Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026
Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (19:00): by leave—I record the coalition's support for the amendments, and I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3777 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 26 and 27), omit subsection 124ZY(4), substitute: (4) Information published under this section must be published: (a) on the Department's website and in a manner that ensures the Secretary can readily remove the information for the purposes of section 124ZYA; and (b) in any other manner specified by the Minister under paragraph (5)(b).
(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 3), after section 124ZY, insert: 124ZYA Requests for incorrect information to be removed (1) A person may request the Secretary to remove information published on the Department's website under section 124ZY if the person reasonably believes the information is incorrect. (2) The request must: (a) be in writing; and (b) specify the information the person believes to be incorrect.
(3) As soon as practicable after receiving a request under subsection (1), the Secretary must: (a) remove the information from the Department's website; and (b) review whether the information is, or is not, correct. (4) The Secretary must: (a) complete the review before the end of 30 days after receiving the request; and (b) give the person written notice of the review's findings as soon as practicable after completing the review.
(5) If, after completing the review, the Secretary is satisfied the information removed is correct: (a) the Secretary may reinstate the information on the Department's website in accordance with section 124ZY; and (b) the person cannot make another request under this section in relation to the same information. (3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (lines 1 and 2), omit subsection 324-5(4), substitute: (4) Information published under this section must be published: (a) on the Department's website and in a manner that ensures the Secretary can readily remove the information for the purposes of section 324-7; and (b) in any other manner specified by the Minister under paragraph (5)(b).
(4) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 5), after section 324-5, insert: 324-7 Requests for incorrect information to be removed (1) A person may request the Secretary to remove information published on the Department's website under section 324-5 if the person reasonably believes the information is incorrect. (2) The request must: (a) be in writing; and (b) specify the information the person believes to be incorrect.
(3) As soon as practicable after receiving a request under subsection (1), the Secretary must: (a) remove the information from the Department's website; and (b) review whether the information is, or is not, correct. (4) The Secretary must: (a) complete the review before the end of 30 days after receiving the request; and (b) give the person written notice of the review's findings as soon as practicable after completing the review.
(5) If, after completing the review, the Secretary is satisfied the information removed is correct: (a) the Secretary may reinstate the information on the Department's website in accordance with section 324-5; and (b) the person cannot make another request under this section in relation to the same information. These amendments seek to make sure that, if a medical practitioner lodges a complaint with the department, the department must follow the complaints procedure and unpublish the medical practitioner's information while the complaint is being considered.
So basically we're asking for the information to be taken down while the matter is being reviewed. We would seriously urge the government to consider supporting these amendments, because it seems completely unreasonable to leave up a piece of information that potentially is incorrect and potentially is damaging and misleading and without the government actually accepting the fact that a review is underway.
It also means that, if the government is convinced that their information is accurate, they can move quickly for the information to be put back up again. But we think it is completely unreasonable, if a piece of information is being questioned, that it remains misleading on a site whilst it is being reviewed.