a local volunteer, a resident family member, or even an Australian athlete not part of a majority-overseas group is not acting under the Act. That treatment is unauthorised and constitutes practising without registration. The definition of “visitor” in section 6 is precise: for Australians, they must be members of a group whose majority is from overseas and present for the same purpose. A single Australian athlete on a foreign team might qualify; a local administrator would not. The professional must verify the status of each patient before treating them. There is no margin for error.

2. The exemption is period-bound. The special event order specifies the exemption period. This can include time before and after the event, but it is finite. A professional who arrives early to settle in or stays after the event to provide follow-up care is not protected. Any health care provided outside those dates is illegal unless the professional has another form of registration. This catches professionals who may not be aware of the precise dates in the order. The order is published in the Gazette, which is not widely read by international visitors.

3. Prescriptions are not automatically authorised. Section 9(1) prohibits a visiting health professional from giving a prescription for a prescription drug unless the special event order specifically authorises it. Many professionals may assume they can prescribe as they do at home. Without an express authorisation in the order, any prescription written is unlawful. The professional would then lose the exemption under s 10(1)(c) and could face drug offences. Furthermore, even if the order authorises certain professionals, conditions may limit the types of drugs or quantities.

4. No complaint mechanism means no simple remedy for patients. Section 11(1) prevents any complaint under the National Law. If a visitor is dissatisfied with the care they receive, they cannot go to AHPRA or the Health Care Complaints Commission (SA). Their only remedy is civil litigation (negligence) or criminal prosecution (if the conduct amounts to an offence). But civil litigation against a foreign professional who leaves the country is expensive and often fruitless. The Act does not require insurance. Visitors may have limited rights.

5. The “not registered under the National Law” condition. Section 5(d) requires that the person is not registered under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law in respect of those services. A visiting professional who happens to also maintain Australian registration (e.g., a dual-qualified doctor who is both a general practitioner in Australia and a specialist in the UK) cannot use the Act. They must practise under their Australian registration, which may have different scope or conditions. This might be advantageous or not, but it precludes the use of the exemption.

6. No standard of care or competence requirement. The Act does not require visiting health professionals to provide evidence of their qualifications, experience, or good standing. The Minister can impose conditions (s 8), but there is no minimum floor. A visitor may be treated by a person who is not regulated in a comparable way. Risk is shifted to the visitor and event organiser.

7. The notice procedure is mandatory and unique. Each special event order specifies a procedure for giving notice under section 5(c). The procedure could be as simple as emailing the Department, or as complex as providing credentials and a fee. If a professional fails to give notice, they are not a visiting health professional, even if they are otherwise qualified. The order may set a deadline for notice, and late notice may not be accepted. The professional must proactively learn and comply with this procedure.

8. Australian residents in overseas groups - narrow test. Section 6(b) defines an Australian as a visitor only if they are a member of a group “the majority of members of which are residents of another country” who are in the State for the same purpose. This means that if an Australian physiotherapist is the only person from an overseas group travelling with a team (e.g., a solo Australian nurse with a foreign team), they do not qualify because the group majority test fails? Actually, the group is the team, and the team’s majority are foreign. So the solo Australian would be in a group where the majority are foreign - that qualifies. But if the Australian is travelling alone as an individual supporting a foreign team but not part of any formal group, they may not fit. The definition requires membership in a group. Unclear.

9. The Minister can exclude specific persons. Section 12 allows the Minister to declare that the Act does not apply to a specified person. This power could be used to block a particular professional from using the exemption, even if the order is otherwise in force. The professional may not know of such an exclusion until denied authorisation.

10. No right of review. The Act does not provide for any merits review of the Minister’s decision to impose conditions, deny authorisations, or exclude a person. The only avenue is judicial review on administrative law grounds, which is costly and time-limited.

11. Prescription drug supply chain requires multiple authorisations. Under section 9(2), both the prescriber and the supplier need authorisation from the special event order. A pharmacist cannot rely on a visiting health professional’s authority alone; they must check that the order authorises the supply. This adds complexity and risk of inadvertent drug offences.

12. Expired review requirement. Section 14 required a review after 5 years from assent (i.e., by May 2005). It is not clear that a review was tabled. There is no mention in the legislative history. If no review occurred, the Act may continue without parliamentary scrutiny of its ongoing suitability.

13. Regulations can extend the scope of exemptions. Section 10(4) allows regulations to prescribe other offences to which the exemptions apply. This means the Act could be extended to other laws (e.g., Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act) without public debate. Practitioners must check the regulations, not just the Act.

14. Criminal proceedings can still be brought. Even though s 11(1) bars complaints, s 11(2) preserves criminal proceedings for offences under the National Law. This means that a visiting health professional who steps outside the exemption could be prosecuted for a criminal offence (e.g., holding out, practising without registration). The penalty provisions of the National Law apply.

These gotchas collectively mean that the Act is not a simple “off switch” for regulation. It requires active compliance monitoring, administrative coordination, and careful scoping. Event organisers would be wise to include a lawyer familiar with the Act, and visiting health professionals should not rely on oral assurances alone.

Compliance with the Health Professionals (Special Events Exemption) Act 2000 involves several layers of action from multiple parties. The following steps outline a practical pathway.

For event organisers (assume a major sporting or cultural event).

1. Apply for a special event order. Before the event, approach the South Australian Minister for Health to request that the event be declared a special event. Prepare documentation showing the event will attract a significant number of international participants (e.g., number of foreign teams expected, countries represented, support staff ratios). The Minister has discretion, so early engagement is wise. The order must specify the exemption period and a notice procedure. Propose a workable procedure (e.g., an online form to be completed by each visiting health professional at least 14 days before arrival). The Minister may impose conditions under section 8; negotiate these to avoid unreasonable restrictions.

2. If prescription drugs are needed: Apply for authorisations under section 9. Identify which visiting health professionals will need to prescribe, and which SA pharmacists or wholesalers will supply. Provide evidence of adequate arrangements (e.g., a plan for secure storage, record-keeping, and disposal of drugs). Obtain written authorisation in the order.

3. Communicate the exemption to visiting health professionals. Provide them with a copy of the special event order, the notice procedure, the exemption period, and any conditions. Warn them that they must not practise outside the exemption period, must only treat visitors, must not prescribe unless authorised, and must not hold Australian registration.

4. Verify compliance. Keep a register of all visiting health professionals who have given notice. Monitor that they are providing services only to visitors. Provide them with identification badges or letters of authority. Ensure they understand the consequences of non-compliance.

For visiting health professionals.

1. Confirm you meet the criteria. Ensure you are a resident of another country, not registered under the Australian National Law, and engaged (employed or contracted) to provide health care services to visitors. If you have Australian registration, you cannot use this Act; you must practise under your Australian registration.

2. Give notice. Follow the procedure specified in the special event order. This must be done before providing any services. Your employer (the event organiser) should guide you.

3. Read the special event order. Check the exemption period. You are authorised only during those dates. Do not arrive early and start treating. Do not stay after the period ends to provide follow-up without another authorisation.

4. Know who is a visitor. You may only treat visitors: a. Residents of another country who are in SA for the purpose of officially participating in the special event or preparing/training/ acclimatising; or b. Australian residents who are part of a group where the majority are from another country, and who are here for the same purpose. Do not treat local staff, family members not part of the group, or any member of the general public. If in doubt, verify with the event organiser.

5. Comply with conditions. The special event order or regulations may impose conditions (e.g., practise only at accredited venues, carry proof of foreign registration, report adverse events, do not perform certain procedures). Follow them exactly.

6. Prescribe only if authorised. Check whether the order authorises you to give prescriptions for prescription drugs. If yes, you may do so only for visitors, and only for substances and purposes specified. You must comply with any conditions on prescribing. Keep records. Ensure the pharmacy is authorised to supply.

7. Do not call yourself a registered health practitioner. You are not registered, even though you are exempt. Use your usual titles (e.g., “Dr”, “Specialist”) as they are exempt under s 10(1)(e), but avoid implying you are registered under the National Law.

8. Obtain professional indemnity insurance. Although the Act does not require it, you may be sued for negligence. Insurance protects you. Check with your employer or professional body.

9. Leave at the end of the exemption period. Do not continue providing services after the period ends. If you need to stay longer, apply for Australian registration or another exemption.

For suppliers (pharmacists, wholesalers).

1. Check the special event order. Confirm that it authorises you to supply prescription drugs on prescriptions from visiting health professionals, or to supply substances by wholesale to visiting health professionals. Obtain a copy of the order.

2. Verify authorisation. Before dispensing a prescription from a visiting health professional, check that:

   • The professional is listed in the order or belongs to a class authorised.
   • The order authorises the substance to be supplied.
   • Any conditions (e.g., record-keeping, limits on quantity) are met.

3. Comply with Controlled Substances Act. Even with authorisation, you must comply with your existing licences and the Controlled Substances Act (e.g., record-keeping, storage). The exemption under s 10(3) only applies if you are complying with those conditions.

4. Do not supply to a visiting health professional for personal use or for non-visitors. The authorisation is limited to services to visitors.

For the Minister and Department.

1. Make the order carefully. Ensure it specifies the exemption period, notice procedure, and any conditions. If prescription authorisations are included, ensure adequate arrangements are in place (s 9(3)). Publish the order in the Gazette.

2. Maintain a register of visiting health professionals who have given notice.

3. Monitor compliance during the event. The Act provides no inspection powers, but the Minister can liaise with event organisers and police. If breaches are detected, the order could be revoked.

4. Conduct the review required by section 14 (though this was due by 2006; if not done, perform it now).

Documentation. Keep records of all notices, authorisations, and conditions. These may be needed if a criminal prosecution or civil claim arises.

Insurance. The Act does not require it, but event organisers should require all visiting health professionals to have professional indemnity insurance that covers practice in Australia. This protects the event and the visitors.

Coordinate with AHPRA. Although no complaints can be made, if a visiting health professional commits a serious offence, AHPRA or the police may need to be involved. Understand the limits.

Compliance is ultimately the responsibility of the visiting health professional, but event organisers are best placed to implement the administrative steps. The costs of compliance are moderate: legal drafting for the order, a simple notice system, and education. The costs of non-compliance are high: criminal charges, reputational damage, and disruption to the event.