Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026; Second Reading

House of Representatives · Wednesday 24 June 2026

Continued from Wednesday 25 March 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The debate centred on the bill's two main provisions: enhancing transparency of specialist fees via the Medical Costs Finder and outlawing product phoenixing in private health insurance. Labor members supported the legislation as a necessary measure to protect consumers from unpredictable costs and insurer loopholes, citing failures of previous voluntary disclosure models. The Liberal National Party member supported the bill's objectives but opposed its immediate passage, arguing that critical operational details regarding data accuracy and departmental resources remained unresolved. The coalition proposed referring the bill to a Senate committee for further scrutiny rather than blocking it entirely.

Outcome

The bill was debated at second reading; the transcript does not record the final vote or passage.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Cook argued that the bill restores trust in the healthcare system by increasing transparency and banning product phoenixing, a practice where insurers replace products with identical ones at higher premiums to avoid scrutiny. Cook criticised the previous government's Medical Costs Finder for failing due to its reliance on voluntary data submission, noting that only seven specialists had uploaded fees. Cook stated that the new amendments would allow the tool to use existing Medicare and hospital billing data, ensuring patients can compare costs before seeking treatment. Cook emphasised that ministerial oversight of new insurance products is essential to prevent corporate loopholes and protect family budgets.

Opposition response

Wallace stated that the coalition supports the bill's intent to improve transparency and protect consumers but argued the legislation is not ready for enactment. Wallace highlighted concerns about the accuracy of fee data on the Medical Costs Finder, noting the risk of reputational damage to clinicians if errors occur, and pointed out that the department has granted itself immunity from liability for such mistakes. Wallace argued that the requirement for ministerial approval for all new products, including extras policies, creates unnecessary red tape and may stifle innovation. Wallace advocated for referring the bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs to resolve unanswered questions regarding data currency, update frequency, and departmental capacity.