Key elements remain unresolved and will be worked out ‘on the fly’ after passage, the opposition senators warned.
Despite the opposition health spokesperson’s allergic reaction to legislation being built “on the fly”, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has recommended that the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026 be passed by the upper house.
Coalition senators have warned the government’s private health transparency reforms are not ready for passage, arguing key elements of the legislation remain unresolved and risk being “worked out later” beyond parliamentary scrutiny.
If passed in its current form, the bill will allow the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing to publish specific fee and bulk billing information about GP and non-GP specialists on the Medical Costs Finder.
While the proposed legislation has been presented as a response to rising hospital-based private specialist fees, Health Minister Mark Butler has specifically said that GP fees could be an eventual target.
Cue dire warnings from the RACGP that, when presented without proper clinical and service context, GP-level fee data could create “misleading comparisons, influence billing behaviour and place additional pressure on the financial sustainability of general practice and access to care”.
As a safeguard, the RACGP called for an amendment that would force the government to display “appropriate adjustment or contextualisation to reflect differences in patient demographics, geography, and policy settings” alongside practitioner-level bulk-billing rates.
There’s also the issue of reputational damage should an incorrect fee be published. Under the proposed settings, practitioners looking to correct information would have to undergo an internal review by a ministerial delegate or a judicial review under common law.
The AMA recommended adding a transparent review process instead.
At the end of the day, though, the senate committee did not take up either the RACGP or the AMA recommendations.
“The committee acknowledges the concerns raised by medical specialists throughout this inquiry, but is of the view that with close consultation, these issues can be resolved and Australian patients will be able to access the specialist care they require, with fully informed financial consent,” the committee report reads.
The medical advocacy bodies weren’t the only ones with concerns.
During a hearing about the bill recently, Senator Anne Ruston, the shadow minister, responded to a health department official who suggested “we’ll be doing [tweaks to the legislation] a little bit on the fly” by saying:
“I don’t like legislation on the fly. I’m allergic to it.”
In additional comments to the senate inquiry report that ultimately recommended the bill be passed, coalition members backed the policy intent but raised sharp concerns about implementation, accountability and scope.
They said the volume of data to be published under the reforms, including specialist fee information, created a “high risk of errors and consequential reputational damage to clinicians”, with insufficient clarity on how those risks would be managed.
Despite the policy being announced more than a year ago, senators said fundamental questions remained unanswered, including how frequently data would be updated, how inaccuracies would be corrected and whether clinicians would be able to amend their own information.
“The parliament cannot be expected to make a fully informed decision … until these issues are addressed,” they said.
A major flashpoint is the bill’s provision granting immunity from civil liability for the publication of data. Coalition senators described this as a “troubling double standard”, arguing the government was shielding itself from accountability while imposing strict obligations on others.
They warned this effectively acknowledged errors were likely, while limiting recourse for those affected.
The broader criticism, echoed in evidence given to the inquiry, was that while the bill tackled transparency and insurer behaviour, it did not resolve underlying structural pressures in the health system, including rising costs and gaps between Medicare rebates and real-world pricing.
Related
The department acknowledged transparency alone would not address affordability challenges, describing the reforms as a “foundation” rather than a complete solution.
Coalition senators said they supported the goals of improving price transparency and protecting consumers from excessive premium increases, but they argued the government should address the unresolved issues before the bill proceeded.
“The issues and shortfalls … should be addressed in full prior to this legislation being considered in the senate,” they said.
The dissent sets up a likely flashpoint as the bill moves to the next stage, with pressure mounting on the government to clarify how the reforms will work in practice, and whether amendments would be required.
Read the full committee report here.
