The committee is considering the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026 and amendments (1) to (8) on sheet ES128.

The coalition will be supporting the amendments that have been put forward by the government on sheet ES128, but I want to put on the record that these amendments are a result of what we've seen as an incredible pattern of behaviour by this government, and that is its persistent lack of preparedness to consult about bills before it brings them into this place, and then we have to fix them later. At least, in this instance, we're actually having the bill fixed on the floor before we're being asked to vote on it, as opposed to the many times we have to wait until the flaws that were highlighted before the bill was brought into this place actually come to reality in the real world before the government comes back here to fix them. As I said, at least these amendments to this bill recognise some of the fundamental omissions, faults and flaws in the original bill.

But maybe we should prevent the other problems that we're likely to see, because there are other parts of this bill that we think would have been equally well served by actually having some proper consultation with the sector. To that end, we've moved a series of amendments that we believe will avoid the necessity to come back into this place and fix the problems that would never have occurred in the formation of this bill if the government had just bothered to consult with the stakeholders before they brought it in. Sadly, I believe, the government will continue with its pig-headed, non-consultative, arrogant approach to this bill, as it has to other pieces of legislation. But, because we believe that the amendments that have been put forward by the government on this occasion do at least go some way to fixing up some of the flaws that have been identified—albeit not all of those flaws, by any stretch of the imagination—the coalition will be supporting these amendments.

The question is that government amendments (1) to (8) on sheet ES128 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3776 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 8, page 22 (lines 3 and 4), omit subsection 66-8(11), substitute:

(11) A fee specified for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b):

(a) must not amount to taxation; and

(b) must not exceed the amount the Minister estimates to be the reasonable costs of processing an application made under subsection (1).

(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 24 (lines 23 and 24), omit subsection 66-10(11), substitute:

(11) A fee specified for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b):

(a) must not amount to taxation; and

(b) must not exceed the amount the Minister estimates to be the reasonable costs of processing an application made under subsection (1).

These amendments seek to make sure that there is clarity in the bill about the application of fees associated with applying for the ministerial approval that is required under this cap. We want to make sure that the ministerial approval process that needs to be undertaken is capped to cost recovery. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a strict requirement to build in a cost-recovery mechanism that recognises the actual cost of this, as opposed to just an opportunity for the government to be able to make more revenue to fix up a broken budget. If the government is truly transparent about making sure that only the costs that are associated with the actual application of the measure—we would hope that the government would see clear to supporting these amendments to make sure that fees associated with applying for ministerial approval are capped to cost recovery and only cost recovery.

The government will support these amendments. The intent behind these amendments is already reflected in the existing framework on cost recovery. If any fees are to be introduced, charges will be designed to reflect the cost to the Commonwealth. The government takes the imposition of reasonable fees under any cost-recovery arrangement seriously; this would not amount to taxation. The government has no current plans to impose cost recovery. Further policy approval and a cost recovery implementation statement are required for charging for regulatory activities. Insurers would be consulted if cost recovery is proposed, including on the rationale and basis for charging as outlined in that cost recovery implementation statement, ensuring adequate opportunity for feedback prior to charges being prescribed.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 3821 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 19), after section 124ZZA, insert:

124ZZB Annual report

(1) The Secretary must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year that starts after the commencement of this section, prepare a written report in relation to the information published under section 124ZY before the end of that year.

Note: The report is not limited to information published in that year only.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include analysis of any trends in the published information, including, for example, trends in relation to:

(a) changes in the median costs of particular kinds of professional services; and

(b) variations in those costs between different geographical areas where those services are rendered.

(3) The Secretary must give the Minister a copy of the report no later than 3 months after the end of that year.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 21), after section 324-15, insert:

324-20 Annual report

(1) The Secretary must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year that starts after the commencement of this section, prepare a written report in relation to the information published under section 324-5 before the end of that year.

Note: The report is not limited to information published in that year only.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the report must include analysis of any trends in the published information, including, for example, trends in relation to:

(a) changes in the median costs of particular kinds of *hospital treatments and *general treatments *covered by *complying health insurance policies; and

(b) variations in those costs between different geographical areas where those treatments are provided.

(3) The Secretary must give the Minister a copy of the report no later than 3 months after the end of that year.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 26 (after line 31), after section 66-12, insert:

66-13 Annual report

(1) The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year that starts after the commencement of this section, cause a review to be conducted of any changes during that year to *products and premiums payable under policies in products.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider:

(a) applications made during that year under section 66-8 (about new product subgroups); and

(b) applications made during that year under section 66-10 (about changes to premiums and products); and

(c) any *designated changes to *complying health insurance products made during that year; and

(d) whether, and to what extent, insurers engaged in any product phoenixing during that year.

(3) The person or persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review no later than 3 months after the end of that year.

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

(5) If the report includes any recommendations, the Minister must:

(a) prepare a written statement setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each recommendation; and

(b) cause a copy of the statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 6 months after receiving the report.

These amendments require the annual reporting of what the government is finding with the information that it is publishing on its cost finder website. We need to make sure that trends are identified in the information published, such as movements in the median price and ranges in respect of particular kinds of professional services, geographical variations et cetera. The population do not just need to know what a number is; they need to understand whether costs are going up, whether costs are going down, whether costs are changing within particular professional service areas and whether costs are changing based on geography. We want to make sure that Australians are not disadvantaged because of their postcode, so we are very keen to make sure that we have greater transparency about what is being reported, not just what the government wants. We believe this information will be very valuable to the people who will be using the cost finder.

The government will support these amendments. The proposed bill and the existing act already go some way to addressing the issue raised in the proposed amendments, but the government does support the intent of the amendments. We should be providing greater transparency around insurer and specialist pricing practices, which, indeed, is what the bill before the chamber seeks to do.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3822 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 3), at the end of section 124ZY, add:

(8) If information about amounts of medical expenses incurred in respect of particular kinds of professional services rendered by or on behalf of particular medical practitioners is published under this section, the Secretary must also publish under this section:

(a) if any formulas were used to work out those amounts—those formulas; and

(b) if a material reduction in the amounts of those expenses occurs after publishing the information and the Secretary becomes aware of the reduction—the reduced amounts (as soon as practicable after the Secretary becomes so aware).

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 5), at the end of section 324-5, add:

(11) If information about fees and charges relating to the provision of particular kinds of covered treatment by or on behalf of particular medical practitioners is published under this section, the Secretary must also publish under this section:

(a) if any formulas were used to work out those fees and charges—those formulas; and

(b) if a material reduction in the amounts of those fees and charges occurs after publishing the information and the Secretary becomes aware of the reduction—the reduced amounts (as soon as practicable after the Secretary becomes so aware).

These amendments are similar in nature, in terms of transparency, to the amendments that I just moved. They require a provision for the minister to actually publish why and how he is making a determination in relation to the information that is published. This is particularly specific about publishing any formula used to work out an amount of medical expenses for the purposes of publication under this particular section. If the minister publishes information about medical expenses in respect of a particular kind of professional service rendered on or behalf of particular medical practitioners and becomes aware of a material reduction in those expenses, the minister must update the published information as soon as practicable after becoming aware. We do this to make sure that the information that's being provided to the patients who seek to use this service is as up to date and as accurate as it possibly can be.

The government will be supporting these amendments also. The methodology is currently being developed. Further data analysis will occur after the passage of legislation, and that will be informed by technical advice. The department already intends to publish this methodology, and the updated Medical Costs Finder website will also provide a plain-English explanation of the methodology, with a worked example. The department also intends to refresh data on a regular basis so that changes in fees will be visible to patients.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3773 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 19), at the end of section 124ZZA, add:

Note: Nothing in this section confers protection from civil proceedings on an entity other than the Secretary or a delegate of the Secretary.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 21), at the end of section 324-15, add:

Note: Nothing in this section confers protection from civil proceedings on an entity other than the Secretary of the Department or a delegate of the Secretary of the Department.

These amendments seek to remove the provisions relating to the protection from civil proceedings for the department as a whole. Sufficient recourse exists in provisions for damages arising from false or misleading data displayed on a website, and courts will decide on the merit of individual cases, as per standard legal proceedings. The idea that the government would regulate or legislate itself out of a liability in relation to damages for action that the department has taken is, we believe, inappropriate, given that every other member of our society cannot legislate to remove their obligations in relation to their responsibilities and obligations. We believe that there is already plenty of recourse that exists within the normal proceedings to enable the department to be protected in any manner, and we do not believe that they should be using the powers of this chamber or the government in order to remove their being subject to the same provisions that every other business or person in this country is subject to.

The government will not be supporting these amendments. Essentially, the bill does not act as Senator Ruston indicated in her introductory remarks. In particular, the bill does not displace the general principle that the Commonwealth remains responsible for the actions of its officers. The immunity provisions are intended to operate in a very limited and targeted manner that is consistent with similar provisions in other Commonwealth legislation. They are not intended to remove the Commonwealth's liability more broadly.

The immunity provisions as proposed in section 124ZZA and 324-15 are expressed as applying to the secretary in respect of the publication of information. It's not intended to extend that immunity to the Commonwealth as a whole, and the purpose of the provision is to protect the secretary and the person acting under the secretary's authority from civil proceedings arising from the lawful exercise of the statutory publication powers where those powers are exercised in good faith and within the scope of the legislation. Consequently, as a combination of these two facts, the immunity provisions do not remove appropriate avenues of recourse for affected individuals.

Question negatived.

by leave—I record the coalition's support for the amendments, and I move amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 3775 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 3, page 18 (line 11), before "the premiums payable", insert "except in the case of a policy that does not *cover *hospital treatment and in relation to which the insurer has not made a change referred to in paragraph 66-10(1)(a) or (b)—".

(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 20 (line 10), after "premiums", insert "for hospital cover".

(3) Schedule 2, item 8, page 20 (line 12), after "premiums", insert "for hospital cover".

(4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 20 (lines 17 and 18), after "to be charged under", insert "any policy in the product that *covers *hospital treatment and that belongs to any of".

(5) Schedule 2, item 8, page 20 (line 28), after "policy in the product", insert "that *covers *hospital treatment and".

(6) Schedule 2, item 8, page 20 (after line 31), after subsection 66-8(4), insert:

(4A) The Minister must do so within 30 days of receiving the application.

(4B) However, if at the end of that 30-day period the Minister has not given a written notice to the insurer either approving or refusing to approve the proposed premiums:

(a) the Minister is taken (despite subsections (5) and (6)) to have made a decision approving the proposed premiums; and

(b) the approval has effect (including for the purposes of subsection (7)) from the day after the end of that 30-day period.

(4C) For the purposes of calculating that 30-day period, do not count a day on which the Minister may refuse to consider the application because of the operation of subsection 66-11(2) or 66-12(3).

(7) Schedule 2, item 8, page 26 (lines 24 to 29), omit subsection 66-12(6), substitute:

(6) If a private health insurer receives a notice under this section in relation to an application (the original application), and the insurer resubmits the application in accordance with the notice, then for the purposes of section 66-8 or 66-10 (as the case may be):

(a) the resubmitted application is taken to have been submitted on the same day as the original application; and

(b) the original application is taken to be withdrawn.

Note: This subsection confirms the day on which the resubmitted application is made, which determines whether subsection 66-8(5) or (6) or subsection 66-10(5) or (6) applies in relation to the Minister's decision. It also confirms that the resubmission does not restart any period for the Minister's decision (including a deemed decision under subsection 66-8(4B)).

The intent of these amendments is to amend the approval provisions to stipulate that ministerial approval, in relation to the application of new products, is open to a new product only required for those products that relate to hospital cover. It is not related to products that come under extras policy. We are really concerned at the potential for this to slow down the process of Australians being able to get ready access to new and innovative procedures or services and that this measure, if it is not restricted only to those services for which the purpose of the outline of the government for the reason for doing this particular amendment—if we're not careful, we'll just end up with more bureaucracy, more time, more cost and less access and less timely access for Australians to new and innovative approaches to how they receive their care as it relates to the extras that one accesses through their private health insurance.

Whilst we accept that the intent of the policy is in relation to hospital cover, we do not believe it is necessary for it to be extended to extras policy, because we believe Australians deserve better access, more timely access and quicker access to innovation than they currently are receiving.

The government won't be supporting these amendments. These amendments would limit oversight and would reduce the government's ability to apply appropriate public interest scrutiny and protect consumer rights. It would also undermine the intent of the bill by applying inconsistent oversight across private health insurances. Our reforms do, we would assert, apply consistent oversight across private health insurance products, regardless of whether they cover hospital or general treatment services. This helps to ensure that significant product changes remain subject to appropriate public interest scrutiny, and they support strong consumer protections.

The policy settings also guard against insurers margin shifting from scrutinised hospital products to unscrutinised general treatment products. The amendments also potentially present risks to government being able to adequately scrutinise premiums. The annual premium round process typically takes more than 30 days. A 30-day limit, as proposed in the amendment, would constrain the minister's ability to protect value for consumers and support an appropriate balance of market powers and equitable funding arrangements across the private healthcare industry.

Question negatived.

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.

The government won't be supporting these amendments. That's principally because the government amendment that was adopted earlier in the debate that was circulated on sheet ES128 largely deals with these issues by providing that a non-delegable ministerial power will be incorporated in the legislation that will establish a statutory internal review process for decisions to publish information on the Medical Costs Finder. The government amendment on internal review will enable the department to correct, alter, update or remove information that's been published, and it follows that the information that's been published will be able to be amended consistent with the review process.

Question negatived.

by leave—I record the coalition's support for the amendments, and I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3817 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 34 to 36), omit subsection 124ZY(6), substitute:

(6) The Minister may only specify a kind of information under paragraph (5)(a) if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) publishing that kind of information would further the objects of this Part; and

(b) appropriate consultation in relation to publishing that kind of information has been undertaken with peak bodies representing:

(i) health care professionals; and

(ii) hospitals; and

(iii) health insurers; and

(iv) the interests of consumers of health care.

Note 1: Consultation for the purposes of paragraph (b) may include, for example, consultation with the Australian Medical Association, specialist medical colleges, the Australian Private Hospitals Association, Private Healthcare Australia and the Consumers Health Forum of Australia.

Note 2: To avoid doubt, paragraph (b) does not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (lines 9 to 11), omit subsection 324-5(6), substitute:

(6) The Minister may only specify a kind of information under paragraph (5)(a) if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a) publishing that kind of information would further the objects of this Division; and

(b) appropriate consultation in relation to publishing that kind of information has been undertaken with peak bodies representing:

(i) health care professionals; and

(ii) hospitals; and

(iii) health insurers; and

(iv) the interests of consumers of health care.

Note 1: Consultation for the purposes of paragraph (b) may include, for example, consultation with the Australian Medical Association, specialist medical colleges, the Australian Private Hospitals Association, Private Healthcare Australia and the Consumers Health Forum of Australia.

Note 2: To avoid doubt, paragraph (b) does not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003.

This provision requires that the minister can only make new categories of information to be published on their website after they have consulted with key stakeholders. To be quite frank, a lack of consultation has become almost a hallmark of this government. If the government choose not to support this amendment to the legislation, they would, in effect, be saying that they don't believe that they need to consult before they make a decision. I don't know anybody who can make the best decision in the absence of actually speaking to the people that that decision is likely to impact. So we would urge the government to actually show that they are prepared to be transparent. It's all well and good to say you're going to be transparent, but if you're not even prepared to say that you will consult with the stakeholders before you make any changes to information that is going to be published before you speak to stakeholders then—it doesn't matter what you say—that is absolutely hiding, and it is not transparent.

It's pretty sad that we are now in a situation where we have to come into this place and seek to move amendments to require the government to consult on its own legislation and its own policymaking, but that's what we're having to do today. I commend this amendment to the chamber and hope that it passes, because I think that the only thing that will make our legislation better is if we have greater transparency, and part of that is actually having consultation instead of making decisions before you even speak to the people that this is going to impact upon.

The government won't be supporting these amendments. The government has consulted extensively with stakeholders. We continue to consult with stakeholders. That consultation is live and ongoing. I will say that, as a general rule, the government doesn't support prescribing consultation arrangements in primary legislation. It reduces flexibility and responsiveness. It also introduces legal risk and contention around what constitutes appropriate consultation.

Question negatived.

by leave—Although no division is required, I would ask that the position of the coalition be noted for the record.

Thank you for your assistance. Are there any other amendments that senators would like to move?

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3818 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 15), after section 124ZZ, insert:

124ZZAA Complaints about published information

(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, make provision for, and in relation to, complaints by medical practitioners about information published under section 124ZY.

(2) The instrument must (without limitation) provide for:

(a) the manner for making complaints; and

(b) the processes for handling complaints; and

(c) the resolution of complaints, including criteria for making decisions on complaints; and

(d) the consequences of decisions on complaints, including, where appropriate, correcting or removing published information.

(3) Information cannot be published under section 124ZY unless an instrument is in force under this section.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 17), after section 324-10, insert:

324-12 Complaints about published information

(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, make provision for, and in relation to, complaints by medical practitioners about information published under section 324-5.

(2) The instrument must (without limitation) provide for:

(a) the manner for making complaints; and

(b) the processes for handling complaints; and

(c) the resolution of complaints, including criteria for making decisions on complaints; and

(d) the consequences of decisions on complaints, including, where appropriate, correcting or removing published information.

(3) Information cannot be published under section 324-5 unless an instrument is in force under this section.

This amendment, once again, is seeking to make sure that we have got greater accuracy, transparency and relevance in terms of what is actually being provided. We're seeking to have no information published by the secretary under this section until the minister has made, by legislative instrument, an internal review process for managing and resolving complaints by medical practitioners in relation to the decisions made by the secretary.

At the moment, no internal review process has been outlined, and we believe that there needs to be a dispute resolution process contained in this legislation before the government proceeds to have this website go live. We have seen a government and a department that is often quick to make decisions and slow to resolve them. We have seen the unsatisfactory review processes that have been contained in many pieces of legislation in the past, not least of which is the absolutely woefully inadequate resolution or review process that is available to older Australians after they've had their care needs and priorities determined by a computer-generated algorithm.

I would have thought that, in relation to that particular failure, the lesson for having a proper, robust, transparent and fair resolution process included in their legislation should have been learned. I would like to think that the government would seek to support this amendment, put forward by the coalition in the interest of making sure that disputes are resolved in an appropriate, quick and fair manner and are not left to a timeless decision process that takes months and months and leaves in great uncertainty those people who are seeking a review by the government of a decision that they believe is unfair or incorrect.

The government amendments that were considered and adopted by the chamber earlier already addressed this issue. They provide for a non-delegable ministerial power to establish a statutory internal review process of the kind described by Senator Ruston that will enable review of decisions to publish information on the Medical Costs Finder. The process for that review is currently being developed in consultation with the sector. This amendment would introduce confusion by creating a separate and additional complaints framework in addition to that review process. On that basis, we won't be supporting the amendment.

Question negatived.

by leave—I record the coalition's support for the amendments, and I move opposition amendments (1) to (13) on sheet 3819:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 8), after "about", insert "financial costs of".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 13), after "transparency of", insert "the financial".

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 15), omit "those services", substitute "information about those costs".

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 16), omit "health care", substitute "those costs".

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 20), after "information about", insert "financial costs of".

(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 21), after "relating to", insert "the financial costs associated with".

(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 21), after subsection 124ZY(2), insert:

(2A) The Secretary must not publish information under subsection (1) unless the Secretary is satisfied that publishing the information would further the objects of this Part.

(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 23), after "information about", insert "financial costs of".

(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 27), after "transparency of", insert "the financial".

(10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 1), omit "those treatments", substitute "information about those costs".

(11) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 2), omit "health care", substitute "those costs".

(12) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 11), after "relating to", insert "the financial costs associated with".

(13) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (after line 32), after subsection 324-5(2), insert:

(2A) The Secretary must not publish information under subsection (1) unless the Secretary is satisfied that publishing the information would further the objects of this Division.

We believe that, in order to meet the objects that the government are seeking in relation to the provision of financial information as it relates to the costs of surgeries and medical costs, they should be clearer about the information that they are intending to publish. It is quite clear, from the memorandum that they published in relation to this bill, and the contributions that have been made, that the intent of this Medical Costs Finder—and when you use the word cost, one assumes we're talking about financial costs—refers to financial costs only, which is to limit the scope of information to the policy problem that is being sought to be resolved by this particular bill.

We do not believe this bill should be an opportunity for the government and the department to have a complete free-for-all about what they seek to put up on their website. If they wish to put different information, they should come back through this chamber and seek the chamber to give the government permission in order to make those particular amendments. The objects of this particular bill are very clear. They relate to the financial costs that relate to services that are rendered. Therefore, we believe that the word 'financial' should be inserted to make sure that the government does not grant itself a whole heap of powers to be able to do whatever it feels like without the appropriate scrutiny of this chamber.

The government doesn't support these amendments, essentially because there is other non-financial information that does benefit consumers—for example, the location where a specialist provides a common medical service. Through the consultation process, both consumers and doctors have been clear that the information provided to a patient should be more than just fee information. For example, a doctor should be able to detail their training, their memberships, the languages they speak and their years of experience.

Question negatived.

by leave—I record the opposition's support of the amendments, and I move opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3820 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 9 to 11), omit paragraph 124ZY(2)(b), substitute:

(b) information about amounts of medical expenses incurred in respect of particular kinds of professional services rendered by or on behalf of particular medical practitioners, including:

(i) the medians, and interquartile ranges, of those amounts; and

(ii) whether, and to what extent, those amounts exceed the high expenses threshold (see subsections (2AA) and (2AB)) for those kinds of professional services;

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (before line 22), before subsection 124ZY(3), insert:

(2AA) The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine an amount to be the high expenses threshold for each kind of professional service in respect of which information about amounts of medical expenses is published as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b).

(2AB) The amount determined for a kind of service must be the amount the Secretary considers is the highest reasonable amount of medical expenses for that kind of service.

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 23 to 25), omit paragraph 324-5(2)(b), substitute:

(b) information about fees and charges relating to the provision of particular kinds of covered treatment by or on behalf of particular medical practitioners, including:

(i) the medians, and interquartile ranges, of those fees and charges; and

(ii) whether, and to what extent, those fees and charges exceed the high fees threshold (see subsections (2AA) and (2AB)) for those kinds of covered treatment;

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (before line 33), before subsection 324-5(3), insert:

(2AA) The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine an amount to be the high fees threshold for each kind of covered treatment in respect of which information about fees and charges is published as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b).

(2AB) The amount determined for a kind of covered treatment must be the amount the Secretary considers is the highest reasonable amount of fees and charges for that kind of covered treatment.

We believe there needs to be additional information provided, particularly around the median and the interquartile ranges for particular kinds of professional services. Simply providing a number fails to provide the level of information that we believe would be useful for people who are using the Medical Costs Finder to actually make an informed decision in relation to any procedures that they are intending to pursue. We think more data and more information will make the data that's contained on the website more useful and meaningful to those people using the website.

If we are to provide information, we need to make sure that that information actually informs people's decisions and is not merely a number that may well be completely meaningless. We would recommend that the government give consideration to supporting that amendment.

The government won't be supporting the amendment essentially because we don't consider it to be the appropriate role for primary legislation to prescribe statistical measures. These questions raised by Senator Ruston are not unimportant, but that work would be based on technical analysis, including to assess patient privacy risk and the ability to present meaningful and robust data to users of the website.

Moreover, the amendment as proposed would narrow the ability to provide information in a format that's meaningful for patients. In terms of a high-fee threshold, there is a consultation process being undertaken concerning high specialist fees. The government does not consider it appropriate for a transparency website to be the mechanism for determining high-fee thresholds.

Question negatived.

by leave—In the interest of not calling a division, could I have the coalition's position recorded.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.