Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025
Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (19:21): I am pleased to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025. For those watching at home, this bill proposes amendments to a variety of health policy areas and proposes changes to a range of administrative items under our health system, such as the processes for becoming a doctor through the Bonded Medical Program and getting a Medicare provider number and for private health insurance rebates, and it brings Medicare administrative processes into the 21st century, making it easier for healthcare providers broadly.
Let us start at the top. This bill makes changes to how applications for a Medicare provider number are approved. As many in this chamber know, a Medicare provider number isn't just a piece of paperwork; it's what allows health professionals to provide services under Medicare.
It's what enables people in our communities to stroll into a clinic and know that their care is covered. This bill aims to streamline that process by introducing some automation into the allocation system while ensuring—and this is critical—that the decision to reject an application still requires human oversight. The Greens support the need to make these processes smoother and indeed more efficient.
Ultimately our doctors and other health professionals should be spending their time delivering high-quality care and not wrestling with unnecessary red tape. On that note, back in 2024 we debated the Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024. That legislation made significant changes to the way bulk-billing processes operate, by moving from a paper based claims process to an electronic one.
The Greens supported those changes at the time because we recognised the importance of bringing bulk-billing into the 21st century so that our GPs can be freed up to focus on caring for their patients and not on filling out forms. Those reforms were intended to commence on 9 January 2026. However, this bill will push back the start date to 1 July 2026, giving healthcare providers more time to prepare for the transition, which is—and I think it's worth acknowledging this this evening—what they have repeatedly asked for.
This bill also tidies up some technical matters, including allowing for enduring and pre-agreed bulk-billing arrangements. The Greens are supportive of these adjustments, as we are supportive more broadly of changes that protect and strengthen the ability to bulk-bill appointments, because bulk-billing remains at the heart of equitable access to health care in this country.
On private health insurance, this omnibus bill also seeks to make changes to the processes for claiming a private health insurance rebate. The private health insurance rebate allows eligible people to have their private health insurance subsidised by the government. Right now, IT systems responsible for administering these rebates simply cannot meet the expectations set out in the legislation, so this bill updates the law to be better aligned with what the system can actually deliver.
The Greens have been clear on our position: our priorities should be in improving the strength of our public health system. Many Australians share the view that government funds should not be directed to private for-profit entities and instead should be directed to Medicare, to public hospitals and to community health, not padding the profits of very wealthy private insurance companies.
But that is a bigger debate for another day. The changes in this bill are minor and they are administrative. One of the more significant parts of this bill is the amendments that it makes to the bonded medical program.
I've spoken to many students and doctors who have been through this program, and I've heard firsthand about the challenges that it presents. We have to ask ourselves: Is the bonded medical program truly achieving its goals? Is it actually helping people in rural and regional Australia get better access to doctors, or do we need to rethink the policy settings to actually make that happen?
If we want to address the difference in access to health care between our cities and our regions, we have to have evidence based initiatives that genuinely improve rural workforce retention. The Greens support some of the changes in this bill. We think they are fair and reasoned, and they recognise that life doesn't always go to plan and that someone should not ultimately end up in debt to the government or in a situation where they are unable to practise medicine because of circumstances beyond their control.
The program should be flexible enough to reflect real life. We support measures to reduce the financial penalties faced by students who need to withdraw from medical school, and we want to ensure our health workforce has the skills and that they are being put to the best possible use, while we also continue to work to ensure that the entire resources of the federal government are placed behind achieving the goal that people in rural and regional communities can access high-quality health care close to home.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Grogan ): Senator Steele-John, I'm just going to advise you that we are coming up to a hard marker. I'm advised you have a second reading amendment. Do you wish to move that at this point in time before we transition?
Senator STEELE-JOHN: Yes, I do. Thank you very much. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes: (i) the profound inequity faced by Australians treated for head and neck cancers, who, after life saving surgery, often require dental prosthetics to restore form, function and dignity, yet these prosthetics remain outside the coverage of the Medicare system, (ii) that some such patients are being forced to remortgage their homes or drain their retirement savings in order to afford replacement teeth and jaw prostheses, and (iii) that while other cancer-related prosthetics are funded or subsidised, there is no equivalent public subsidy for replacement teeth following major oral surgery, creating an arbitrary and unfair divide; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) commission a study on the need to provide coverage for oral health treatment, including restorative services for cancer survivors, including survivors of head, neck and oral cancers, and (ii) review the Medicare Benefits Schedule with a view to improving the accessibility of oral health treatment, including restorative services, for cancer survivors, including survivors of head, neck and oral cancers".
Debate interrupted.