This bill became law on Sep 18th, 2026.
Health, care & disability
Patients may be able to compare what individual doctors charge for Medicare-covered services and where they work.
The government said patients often could not compare specialist charges before committing to care. In 2024–25, 8.6 per cent of people—more than 800,000—delayed or missed specialist care because of cost. Although specialists and insurers had been invited to publish prices through the Medical Costs FinderA government service for comparing likely medical fees and costs. since 2022, only 1–2 per cent of specialists and 10 per cent of insurers were participating by December 2025. The government also wanted to close “product phoenixingClosing an insurance product and replacing it with a near-identical, more expensive one.”, where an insurer closed a product and launched a very similar one at a higher premiumThe price charged for an insurance policy. without the scrutiny applied to an existing product’s price change; it said 15.3 million people held private health insurance.
Australia already had the Medical Costs FinderA government service for comparing likely medical fees and costs., established in 2019 and relying on voluntary price information, but by December 2025 only 1–2 per cent of specialists and 10 per cent of insurers were participating, while 8.6 per cent of people—more than 800,000—in 2024–25 delayed or missed specialist care because of cost. The government introduced the bill on 12 February 2026 to make individual medical fees, likely out-of-pocket costs and private-health-insurance changes easier to compare, and to stop insurers replacing products with near-identical, more expensive versions; Parliament passed it on 16 September 2026.
Jordon Steele-John (Australian Greens) argued that showing specialist prices would not make unaffordable care affordable, particularly for people with disability or chronic illness who need regular appointments. Allegra Spender (Independent) warned that the bill set no clear deadline for deciding insurers’ applications, so delays could hold back new or improved cover. Kate Chaney (Independent) said publishing prices without enough context could encourage doctors to lift their fees towards the market rate or lead patients to mistake a higher price for better care; she also questioned whether an internal process would correct misleading figures quickly enough.
The government introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 18 Sept 2026
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
3 recorded amendment or procedural votes were found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Passage speed
218 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Patients may be able to compare what individual doctors charge for Medicare-covered services and where they work. The government may publish doctors’ names, qualifications, specialties, languages, locations, fees and Medicare payments, but the law does not guarantee that every permitted detail will be published. Fee figures will be based on past billing data and distilled into an indication rather than a personalised quote.
People with private health insurance may also be able to compare treatment charges, likely benefits and arrangements that reduce or remove the amount they pay themselves. Published information may cover policies, hospitals, insurers and individual doctors, including agreements between them.
Patient information cannot be published. The government may link existing information to prepare the public data, while doctors and other affected people may be given information about how their published figures were calculated. The department’s Secretary cannot be sued for loss, damage or injury caused by publishing the information.
Published figures can be corrected, updated, changed or removed. The minister may create a review process, and any published calculation formula must also be released. If the government learns that a published charge has materially fallen, it must publish the lower amount as soon as practicable. The explanatory memorandum says the review would be internal rather than a full reconsideration of the merits, but affected people and organisations could still ask a court to review whether the decision was lawful.
Private health insurers must seek ministerial approval before offering premiums for a new product group. They must also apply before changing existing premiums or making specified changes that reduce treatment cover, benefits or the value of other policy terms. Rules may exclude some kinds of reductions in treatment cover.
The ordinary application window is 55 days from the third Friday in September, although the minister may set other windows. Applications outside the window face a stricter test: a new product’s premiumThe price charged for an insurance policy. can be approved only if it is in the public interest, while an existing product’s increase or value-reducing change also requires that finding.
A delegated decision-maker may approve a premiumThe price charged for an insurance policy. but cannot finally refuse one; a proposed refusal must go back to the minister. Any application fee must reflect reasonable processing costs and cannot be a tax. Reasons for a refusal must be presented to Parliament within 15 sitting days.
Each year, the government must report to Parliament on published medical-cost trends, including median costs and geographical differences. It must separately review insurance product and premiumThe price charged for an insurance policy. changes, including whether insurers replaced products with near-identical, more expensive versions. Review reports are due to the minister within three months of the financial year’s end; any government response to recommendations must be presented within six months of receiving the report.
The medical-cost and information-handling changes start the day after royal assentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into law.. The premiumThe price charged for an insurance policy. reforms start on the later of that day and 18 September 2026, while approval requirements for specified reductions to existing products apply to changes proposed from 2 April 2027.
124ZY Publication of information about professional services (1) The Secretary may publish information relating to professional services: (a) rendered by, or on behalf of, medical practitioners; and (b) in respect of which medicare benefits are payable. Note: This subsection constitutes an authorisation for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988 and other laws (including the common law). (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the information that may be published by the Secretary includes the following: (a) information about medicare benefits paid in relation to particular kinds of professio
324‑5 Publication of information about treatments covered by complying health insurance policies (1) The Secretary of the Department may publish: (a) information about *complying health insurance policies and *complying health insurance products offered by private health insurers; and (b) information relating to *hospital treatment and *general treatment (covered treatment) that is *covered by complying health insurance policies and is provided by, or on behalf of, *medical practitioners. Note: This subsection constitutes an authorisation for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988 and other
(7) Information published under this section must not include personal information about an individual who is not, and has not been, a medical practitioner.
(8) The Secretary may, on the Secretary’s own initiative or as a result of a review under a determination under section 124ZYA, correct, update, alter or remove information published under this section. (9) 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 ex
66‑7 Meaning of designated change (1) A designated change to a *complying health insurance product is any of the following: (a) subject to subsection (2), a change that results in a reduction in, or removal of, a treatment covered by the product; (b) a change: (i) that results, or might result, in a benefit under the product being reduced; and (ii) that is of a kind specified in the Private Health Insurance (Product Premium) Rules for the purposes of this subparagraph; (c) a change: (i) to any other term or condition of the product that results, or might result, in the value to persons
66‑6 Meaning of approved application period (1) The approved application period for an application under section 66‑8 or 66‑10 is: (a) if the Minister has not determined a period for a year under subsection (2)—the period of 55 days beginning on the third Friday in September of that year; or (b) if the Minister has determined one or more periods for a year under subsection (2)—that period or those periods. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a period that is an approved application period. (2A) Without limiting subsection 33(3A)
Tabling of reasons for refusal to approve premiums (9) If the Minister refuses to approve the proposed premiums, the Minister must table the Minister’s reasons for refusal in each House of the Parliament no later than 15 sitting days of that House after the refusal. Other matters (10) A notice under subsection (4) is not a legislative instrument. (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). (12) If the
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)
5. Schedule 1, Part 2 At the same time as the provisions covered by table item 2. 6. Schedule 2 The later of: (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and (b) 18 September 2026. Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.
Context
Australia already had the Medical Costs FinderA government service for comparing likely medical fees and costs., established in 2019 and relying on voluntary price information, but by December 2025 only 1–2 per cent of specialists and 10 per cent of insurers were participating, while 8.6 per cent of people—more than 800,000—in 2024–25 delayed or missed specialist care because of cost. The government introduced the bill on 12 February 2026 to make individual medical fees, likely out-of-pocket costs and private-health-insurance changes easier to compare, and to stop insurers replacing products with near-identical, more expensive versions; Parliament passed it on 16 September 2026.
Medical Costs FinderA government service for comparing likely medical fees and costs. established
The Medical Costs FinderA government service for comparing likely medical fees and costs. was established to show Australians medical costs before treatment, but it depended on specialists and insurers voluntarily supplying information.
Hansard ↗Cost stopped more than 800,000 people from specialist care
The government said 8.6 per cent of people delayed or missed specialist care because of cost, representing more than 800,000 Australians.
Hansard ↗Voluntary price reporting remained limited
By December 2025, only 1–2 per cent of specialists and 10 per cent of insurers were participating in the Medical Costs FinderA government service for comparing likely medical fees and costs..
Hansard ↗Government introduces the bill
The government introduced measures to publish clearer information about medical fees and likely out-of-pocket costs and to stop insurers replacing products with near-identical versions at higher premiums without scrutiny.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage of the transparency and private-health-insurance reforms.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Considered by scrutiny committee (25/02/2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2026
Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2026
APH bill page notesReferred to Committee (05/03/2026): Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (15/04/2026)
Report tabled 15 Apr 2026
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Consideration in detail debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber. Later message exchanges with the other chamber were still recorded afterwards.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Committee of the Whole debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form. The main amendments were: Observed text changed from "124ZZ Use and disclosure of information to assist Secretary to publish information (1) A person may use or disclose inf…" to "(8) The Secretary may, on the Secretary’s own initiative or as a result of a review under a determination under section…".
Consideration of Senate message
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into law., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
Jordon Steele-John (Australian Greens) argued that showing specialist prices would not make unaffordable care affordable, particularly for people with disability or chronic illness who need regular appointments. Allegra Spender (Independent) warned that the bill set no clear deadline for deciding insurers’ applications, so delays could hold back new or improved cover. Kate Chaney (Independent) said publishing prices without enough context could encourage doctors to lift their fees towards the market rate or lead patients to mistake a higher price for better care; she also questioned whether an internal process would correct misleading figures quickly enough.
All three supported greater transparency or described the bill as a useful step. The as-passed bill added annual reporting on cost trends, review procedures for publication decisions and annual scrutiny of product changes, but it did not set a general decision deadline for premiumThe price charged for an insurance policy. applications.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Amendments grouped by chamber. Where APH reports aggregate counts, the package card summarizes the matching public amendment sheets by source theme.
House
Defeated 10 to 71. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal, and Nationals.
Defeated 10 to 71. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Liberal.
Defeated 9 to 69. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Nationals.
Government amendments allow the Secretary to correct, update, alter or remove published information and establish ministerial procedures for reviewing publication decisions and commencement arrangements.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
Senate
The amendments were carried without a recorded count. The government amendment sheet addresses commencement and the correction, removal and review of published information.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Senator Anne Ruston’s amendments were carried without a recorded count. They required publication of calculation formulas and material fee reductions, annual reporting, and limits tying application fees to reasonable processing costs.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Further amendments sponsored by Senator Anne Ruston were defeated without a recorded count. The evidence does not link this outcome to one narrower amendment sheet, so the title uses the policy subject shared by the remaining opposition proposals.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
Government amendments allow the Secretary to correct, update, alter or remove published information and establish ministerial procedures for reviewing publication decisions and commencement arrangements.
Passed on the voices
The chamber agreed to this amendment package without a counted vote. APH records the agreed count by amendment, while the source documents are grouped into amendment sheets.
These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself. The bill passed both chambers on the voices.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Spender opposes passing the bill in its current form, despite supporting its transparency and oversight reforms, because it lacks enforceable deadlines for government decisions on new or amended insurance products.
Read in Hansard ↗Coffey supports the bill because it will give patients clearer information about specialist fees and likely out-of-pocket costs while stopping insurers from repackaging similar policies at higher prices without proper scrutiny.
Read in Hansard ↗Sophie Scamps supports the bill’s fee-transparency measures and ban on product phoenixingClosing an insurance product and replacing it with a near-identical, more expensive one. as necessary and overdue, but argues that broader reforms are also needed, including an independent private health system authority, a minimum benefit payout ratio and fairer contracting rules.
Read in Hansard ↗Ryan supports the bill as an important step toward transparent healthcare pricing, but argues that it will not make specialist care affordable without further reforms to billing practices, Medicare rebates and gap fee limits.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
25 speakers · 27 contributions · 25 support
“This bill legislates wider scrutiny of premiums so consumers can be more confident in the value of their private health insurance. This bill begins to put that right by giving patients better information when making decisions about specialist care, strengthening informed financial consent, closing a loophole that has undermined confidence in private health insurance and providing stronger safeguards against unregulated charging behaviour. It builds on the Albanese Labor government's broader work to strengthen Medicare, lower health costs and make our health system fairer for all Australians to navigate. For families across Griffith, that means better information, stronger protections and even more confidence in the choices before them.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“With this bill, we're going further. We're protecting consumers who are under the private health insurance system as well because that is a key part of our healthcare system. We're providing greater transparency so that patients and people who need medical care can make informed decisions in relation to their health care. I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“And that's why we brought this bill here—a bill that gives back to Australians by providing transparency and strengthening the regulation of our healthcare system. And, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill makes sure that people in my community who require specialist care can find options that provide the best value. It gives my constituents the opportunity to avoid paying high out-of-pocket costs. And, as one GP relayed to me, this bill will actually help GPs find specialists who better suit their needs and those of their patients. The bill also ensures that people who need gold levels of private health insurance cover are not price-gouged to preserve the profits of health insurers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“At the end of the day, that is what this is all about. It is about patients. It is about helping people get the care they need when they need it without unnecessary stress or confusion. That is something that everyone in this House should support, and I really hope those opposite get onboard and support this, because at the end of the day the people in the Hunter and the people all around Australia want to see us work together. They want an opposition that works with us in government so we can make Australia a better and fairer place. That is why this bill is so important and that is why I support this bill. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“On top of this, the bill requires no additional administrative burden on medical practitioners—none whatsoever. The cost of the specialist care varies widely. As we know, when costs increase Australians lose. With access to pricing information, we'll be able to arm the Australian health consumer with the knowledge that they are finding the best quality health care at the best price they can get. We can also safeguard Australians from insurers' little secret price increases that are adding to the cost of private health cover. The legislation corrects this issue by preventing insurers from making meaningless product substitutions; instead, insurers can make submissions to the minister to request a change that decreases overall cover or even increases overall cover—but at what price? That's what they'll be looking at. This legislation is absolutely crucial, and I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Australians should not need to be experts in item numbers, gap schedules and the fine print to protect their families. They should not discover the true cost of care only after they've had to commit to it. They should not see their insurance product re-emerge under a new name at a higher price without proper scrutiny. This bill responds to those expectations. It complements Medicare's universal foundation by improving transparency and accountability in the private system. It empowers patients with clearer, comparable information. It strengthens consumer protection by ending product phoenixing and applying consistent oversight to meaningful changes in price and value, and it further embeds fairness in our healthcare system. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026 represents the first significant step in taking action to address the impact of specialist fee charging and the consequential out-of-pocket costs for consumers. It delivers on two election commitments: to expand ministerial scrutiny of premiums to provide assurance around the cost and value of private health insurance by driving more transparency on patient medical fees and a commitment to outlaw product phoenixing. The legislation further strengthens Medicare by helping Australians find the best value when they need specialist medical advice and treatment and provides more confidence in their private health insurance by outlawing, as I said, product phoenixing. It will enable Australians to make more informed decisions about their health care and private health insurance.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill does increase transparency and it does mean costs will be findable by patients prior to their consultation or hospitalisation. It is really important that people do get that transparency so they can find out how much doctors will charge them and how much they will have to pay out of pocket. It is very important to understand that there are some procedures that we do now that weren't available in the time of the advent of Medicare. Because the rebates don't exactly fit the procedure, sometimes the costs are much higher than for the previous treatments. It is reasonable, though, that specialists make their fees available for patients.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In wrapping up, this legislation is good legislation. It provides information out there in the marketplace that people will access, and ultimately that will reduce the cost of health services for people who need them throughout this country. I commend the legislation to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The government values the private health insurance industry and will always look to implement reforms that ensure the industry delivers value for money and transparency for consumers in a way that facilitates consumers having choice and agency over their healthcare decisions. That is what this bill does, and I commend the bill to the house.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We know that the cost of medical and hospital services is a key driver of health inflation for consumers, which ultimately feeds into higher out-of-pocket costs and higher private health insurance premiums. We know that fees can vary widely across specialists, even for the same procedure in the same part of Australia. And we know that this is hurting Australians. That is why we promised to address this issue, and that is why we are delivering on this promise and advocating the passing of this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill delivers on our promise to strengthen Medicare and to make private health insurance work better for those Australians who can afford to pay for it. It delivers real transparency in specialist fees, real protection against unfair premium hikes and real power for patients to make the best decisions for their families. We are fixing the $24 million—wishy washy, self-reporting, if you can be bothered—website that those opposite set up to track specialist fees. We are creating a system to ensure all healthcare providers and insurers are held accountable and act in the best interests of patients. We want to remove bill shock when it comes to health care. We want the light to shine in; the cost of health care should not be a mystery. We also need to ensure that our private and public health systems work together to continue to deliver the best health care in the world. I love this bill and I commend this bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill will close that loophole. It will outlaw the practice of product phoenixing, ensuring that insurers cannot bypass government oversight by gaming the system with technical restructures and product relaunches. If a premium increase is not approved, insurers will not be able to simply repackage the product and impose it anyway. This reform strengthens consumer protection, and it sends a clear message: transparency and fairness are not optional in Australia's health system. Labor believes that, whether you rely solely on Medicare or choose to take out private cover, you deserve honesty, accountability and respect. This bill delivers exactly that. By increasing transparency in pricing and expanding consumer protections, we are making sure the healthcare system continues to work for all Australians.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Having worked in the sector for a couple of decades, I know how important our health system underpinned by Medicare is to the quality of life we enjoy as Australians. This government is acting to ensure that the health system continues to support the health of Australians. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Julie-Ann Campbell on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Campbell supports the bill because it will help patients compare specialist costs and make informed choices, while closing the product-phoenixing loophole and strengthening scrutiny of private health insurance changes.
“This bill will ensure Australian patients have the power to compare costs and make informed choices about their own medical care, while not imposing any administrative burden on doctors. Specifically, the bill will amend the Health Insurance Act and the Private Health Insurance Act to allow for the publication of information about medical practitioners, including their names, their locations, their fees charged by location and their use of gap cover arrangements with insurers. It will also allow for publication of information about hospitals and insurers, including gap cover and contracting arrangements, and the proportion of policyholders experiencing various out-of-pocket costs. Consumer peak bodies and insurer bodies are highly supportive, given the growth in specialist fees and out-of-pocket costs and the rising costs of living.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Campbell supports the bill because it would improve price transparency for private health consumers and reduce the financial risk patients face when choosing a medical specialist without knowing the cost.
“In 2026, you can compare the prices of flights to London in seconds. You can research the price of second-hand cars within a 50-kilometre radius. You can check what your neighbour sold their house for last week. It is seamless, it is easy and it's at your fingertips. But when you need to see a medical specialist, when the stakes could not be higher, you are expected to make an appointment without knowing what it will cost you, without knowing the impact on your hip pocket and without knowing the price tag for your family. As families in my local community of Moreton face cost-of-living pressures, that information gap is not a minor inconvenience; it's a real financial risk.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“Underlying both schedules is a simple principle—patients and consumers must be at the centre of the private health system. For too long, opaque pricing, complex policy wording and practices that make sense on a balance sheet but not at the kitchen table have dominated. This bill shifts the balance back towards transparency, accountability and informed choice. It supports doctors who already practise informed financial consent, insurers who compete on value rather than confusion, and patients who simply want to know what they are signing up for.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“In conclusion, this bill is a clear-eyed response to the cost-of-living pressures that are facing Australians. It empowers patients with data on specialist fees, protects consumers from corporate trickery and reinforces our longstanding commitment to a Medicare system that is strong and fair. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So, as I said, transparency is welcome, but transparency about a rising bill does not make the bill any smaller. Australians do not just want to see the costs. They want a government that actually does something about it. So let me be clear about where the coalition stands. We will not stand in the way of this bill. We support genuine transparency, and we always have. But we will move amendments to make the scheme accurate, fair and genuinely useful for the patient and to make sure a sensible fix on premiums doesn't become just another cost passed on to consumers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Again, this sits very much with the philosophy of this government, which is about real change—about actually making an impact where it needs to be made and not resting on our laurels. I commend the bill on the basis that this is going to fix this problem. It is going to save insurers from themselves, and it is going to mean that Australian consumers can get the insurance that they need at the cost that is fair and reasonable.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These reforms are an important step in holding private health insurers to account and empowering consumers to make informed decisions about the costs of their care.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Mark Butler on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Mark Butler supports the bill because it would give consumers clearer information about medical fees and out-of-pocket costs while preventing private health insurers from avoiding ministerial scrutiny through product phoenixingClosing an insurance product and replacing it with a near-identical, more expensive one..
“These reforms are an important step in holding private health insurers to account and empowering consumers to make informed decisions about the costs of their health care.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Butler supports the bill because it would give patients clearer information about medical fees and out-of-pocket costs while strengthening oversight of private health insurance premiums and stopping insurers from avoiding scrutiny through product phoenixingClosing an insurance product and replacing it with a near-identical, more expensive one..
“Schedule 1 of this bill makes important changes to support greater transparency in healthcare pricing, which will help Australians make more informed decisions about their private healthcare choices. It does that by providing consumers with more detailed information on the medical fees that they can expect to be charged and their likely out-of-pocket costs for their private health experience. Currently, consumers have more information about routine goods and services in the community than they do about healthcare choices, choices that can have a profound impact on their quality of life but also on their finances. Without passage of this schedule, we would continue to see many Australians simply not knowing what their private healthcare journey was going to cost until they were in it. Right now, they're unable to easily compare the costs of alternative providers and therefore unable to make an informed choice about their healthcare.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill delivers two election commitments: it delivers greater transparency on patient medical fees, and it outlaws product phoenixing. Both changes put consumers in a stronger position. Australians should be able to know more about what their care is likely to cost before they receive the bill, they should be able to compare their options, and people paying for private health insurance should know that insurers cannot sidestep the normal scrutiny of premium changes by repackaging products. This is practical health reform. It is about transparency, affordability and fairness. It's another step in the Albanese Labor government's work to strengthen Medicare and make our health system work better for Australians. I commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Peter, this bill is for you and others who, like you, have been forced to do the heavy lifting themselves. This bill strengthens consumer protection, transparency and trust. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“At its core, this legislation delivers on the Albanese government's commitment to strengthen Medicare while ensuring Australians who engage with the private health system are better informed, better protected and better supported. This reform is about giving Australians the information they need and closing the loopholes that undermine confidence in the system. Australians should not need to be health experts or to do hours of research to understand what they're being charged. They should not be left guessing about out-of-pocket costs or whether their insurance policy will actually deliver when they need it most. This bill is about fixing that. It is about enabling Australians to make informed decisions about their health care and their private health insurance.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
8 speakers · 8 support
“Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. The coalition will not stand in the way of this bill passing the Senate. However, we will be moving a series of substantive amendments to address the shortcomings identified through the committee process. While we support the principles behind this bill, principles alone are not enough.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The coalition supports ensuring greater transparency in healthcare pricing and the need to help consumers make informed decisions about their health care and obtain better value from private health insurance. To ensure we preserve Australia's private health system, the coalition believes the legislation requires careful scrutiny through a Senate inquiry. Labor's reckless spending and economic mismanagement is pushing up costs across the board, and health care is another victim of that.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“While I support this bill, I call on the minister to go further. Implement the necessary mechanisms to ensure health insurers pay their fair share by mandating a return to 90 per cent benefit ratios from annual premiums. I also urge the minister, for the sake of Australians, to seriously consider the need for a mandatory code of conduct in contracting between private health insurers and private hospitals.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We're not opposing this bill. We are doing what an opposition should do. We're insisting that legislation affecting 15 million Australians and the clinicians who serve them is properly designed before it becomes law. The government has had more than a year to work out the details of this policy. The fact that so many fundamental questions remain unanswered is not good enough. The coalition will strive to make this bill better.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The second change to which I referred broadly aligns with the current process for premium changes for existing products while enlarging ministerial oversight of premium setting of new private health insurance products. The change is attempting to address the risk of product phoenixing, where an existing insurance product can be closed and an identical or similar new product then opened at a higher premium, skirting and getting around the requirement for premium change approval. The coalition is not going to stand in the way of this, because what we want to see is people being able to access help, certainly in regional areas. Particularly at the moment, as the member for Mallee outlined, there are so many people who cannot access their health diagnosis. They cannot get to their doctors' appointments at the practice or the surgery simply because they can't afford to pay for the fuel—that's if they could even fill up their tank, because, at the moment, we've got a crisis.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Australians deserve choice, quality and timely access to health care. The coalition support greater transparency and a strong private health system because we know that leads to better outcomes for our public hospitals and all Australian patients. However, changes to the regulation of private health insurance and specialists must be carefully examined to avoid unintended consequences for consumers, patients and the broader health system. For that reason, while the coalition will support this bill in the House we believe it must be subject to further scrutiny through a Senate inquiry. This inquiry must investigate the spiralling out-of-pocket healthcare costs being overseen by this government, which this bill will not address. It is time for the Prime Minister to stop waving around his Medicare card and start addressing the rising affordability issues facing Australian patients because of his government's economic mismanagement.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“So, as I said, transparency is welcome, but transparency about a rising bill does not make the bill any smaller. Australians do not just want to see the costs. They want a government that actually does something about it. So let me be clear about where the coalition stands. We will not stand in the way of this bill. We support genuine transparency, and we always have. But we will move amendments to make the scheme accurate, fair and genuinely useful for the patient and to make sure a sensible fix on premiums doesn't become just another cost passed on to consumers.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026. Let me say at the outset that the coalition supports transparency in health care. We support it because we believe in it and because we built the very tool this bill seeks to expand. It was the coalition that established the Medical Costs Finder back in 2019 so that Australians could go online and get a sense of what they might pay before they ever walked into a specialist's rooms. So, when the government says it wants more transparency for patients, it will find no argument from us on the principle. The coalition will not oppose this bill. But supporting transparency in principle is not the same as accepting that this bill as drafted gets it right, because it does not, and we are not alone in saying so. The committee heard it, the scrutiny of bills committee flagged it and stakeholders have raised it.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“As I said, the Greens will be supporting this bill as a step in the right direction, but these measures alone will not address the broader crisis that is the cost of health care in this country. We strongly encourage the government to go further to rein in specialist fees and the out-of-pocket costs facing patients and to stop private health insurers ripping so many people off, and we need the government to match its own party platform commitments with action properly funding our public healthcare system and making dental care free under Medicare, because people should not have to choose between their healthcare bills and their rent, between living healthily and having something to eat, or between living free of pain and having a roof over their head.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
4 speakers · 3 support · 1 oppose
“We do not currently see from the government strong accountability when it comes to decision-making timelines. We do not see it from the government, from departments, from government agencies or from regulators, and that matters here. I do not have faith that we will see it in these instances, despite best intentions. That is why I am moving a second reading amendment in my name to address this. I move:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill deserves support. Publishing more accurate fee and rebate information on the Medical Costs Finder and closing down product phoenixing are sensible and necessary reforms. Both have been welcomed by key sector voices and both should pass. But parliament should not mistake this bill for a complete reform agenda. The evidence is clear—if we are serious about protecting patient choice, keeping private care accessible and preventing spillover into the public system, then we need the next step as well: an independent private health system authority, backed by a legislated 90 per cent minimum payout ratio; fair contracting rules; stronger surprise-billing protections; and product reform that reflects the realities of chronic disease and an ageing population.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Australians deserve a healthcare system that is accessible, affordable and genuinely centred on patients. With those principles in mind and without declining to give this bill a second reading, I commend this bill to the House, and I move amendments (1) to (4) in my name:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“These are sensible measures, and I'll support them, but they must be seen as the beginning, not the end, of the work that needs to be done. The government's argument for the bill is that informed consumers make better decisions. That's true, but information alone can cut both ways. When price information is published without context, we know that some providers simply increase their fees to match the market rate, and there's a persistent perception among some patients that a higher fee must mean higher quality care. Unless people can access better information about clinical outcomes, complication rates, readmission and wait times, we risk reinforcing this false choice. That's the last thing households facing cost-of-living pressures need. We must monitor, in real time, what happens after this information goes live. Are median fees rising? Are prices clustering at the top of the range? Are patients gravitating to higher priced practitioners without any evidence of better care? If so, the government must be ready to act, whether through enhanced quality reporting or targeted intervention.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Consideration in detail: amendments considered
Amendments agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the whole: amendments considered
Amendments agreed
The chamber considered amendments before the bill moved to the next stage.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
House · Consideration of Senate message
House agreed to Senate amendments
The House dealt with Senate amendments or requests so both chambers could settle the bill in the same form.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe formal approval that turns a passed bill into law., turning the bill into an Act.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2026
Considered by scrutiny committee (25 Feb 2026): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 3 of 2026
APH bill page notesSenate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Report tabled 15 Apr 2026
Referred to Committee (5 Mar 2026): Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Committee report (15 Apr 2026)
APH bill page notes
