As the Senate moves to pass legislation allowing Medicare to automate administrative processes related to practice incentive payments, Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John warns about the risks of algorithmic decision-making.
Labor senators have dismissed concerns about a new bill which will enshrine practice incentive payment programs into law while also allowing for the automation of administrative action related to the scheme, with the bill looking set to pass the upper house.
The Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026 was debated in the Senate on Monday, having passed the House of Representatives in July.
It sought to formalise the complex PIP and WIP programs, providing a consistent legislative basis and allowing the program settings to be updated over time.
“The Bill is required because a number of significant primary care incentive programs are currently administered without a dedicated legislative scheme tailored to their establishment, eligibility, participation, compliance and review arrangements,” the explanatory memorandum read.
It would also insert a new subdivision which would provide for the automation of incentive payment program administrative actions.
“The purpose of proposed new section 66 is to provide express legislative authority for the Secretary or the Chief Executive Medicare to utilise computer programs to undertake incentive payment programs administrative action in specified circumstances,” the explanatory memorandum said.
If passed, it would also amend the title of the Health Insurance Act 1973 to the Medicare Act 1973.
Speaking during the debate in the Senate, Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John said the minor party would “flag and question” why the WIP and PIP programs had been allowed to run for so long without a clear legislative mandate.
“It’s not really good enough,” he said.
“The government should do better when it comes to these vital programs. People expect better from the politicians they elect and the governments that they fund with their taxes.”
Related
His main point of contention, though, was with the automated decision-making subdivision.
“Here we see again government pushing for automated processes, thinking that an algorithm, thinking that a computer, can do better than an expert, than a clinician, than a trained professional,” he said.
“… I certainly know a lot about it in the disability space. How many times do we have to learn the lesson?
“Automated decision-making processes that remove human beings from the loop or constrain their ability to intervene and utilise their expertise do not work. They place people at risk of harm.
“The private sector tech whiz kids selling this crap to government have figured out just how to pitch it. They say that it is quicker. They say it will be cheaper. They say it will prevent people from challenging outcomes and improve government efficiency and deliver an improved bottom line.
“It’s nonsense. You’ve fallen for the con.”
Minister for disability and the NDIS, Senator Jenny McAllister, repeatedly refuted this idea – going so far as to call Mr Steele-John’s argument “foolish”.
“The bill … supports efficient, high-volume administration by enabling specified administrative action to be undertaken with the assistance of computer programs,” she said.
“This is subject to oversight, transparency, substituted decision safeguards, and review rights.
“And I do want to take some time to address the remarks made by my colleague, Senator Steele John, because we should approach this discussion carefully, and a blanket assertion that the use of computers in the administration of government is dangerous is an unhelpful way to approach this debate.
“The government does now and has for many years used computers to make high-volume decisions.
“In Medicare, these processes are already in place. These are essential tools of public administration, and they allow many thousands of transactions to be completed every day.
“Raising fear about that process in the community, unnecessarily causing alarm about the use of computers in government, is a foolish way to approach this debate.”
The purpose of automating some administrative decisions, Ms McAllister said, was increasing efficient, timely, and consistent administration.
Use cases included assessing objective eligibility requirements like verifying GP practice accreditation or checking whether Medicare billing information indicated that the required service threshold had been met.
Serious compliance actions like banning orders would remain subject to human decision-making, Ms McAllister said.
Opposition health spokesperson Anne Ruston also proposed amendments to the bill, one of which would require the government to make it clearer as to what specific actions were being taken by a computer program.
This was ultimately unsuccessful.
