Optometry Australia (OA) has reinforced that clinical judgement and patient need must take precedence over sales targets, financial incentives, and other commercial pressures, following sensational allegations about workplace practices within some of Australia’s largest optical chains.
And OA has said that it is already preparing a national workforce strategy that will address workplace conditions, remuneration, clinical autonomy, and the long-term sustainability of the profession.
The allegations were reported in July by The Sydney Morning Herald, and its sister masthead The Age, as part of a Herald investigation into workplace practices at Specsavers, OPSM, and Bailey Nelson.1
It’s the first time the dispute has hit the mainstream media, although grievances have been simmering for some time.
Formed in late 2024, grassroots advocacy group Phoropter Free Fridays (PFF) has claimed mounting clinical demands, commercial pressures, inadequate staffing, and stagnant career structures have created a growing disconnect between how optometrists are trained and how they are expected to practise.2 PFF has been advocating for optometrists to join the Health Services Union (HSU).
Asked about the allegations raised in the Herald investigation, Specsavers and OPSM provided statements saying their optometrists retained clinical autonomy and were empowered to make decisions in the best interests of patients. Neither company responded directly to the specific allegations nor directly answered questions posed by mivision. mivision also approached Bailey Nelson for comment.
ProVision weighed into the debate on behalf of independent optometry, with CEO Tony Jones saying that while corporate ownership structures “can offer significant advantages, accountability to shareholders may also create competing commercial priorities”. By contrast, profitability was “rarely an independent’s primary driver”, he said, citing “excellent clinical outcomes and meaningful patient relationships” as the cornerstone of independent practice.
(OA) is already preparing a national workforce strategy that will address workplace conditions, remuneration, clinical autonomy, and the long-term sustainability of the profession
Optometry Australia CEO Mark Nevin acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and indicated the concerns were part of “a larger structural problem” that it was seeking to address in consultation with all stakeholders, including members, employers, the HSU, and others:
Q. This issue has been bubbling along for quite some time. Has the Herald investigation changed OA’s understanding of the extent of concerns about commercial pressures within the profession?
The article in The Sydney Morning Herald has outlined serious allegations and reported workplace practices that Optometry Australia takes very seriously.
We cannot verify or comment on individual allegations about specific employers, but any situation where an optometrist is pressured to restrict clinically necessary care, recommend unnecessary products or treatment, or prioritise commercial outcomes over patients would be unacceptable.
These concerns also need to be considered within the broader operating environment for optometry. Inappropriate or unethical key performance indicators (KPIs) can be a symptom of a larger structural problem: current Medicare rebates do not cover the professional time and the full cost of delivering contemporary comprehensive primary eye care services. Where practices bulk bill, they are left trying to recover that shortfall by subsidising clinical care through other revenue streams.
Our position is clear: optometrists are healthcare professionals first. Practices need to be financially sustainable, but sales targets, financial incentives or other commercial pressures must never override clinical judgement, professional obligations, or patient need.
Q. Has the prominence of this article changed the conversation OA is having with members about workplace pressures?
Optometry Australia has heard from members who are concerned about the issues raised and the reputational damage the coverage risks causing the profession.
The prominence of the coverage reinforces the need to discuss these issues openly and constructively. It also gives us an opportunity to restate two equally important points.
Workplace conditions that undermine practitioner wellbeing, ethical practice, or clinical independence are unacceptable and must be addressed, and Australians can continue to have confidence in their optometrist as a safe, highly skilled, and trusted clinician.
Research conducted in Australia indicates that, despite the pressures some employed optometrists experience, the significant majority remain confident in their ability to respond to individual patient needs, practise in line with accepted clinical standards, and provide high-quality care. This is a testament to the professionalism, resilience, and commitment of optometrists across the country.
OA will soon commence a broader workforce strategy consultation, building on the research we have supported into the working conditions of employee optometrists. Member input will help shape our positions, advocacy priorities, and practical initiatives for the coming year.
We will also consult employers, professional bodies, educators, and other eye health stakeholders, including Orthoptics Australia, RANZCO (the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists), and universities. The aim is to develop a coordinated package of measures addressing workplace conditions, remuneration, professional autonomy, workforce supply and distribution, career pathways, service demand, and funding sustainability.
Q. What message would you give to optometrists working in environments where they feel commercial expectations may conflict with their clinical judgement?
We recognise how difficult and isolating it can feel when workplace expectations appear to conflict with your clinical judgement or professional responsibilities. Optometrists should not feel they have to navigate those situations alone, and we are here to support them through every step.
As a registered health practitioner, it is the individual optometrist who is regulated by Ahpra (the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and responsible for meeting the obligations set out in the Shared Code of Conduct. Their clinical decisions must therefore be guided by the individual needs of the patient, their professional judgement, and their ethical and regulatory responsibilities.
They should not be pressured to recommend products, investigations or treatments that are unnecessary or unwarranted, nor discouraged from providing clinically appropriate care for a patient because of sales targets, appointment structures, or other commercial priorities. Workplace performance processes should not penalise an optometrist for acting consistently with their professional and ethical obligations.
Where concerns arise, it is important to seek advice early. We ask members to document what has occurred and call OA to understand their workplace rights and the law and regulations that protect them. OA can help members understand their options and navigate internal complaint or escalation pathways in a professional and constructive way. Where appropriate, OA can also arrange an HR support person to assist a member at a workplace meeting at no cost.
Q. The Herald investigation includes allegations that some practitioners were discouraged from booking longer clinical appointments during peak retail periods. Broadly, what safeguards should exist to ensure appointment scheduling remains driven by patient need rather than commercial considerations?
Patients’ needs must come first.
Practices should ensure optometrists have adequate time to undertake appropriate assessments, explain findings, maintain clinical records, arrange referrals, and provide clinically appropriate recommendations. Appointment structures should also allow for urgent, complex, and emergency presentations. Routine double-booking, inflexible scheduling, or restrictions on clinically necessary appointments would fall short of this standard.
OA recommends adequate consultation times, protected clinical support and administrative time, supportive leadership, and an environment in which optometrists can raise concerns without fear of negative consequences. Appointment arrangements should be regularly reviewed for their impact on practitioner wellbeing and patient care.
Q. Are you concerned these reports could affect public confidence in the profession?
Maintaining public trust is fundamental to healthcare, so concerns about clinical independence and patient care must be taken seriously and addressed transparently. At the same time, the allegations reported in individual workplaces must not be taken as representative of the profession as a whole.
Australians can continue to have confidence in their optometrist. Optometrists are highly trained, registered health practitioners with clear ethical and professional obligations to act in the best interests of their patients.
Regulatory data shows that complaints involving optometrists are comparatively low. In 2024–25, around 1% of optometrists were the subject of an Ahpra complaint, compared with approximately 1.7% across all registered health practitioners. This supports optometry’s record as a safe profession.
Australian workforce research further indicates that, despite workplace pressures, the vast majority of employed optometrists remain confident they are responsive to individual patient needs and able to provide high-quality, patient-centred care, reflecting the professionalism and commitment of optometrists across Australia.
Q. Does Optometry Australia believe there is a role for greater transparency around the use of KPIs within corporate optometry?
Yes, there is a strong case for greater clarity and accountability.
KPIs are not inherently inappropriate and are routinely used across the care economy. When properly designed, they can clarify expectations, identify development needs, and support organisational performance. The critical issue is what KPIs measure, how they are applied, and whether they compromise clinical autonomy. Any target or incentive that encourages unnecessary treatment, overservicing, inappropriate product sales, or conduct inconsistent with professional obligations is unacceptable and may breach the National Law.
Employers should be able to demonstrate that performance measures are consistent with the Ahpra Shared Code of Conduct, protect clinical independence, and support patient-centred care.
Q. There have been calls for OA to open itself to constructive dialogue with the HSU. What is your attitude to this, and where does it go from here?
As the national peak professional body for optometry, our role is to represent and advocate for the profession as a whole, support members throughout their careers, and help ensure Australians continue to receive high-quality eye care. A union has a different role, such as industrial representation and collective bargaining. These roles are distinct, but there may be areas of shared interest, and we do not view the union as a competitor or adversary.
OA is open to engaging with senior union representatives in constructive discussions focused on outcomes for optometrists and patients. Productive engagement requires mutual respect, an openness to different perspectives, and a commitment to responsible and respectful dialogue.
Our immediate priority is to engage directly with members through our forthcoming workforce strategy consultation. We will also seek input from HSU on that strategy alongside other stakeholders. That process will help shape OA’s positions on workplace conditions, remuneration, career sustainability, industrial frameworks, and other workforce priorities.