Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Senate · Thursday 30 October 2025

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

At a glance

The Senate debated the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, which modernises Medicare administration, updates private health insurance rebate processes, and reforms the Bonded Medical Program. The Australian Greens supported the bill's administrative updates but moved an amendment calling for Medicare coverage of dental prosthetics for head and neck cancer survivors, which was not adopted. Labor senators argued the bill strengthens health equity by speeding up provider number issuance, enabling digital bulk-billing, and ensuring fairer penalties for bonded doctors. The Minister clarified that eligible areas for the Bonded Medical Program remain unchanged. The bill was passed on second reading.

Outcome

The bill was read a second time and passed.

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

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Jordon Steele-John (WA) (Australian Greens) Greens

Steele-John supported the bill's technical updates to align private health insurance rebate systems with current IT capabilities. However, Steele-John used the debate to highlight gaps in Medicare coverage for dental prosthetics required by head and neck cancer survivors. Steele-John argued that patients currently face significant out-of-pocket costs for rehabilitation, sometimes requiring them to mortgage homes or access superannuation. Steele-John moved a second reading amendment urging the government to implement recommendations from a 2023 dental inquiry to cover these prosthetics under Medicare.

Government response

Jenny McAllister (Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) ALP NSW

McAllister commended the bill to the Senate, focusing on Schedule 4 regarding the Bonded Medical Program. McAllister stated the reforms ensure fair consequences for participants who withdraw or fail to complete service obligations, balancing personal circumstances with community interests. McAllister corrected opposition claims that the bill allows doctors to work in major metropolitan cities to meet obligations, noting that eligible areas have not changed since 2020. McAllister confirmed the rules defining eligible locations remain consistent with the 2019 legislative framework.