Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (13:14): The government won't be supporting the amendment. The amendment, as proposed, would duplicate existing consultation mechanisms and advisory bodies and would reduce flexibility in how the minister seeks expert advice on incentive payment programs. It also has the odd consequence of requiring this forum regardless of whether it is needed or whether it would be duplicative.

I make this point: this bill covers a range of different incentive payment programs. They are context sensitive. Each program does not have the same impact on stakeholders.

The minister and the department already draw on advice from stakeholders, clinical experts, peak bodies, Services Australia and other relevant parties as they need, and, in going and seeking that advice, it is, of course, specific to the particular policy considerations, the particular issues that arise and the particular priorities that are being pursued by the relevant incentive program.

So a standing committee, as envisaged by this amendment, risks duplicating existing consultation mechanisms and advisory bodies even while not actually providing the particular policy guidance and input that would be required should policy adjustments be required. If we think about existing bodies, for example, the Strengthening Medicare Implementation Oversight Committee was established to consider the broader reform program.

That includes workforce incentives and after-hours services matters. That body already provided advice and recommendations on incentive program reforms, and it continues to provide advice on delivery of reform objectives. I note also that the proposed provisions do not specify membership, scope, reporting obligations, decision-making status or interaction with existing advisory bodies, which would create additional uncertainty not just about this proposed entity but about other existing advisory arrangements.

The minister can already establish advisory groups. The minister can already consult expert stakeholders. The minister can already seek targeted advice as needed without requiring a statutory obligation in the Health Insurance Act.

Of course the government wants to hear from stakeholders when we're developing policy in this portfolio or in any portfolio. Of course we're committed to meaningful stakeholder engagement. Our view is that stakeholder engagement should be fit for purpose.

It should be targeted. It should be relevant to the actual policy issues under consideration. It should be able to be responsive to the matters that are before the government at the time.

We do not consider that that is best achieved through a fixed statutory committee model, and it's on that basis that we won't be supporting the amendment proposed by Senator Ruston.