Health Issues, 2006, Number 88, pp. 25-28. 1 Statutory Registration of Naturopaths and Western Herbal Medicine Practitioners Rachel Canaway A review of the risks and regulatory requirements of complementary healthcare (RRRCH), recently released by the Victorian Government, recommends statutory regulation of naturopaths and Western herbal medicine practitioners (WHM). The issue of whether naturopaths and WHM practitioners ought to be regulated more stringently has been debated for decades, particularly between practitioners and their professional associations. This article gives background to the registration debate and looks at some of the benefits and limitation of statutory registration for naturopaths and WHM practitioners, both from consumer and practitioner perspectives. Regulatory Frameworks Questions relating to the regulation of complementary medicine practitioners and products are growing both nationally and internationally (House of Lords 2000, WHCCAMP 2002; Australian Government 2006). In Australia, naturopathy and western herbal medicine along with other complementary medicine professions are not subject to statutory government regulation, but are self-regulated by the professions. Self- regulation works through the voluntary membership of suitably qualified practitioners to a professional association that sets its own professional, ethical and educational standards. In Australia, 17 different professional associations have been identified which primarily represent naturopaths and WHM practitioners (Lin et al. 2006, p. 157), although practitioners have identified 115 professional associations to which they are members (Bensoussan et al. 2004). Professional association membership is not compulsory for practice. However in the absence of registration, for a naturopath or WHM practitioner to provide GST-free services, the Australian Taxation Office requires that they be a member of a professional association which is representative of the profession and enforces “uniform national registration requirements” including: clear entry standards; codes of conduct; continuing professional education programs; and the ability to impose sanctions on members who break rules/codes of conduct. Despite these guidelines, there is no easy way for consumers or practitioners to know if a professional association meets these criteria. Practitioner membership of certain associations also enables consumers to gain private health fund rebates for some complementary medicine treatments. The regulation of professions in Australia, including naturopathy and WHM, is under state jurisdiction, so regulatory models and legislation relating to professions need not be uniform across Australian states and territories. This is different to the regulation of therapeutic product and devices (including complementary medicine product) which are uniformly addressed at the Commonwealth level by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. While debate regarding registration of naturopaths and herbalists is ongoing, it has periodically been brought to the fore by reviews of the professions (Webb 1977; Victorian Parliament Social Development Committee 1986; Lin et al. 2006). Although statutory registration for naturopaths or herbalists has not been an outcome of previous reviews (although chiropractors gained statutory registration subsequent to the Webb report [1977]), the recommendation of the recent RRRCH report (Lin et al. 2006) is that statutory regulation “is desirable and warranted” (p. 305). Despite this recommendation it is by no means clear whether practitioner registration is near. (The Victorian Department of Human Services is inviting submissions on the findings and recommendations of the review until 31 October 2006.)