Allegra Spender
Wentworth · Independent · Australia
“Estimates are between 0.5 per cent and two per cent of all abortions over 20 weeks. They are generally because of late diagnosed anomalies, genetic syndromes or severe fetal growth problems.”
“The bill is useful, it is technical, it's incremental, it has useful schedules, it has 'tell us once', it has streamlining and it has technical fixes. These are all good things, and I do not underestimate the effort that goes into getting useful changes like this.”
“Across Australia, we're seeing rising threats to women's access to abortion care. We see it in bills in state parliaments. We see it in the way some politicians talk about this issue, using misinformation and scare tactics to drive divisions, tools straight out of the Trump playbook.”
“They're saying they're waiting up to 18 months for the ATO to make a decision on how an investment would be treated, so the foreign capital just goes away. We need to change the culture here, and this is why—while I support this government's actions in this space—I urge the government to go further. This isn't about bad people.”
“I've seen firsthand how drone technology is at the forefront of some of these problems because government is slow to make decisions. There's no accountability from many government departments in terms of the speed of their decision-making.”
“I support the government's work on the fund, but I think it's currently around one tenth the size of the original 1990s National Competition Fund. If we expect that to move the dial, as it did back in the 1990s, we are going to have to put more firepower behind it.”
The complete record
Every one of 907 lines we hold for Allegra Spender, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 19.
“It tells a powerful message to victims-survivors that we will not allow the justice system to be manipulated to deny what you are rightly owed. I support this bill and commend it to the House.”
“It is an obligation on us as elected representatives to ensure that the legislation we are writing and voting on is indeed working as intended. I understand that the government is intending to move a second reading amendment in the Senate to show their commitment to a review. Whilst I understand that the government wishes for this legislation to pass swiftly through both houses and, as such, has opted for a second reader, it is frustrating that this cannot be committed to formally through amending the bill itself, rather than through a non-binding commitment. I trust the government's intention on committing to such a review. However, this commitment should be in the form of clear accountability mechanisms, not just words. This bill is long overdue. It seeks to correct continuing injustices which should never have occurred.”
“This review will be asked to consider: (a) whether the amendments are achieving their objective of enabling victims-survivors of child sexual abuse offences to access compensation from a perpetrator's superannuation; (b) the effectiveness of the safeguards established by the amendments; (c) any barriers that have prevented victims-survivors from accessing the framework; (d) whether any further amendments are necessary or desirable; and (e) whether the framework established by the amendments should be extended to victims and survivors of offences other than child sexual abuse offences and, if so, what offences and conditions ought to apply. This is a modest amendment which enforces a commitment that the minister has already indicated the government would like to make.”
“That is exactly why this is a question for a review after this legislation has been operating for some time, not a precondition for the bill's passage. My amendment requires the minister to cause an independent review within two years of the legislation coming into effect. The reviewer will have six months to complete the review, and then the minister must table the report in parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the final report.”
“This bill has rightly been driven by high-profile cases involving child sexual abuse. The advocacy has been sustained, powerful and effective. But the question I ask is: are there other victims-survivors of sexual violence, domestic and family violence or other offences who might equally benefit from a framework that prevents perpetrators from using superannuation to evade their obligations? I want to be unambiguous. I am not seeking to delay this legislation with this question. The reform that victims-survivors of child sexual abuse have fought for deserves to be implemented without hesitation. I also recognise that different offence categories involve different complexities. Careful consultation with stakeholders and lived experience advocates would be required before any expansion could responsibly be undertaken.”
“The minister himself acknowledged in his own second reading speech that mechanisms for review are necessary to ensure that legislation is functioning as intended. Despite this, there is no such provision in this bill. We cannot simply implement legislation and consider the job done. This is not just for the sake of trust and integrity but for the very victims-survivors this government and this parliament are seeking to protect and empower through this bill. We have an obligation to monitor outcomes, identify gaps and act where a framework is falling short. The government has a responsibility to respond to these reviews as well. Accountability is what turns good intentions into lasting change. My amendment also invites the review to consider whether the framework should be extended beyond child sexual abuse offences.”
“We know that victims-survivors experience long-lasting impacts of their abuse beyond the abuse itself. This trauma can go on to impact their mental health, their relationships and their ability to work, study and trust others. We have a responsibility to ensure that the justice, including compensation, that victims-survivors are owed is delivered in its fairest form. Compensation cannot undo harm, but it can recognise these impacts. When perpetrators are able to manipulate the legal system to avoid this justice, this injustice compounds. I've expressed my support for the bill and will vote for it. However, I want to flag an omission in this legislation which my amendment is seeking to address.”
“This bill creates a framework that enables victims-survivors of child sexual abuse and similar offences to seek access to a perpetrator's superannuation to satisfy unpaid compensation orders arising from criminal or civil proceedings. The legislation includes important safeguards. The framework only applies where a compensation order has remained unpaid for 12 months or more and where the perpetrator has been convicted of or found guilty of certain offences to a criminal standard. In this legislation, these offences relate to child sexual abuse offences. Victims-survivors who meet the criteria must apply to the commissioner, who can then facilitate the release of funds through the creation of a new type of release authority. Perpetrators retain the right to challenge any such order. This justice matters deeply.”
“This is, sadly, too often how important legislation like this can happen. Let's turn to the bill. This bill attempts to confront a unique injustice: perpetrators of child sexual abuse who use the superannuation system to shield assets from compensation claims. Currently, perpetrators can make large contributions to their superannuation, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars, which are, in most cases, protected from creditors, and then declare bankruptcy to avoid paying compensation that their victims are owed. This is no longer just a loophole; it has been documented to be a deliberate way that perpetrators can continue their abuse by denying victims-survivors the financial compensation and justice they are owed. I'm pleased that the government is finally denying perpetrators the opportunity to utilise this loophole.”
“I rise today with honour to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (The Survivors Law) Bill 2026. Before I address the substance of the bill, I want to acknowledge those who have made this reform possible: advocates like Super for Survivors, Bravehearts, the Grace Tame Foundation, Fighters Against Child Abuse Australia, the Carly Ryan Foundation and the many victims-survivors and advocates who have shared their stories, often not just once but over and over again during consultation, media moments and closed-door discussions. We thank you, and we are deeply sorry for the pain you've been forced to carry. It takes an incredible amount of courage to speak up about what has happened to you, and even greater courage to do so on behalf of others to ensure that it will not happen to them.”
“So, as we move towards Anzac Day, let us recommit not only to remembering the past but to supporting those who serve today, ensuring that every veteran—and their families as well—is treated with care, dignity and the respect that they deserve.”
“It means supporting organisations who advocate for our veterans and also our serving defence members, including the Bravery Trust, Soldier On, Open Arms, the Athena Project and so many more. This is especially important at a time of increasing global uncertainty. With instability in regions such as the Middle East and with Australian personnel continuing to serve in complex environments, the demands on our Defence Force remain significant. We must ensure that the systems designed to support them—from defence to veterans services—are responsive, well resourced and capable of meeting both immediate and long-term needs. In Wentworth, this is not theoretical. These are our neighbours, our families and our community.”
“I want to give a particular shout-out to North Bondi RSL, which stepped up as an operational hub in the aftermath of the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi. They demonstrated exactly what these institutions represent: community, service and care in moments of need. As we approach Anzac Day, Australians across the country will pause to remember those who've served: those who gave their lives, those who returned and those who continue to carry the impacts of their service. But remembrance cannot be confined to a single day. Honouring our veterans means ensuring they're properly supported in their health, in their mental health, in their transition to civilian life and in their long-term wellbeing.”
“Wentworth is also home to a large and vibrant defence community—current serving members, veterans and their families, who contribute enormously to the character of our electorate. Alongside this, our local RSLs—as well as RSL NSW and RSL Australia—play a vital role in supporting those who've served. I particularly want to acknowledge North Bondi RSL, Rose Bay RSL, Paddington/Woollahra RSL, Bronte RSL sub-branch, Bondi Junction Waverley RSL sub-branch and, just out of my electorate, the Coogee Randwick Clovelly RSL. These organisations are more than just clubs. They are places of connection, support and community. They provide advocacy and care for veterans and their families, while also creating spaces where everyday Australians can engage in our shared history.”
“Yesterday I had the privilege of touring the newly completed Anzac Hall at the Australian War Memorial with the Parliamentary Friends of Veterans. It was a powerful experience—a moment to reflect on the extraordinary service and sacrifice of Australians across generations. But, for me, this reflection is not just abstract, it's also deeply local. In Wentworth, I'm incredibly proud to represent a community with a strong and enduring connection to our Defence Force. We are home to historic and operational bases, including HMAS Watson , HMAS Kuttabul , Garden Island Precinct and Victoria Barracks. These institutions have been important in the lives of many families in our community over the years of their operation.”
“On a personal note, people across my electorate recall that Rhoda also had a wicked sense of humour and was a lot of fun to be around—a reminder that, alongside her gravitas and leadership, she brought joy, laughter and humanity into the spaces she occupied. As has been said in tribute, her generosity enriched Australians' lives, and her wisdom enlarged our nation's understanding. For every step she took, she brought others with her, leaving a legacy not just of work but of people empowered to continue it. I extend my deepest condolences to Rhoda's family, her community and all who mourn her loss. May her memory continue to guide us, and may we honour her best by carrying forward the standard she set and the pathways she opened.”
“She co-founded Australia's first national Aboriginal theatre company, founded major cultural festivals and played a pivotal role in shaping the cultural vision of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, sharing Indigenous country with the world at a moment when the world was watching. But what stands out most strongly in her remarkable life is her generosity. Rhoda shared knowledge freely. She mentored emerging artists, journalists and leaders. She created space for others, often quietly, without expectation of recognition. She inspired so many because she believed in people and because she led with warmth, humour and conviction.”
“She spoke of obligation to country and community, and that sense of responsibility shaped every space she entered and every institution she helped to transform. Her legacy is also felt strongly in the electorate I represent. Through her leadership at the Sydney Opera House, one of our nation's most significant cultural institutions, she ensured that First Nations culture was not peripheral but central, visible, respected and embedded in the life of the city. That work resonated throughout Sydney's creative and business communities, including in Wentworth, where culture, enterprise and public life intersect every day. Rhoda was instrumental in opening doors. She was the first Aboriginal person to host a primetime current affairs program on Australian television.”
“I rise today to honour the life and legacy of Aunty Rhoda Roberts AO, whose contribution to Australia's cultural life was profound and enduring. Across the arts, media and creative industries, Rhoda Roberts was a trailblazer. She reshaped institutions that had long excluded First Nations voices and insisted, often courageously, that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture belonged at the very centre of our national story. She was a guiding force in Australia's arts and cultural landscape and a creative leader whose influence extended far beyond any single role or title. Rhoda took her responsibility as an Indigenous leader deeply and seriously. She understood leadership as stewardship, carrying culture with care, protecting it with integrity and passing it on strengthened for future generations.”
“My question's for the Treasurer. One-third of all occupations in Australia are in shortage, yet Australia has 253,000 permanent migrants, already here, that are working below their skill level. This includes 20,000 teachers, 50,000 engineers, 16,000 nurses and 1,300 electricians, all unable to teach, care and build to their full capacity because of slow and costly skills-recognition pathways. What concrete steps will the government take to ensure that skills recognition of migrants is faster, fairer and more affordable? An honourable member: Great question!”
“This work is urgent now, but better preparation for the next crisis should be as urgent, for a forward-looking government.”
“If public funds are supporting industry development, then the public must receive a fair share of the benefits. Otherwise, we risk repeating the experience of gas, where significant profits are generated but the public return is limited and reform is politically difficult. We need to get the balance right from the start. That means stable, durable and predictable tax settings and structural reform to ensure Australians share in the upside from their natural resources and the risk they take in industry development. This is work I will continue to develop, including through a forthcoming white paper, because, ultimately, energy security, economic resilience and fiscal responsibility are not separate challenges. They are deeply interconnected, and it is our responsibility to address them with seriousness, discipline and fairness.”
“We must make room for disciplined decisions, review spending and ensure programs deliver real value for Australians. Finally, let me turn briefly to critical minerals, which this bill also contemplates. I recognise the opportunity in this sector, but I do not see the urgency of attaching it to an emergency bill. The government has committed significant funding to critical minerals, including the $5 billion Critical Minerals Facility and a production tax incentive expected to cost around $7 billion over 10 years. But important questions remain. First, on its impact, a strategic reserve will only strengthen resilience if we build downstream capability in Australia and can process minerals in high-value products, not just extract them. Second, there's the public return. Critical minerals are finite resources owned by the Australian people.”
“This does require a degree of coordination and does require a degree of focus, and I don't believe that the government has shown this, particularly in the sense of electric trucking. I believe that one of the lessons from this particular crisis should be to not leave this another 10-odd years. Fourth, I think we need to address the structural deficit because, in difficult times, you need to be able to pull on your reserves. When you've got 10 years of deficit, as we currently do, your ability to be flexible and support people as needed is reduced. With high inflation, persistent deficits projected for the next decade and debt approaching $1 trillion, there is limited fiscal space to respond to this crisis, let alone the next.”
“Even known reserves take around five years to bring online. These are the challenges here. This is where the government has, I think, exhibited a lack of real drive in trying to support electrification. I'm going to use the example of electric trucks and freight. This is an area where we are still extremely dependent, particularly on diesel. Other countries around the world move much more freight than we do. We as a country, because of our size, move a lot of freight on roads, but the truth is that we haven't got the systems in place to electrify our trucks as fast as other countries have. We don't have the coordination between the states. We haven't agreed on how we're going to work across the trucking industry and the energy sector in terms of the appropriate rollout of recharging stations.”
“The economics are clear: renewables get cheaper each year, while remaining fossil fuel resources are deeper, more complicated to extract, more expensive and more vulnerable to global shocks. And those fossil fuels are finite. Geoscience Australia estimates that our crude oil reserves will last around seven years at current production rates. Seven years. For those people saying that the answer is, 'Drill, baby, drill,' just be aware that it's seven years of resilience that this has. The answer to our future fuel resilience or our sovereign capabilities is not just more liquid fuel extraction here. Even if subcommercial resources were developed, it could sustain less than a decade of consumption. Renewables, by contrast, are effectively inexhaustible, so calls of, 'Drill, baby, drill,' are not a serious response to an immediate crisis.”
“If the government cannot afford its stockholding obligations—if it's already investing billions of dollars in holding these stockholdings in Australia—it makes little sense to return this sum each year to fuel-dependent users. It dampens the incentive to switch to cleaner domestic energy sources and prolongs our reliance on imported fuels. Third, over time, we do need to reduce our dependence on liquid fuels altogether. Electrification is not just climate policy; it is also energy security policy. Those Australians who feel most secure right now are those with rooftop solar, batteries and electric vehicles. Renewable energy does not depend on global shipping lanes or geopolitical chokepoints.”
“That capability should be disciplined; guided by a resource endowment; and used only where fuel switching, stockpiling and friendshoring are insufficient. Fertiliser meets those tests; refined fuels likely do not. We do need to make sure that we do have longer-term positions in place to give us greater resilience. We know that stockpiling is expensive. Returning to our IEA compliance, holding 90 days of fuel reserves could cost around $20 billion, but fuel security is a form of national insurance and that cost should be shared. That brings me to my second point. We must reform fuel tax credits. Large diesel users currently receive around $10 billion annually in credits.”
“While we import most of our liquid fuels, we are a net energy exporter, with net exports equivalent to 67 per cent of production in 2023-24. Countries we import liquid fuels from, such as Japan and South Korea, depend on our gas and coal exports. That gives Australia strategic leverage in securing supply, but we cannot insulate ourselves from global prices. Those costs will flow through supply chains and into the cost of living. We are better positioned than we were in 2022, particularly because of progress on electrification, but we are not as prepared as we should be. First, we need to build a detailed assessment of energy system supply chain risks aligned with stockpiles and sovereign capability.”
“When there is a war, when it changes the game, it is appropriate to reflect that in our laws. I think it is up to the government to act, this time, in a way that it didn't in 2022 and put in an appropriate series of changes; for instance, adding a sliding scale based on how high the price of gas gets, related just to the war. You could actually bring in significant revenue but also do it in a way that doesn't hamper investment, which I think is critical. I also think that right now we need to move beyond short-term responses and towards preparation for the next time we have a similar kind of attack on global supply chains. If we look at fuel, and energy in particular, Australia is in a stronger position than many countries.”
“The European Union raised 26 billion euros through a temporary levy on extraordinary profits. A targeted, temporary tax relief on supernormal war-driven revenues would strengthen the government's fiscal position without undermining long-term investment. It would provide the fiscal space to enable targeted support for households. I think this is really important because I take the concerns about sovereign risk and investment certainty really, really seriously. I think about this in relation to how we create an environment where we can attract investment into this country and we can give investors certainty that their investments will pay off in the way that they expect them to. But there should be an exception for war. I don't think this is unreasonable.”
“So I welcome the public and up-to-date National Fuel Security Plan announced today. Other announcements following National Cabinet, like the temporary halving of the fuel excise and the elimination of the heavy vehicle road user charge, are popular but will add a $2.55 billion expense to a budget that is already under significant strain. I was particularly supportive of the elimination of the heavy vehicle user charge. I think that is important. But we do need to consider how we manage this. That is why I believe we should implement an urgent windfall tax on war-driven profits in the gas industry. War should not be a windfall. The $40 billion in additional LNG export revenue during the 2022 price spike was not the result of innovation or productivity. It was a consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Other jurisdictions acted.”
“This bill sits alongside a number of sensible steps already taken by the government. Right now, locally, there is a significant demand shock alongside the supply shock the world is facing. Fuel is continuing to arrive, with cargoes at or higher than levels originally contracted and with around 30 days of forward visibility in the system. But, as people worry about availability and respond to a price shock which they cannot necessarily afford, many have filled up early and stored additional fuel. That means more fuel is sitting in car tanks and jerry cans and less is available at service stations. While we do have aggregate supply holding, this is why there are shortages in petrol stations across the country, including in my electorate in the middle of Sydney. That is why public confidence matters so much.”
“It also provides a mechanism to establish the $1.2 billion Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve. This is a broadening of the EFA'S remit, but one that leverages existing capability. Although EFA will participate in commercial transactions, this bill does not ensure a public return or guarantee sovereign capability. It does not control fuel prices or prioritise who gets fuel. It does not define what is critical, enabling this to change with circumstances. It does not specify a cost. Exposure to losses will be assessed on a deal-by-deal basis, with the Minister for Trade and Tourism able to direct EFA to act through the National Interest Account. This is a broad bill with some broad powers, so I support a review. It's currently scheduled for 2029. I would see value in bringing that in earlier.”
“When markets seize in moments of heightened risk, there is a clear and legitimate role for government to step in and stabilise outcomes in the national interest. That is why I support the use of Export Finance Australia's deal-making powers to secure fuel supplies from international markets. Australia imports around 90 per cent of its liquid fuels, so, amidst global uncertainty, risk mitigation is essential to maintain supply continuity. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026 provides Export Finance Australia with new powers to enter into contracts for the purchase and sale of fuel and critical minerals for domestic availability. In doing so, EFA can underwrite fuel purchases during periods of volatility.”
“Regardless of generation, Australians across the country are asking for a future where younger working Australians have a real chance to get ahead off their own backs. This campaign has not asked constituents to agree on every detail. It is about Australians saying that we need to act, that we need to rebalance the tax system instead of tinkering around the edges, and we need to give the next generation back something that feels increasingly out of reach—that is, hope”
“As of this morning, 5,841 Australians have taken the time to send an email to their own MPs through the Tax Reform Now campaign, asking for responsible tax reform. They've written to every single MP in this House. In the top 20 electorates receiving emails, 16 are Labor, three are Independents and one is Nationals held. But this is more than a set of numbers. This is Australians in their own time sitting down and writing to their local representatives, asking them to take this conversation into their party rooms, into caucus, into this House and into the media. They're asking for something tangible. They're asking for a tax system that works again, where the hard work you put in pays off.”
“It ensures that patients are no longer navigating the system in the dark and that they are equipped with more of the information they need to make informed decisions about their care. That is a fundamental principle of a fair and effective healthcare system. So, for those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.”
“Again, I'm supportive of the member for Kooyong's amendment, which requires the minister to, after each financial year, call a review of applications for new product subgroups and changes made on premiums in order to keep parliamentary oversight of harmful private insurance practices front and centre. But we should also be clear that this is not the end of the reform task. Transparency is essential, but transparency alone does not guarantee affordability. We still need to address the underlying drivers of rising healthcare costs. We need to ensure that rebates, gap arrangements and incentives are aligned with high-quality, accessible care and investment in prevention, and we need to ensure that private health insurance is delivering real value to Australians. This bill lays some important foundations.”
“That is why putting everything back in the hands of the minister makes me nervous. What is the commitment of the minister to make timely decisions? What is the commitment of the government to ensure that this doesn't just slow down new products being offered to Australian consumers who need them? To return to the key part of the bill, however, I do support the intention of the bill, which is that of practical reforms that will improve transparency, strengthen oversight and help restore confidence in the private health system. I just wish that this bill included something that committed the government to a timeframe in which to do its work. It is important that this oversight remains and that transparency remains.”
“I'm going to digress here because it's really important. Drones are a capability for the future, and, when we look at what is going on in the wars overseas right now, we need to recognise that drones are probably one of the most important defence capabilities we have. But we have in this country a system where approvals of innovative drones are really slow. That is not good enough. The government—agencies and regulators—are not accountable for the timeframes of their decisions. Government is a monopoly. Government agencies and regulators are monopoly providers of services. They do not hold themselves accountable to businesses or consumers who rely on timely decisions and who often are afraid to push for more timely decisions, because they're scared that they're going to get a negative outcome.”
“They approach the ATO about making sure that their investment decision is being covered in a particular way, and the ATO just doesn't get back to them, sometimes for 18 months or for two years. You can't run a business like that. I see this where people are applying for visas and where family members or businesses are trying to sponsor people to come to Australia. The timeframes are indicative of what the government would like to see, but, actually, they just aren't borne out by reality. That's not a fair way to deal with people. I see this in waiting times, sometimes for things like Services Australia. I see this in home-care packages where people are promised a home-care package and then don't get it delivered for a long period of time. I see this in an area of government that drives me crazy, which is drones.”
“I really want to make the point that delays in approvals are not just administrative; they have real consequences. They can limit access to new or improved cover, reduce choice and ultimately disadvantage patients. So, while I support stronger oversight, it must be matched with timely, efficient decision-making, because, at the end of the day, when the system slows down, it is consumers who bear the costs. I want to talk more broadly, particularly about my second reading amendment and about government timeframes for making decisions. This is an issue I see time and time again when I talk to members of my community and when I talk to businesses in my community. I see this when I talk to businesses trying to make large investment decisions.”
“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: That all words after "not" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "declining to give the bill a second reading, the House: (1) acknowledges that while the bill introduces important measures to improve transparency and accountability in the private health insurance system, these reforms rely on decisions made by the Minister or a delegated authority; (2) notes the Government, regulators and agencies have not consistently demonstrated strong accountability in decision-making timeframes in recent years, including in areas such as environmental approvals and delays within the Administrative Review Tribunal; (3) recognises that delays in the approval or refusal of new or amended insurance products risk slowing the intended benefits of new products and may ultimately disadvantage Australians; and (4) calls on the Government to: (a) establish and enforce clear timeframes within Schedule 2 of this legislation for decisions on new product applications from insurers, and to adhere to those timeframes in practice; and (b) establish and enforce clear timeframes across other government departments, regulators, and agencies to ensure that decisions are made in a timely way to allow businesses and Australians greater certainty of timeframe on government decisions".”
“I appreciate that this is a good solution to solve a very difficult problem. I appreciate that there will be a public interest test for premium approval for new applications made by insurers within an approved application period and that there will be an allowance for the minister to delegate approval decisions but not refusal decisions. However, as is often the case when new regulatory requirements are introduced, I'll be watching closely to ensure that this does not slow down insurers' ability to bring new products and benefits to the markets. 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.”
“Private health insurance covers more than 15 million Australians and represents a $30 billion industry but has also become increasingly complex and, in many cases, more expensive. One of the key issues has been product phoenixing, where insurers close an existing product and reopen a near-identical one at a higher price, avoiding the usual premium approval process. This bill closes that loophole. It requires insurers to seek ministerial approval not just for premium increases on existing products but also for new products and for changes that reduce coverage or value. It also formalises a premium approval process in legislation, introduces a clear application period and applies a public interest test to ensure the premium decisions are made with consumers in mind.”
“This will ensure that it doesn't inadvertently discourage specialists from taking on more complex cases, which may carry higher readmission or complication rates regardless of the quality of care provided. This provides further information to consumers to better understand pricing arrangements and transparency regarding differences in prices, as higher prices do not always indicate higher quality outcomes. I'm also supportive of an amendment from the member for Kooyong which will ensure that the minister must update published information as soon as practicable if they become aware of a greater than 10 per cent reduction in the price of services over a three-month period. Schedule 2 addresses another critical issue, the cost of private health insurance itself.”
“Despite a $24 million investment, only around one to two per cent of specialists have opted in to share their fees. This bill fixes that by making transparency systemic not optional. I'm also supportive of the member for Kooyong's amendments, one of which seeks to use future data drawn from Medicare to provide upfront information about quality indicators—such as complication rates, readmission and patient reported outcomes—and information about whether procedures or specialists typically employ upfront or gap-cover arrangements. However, I believe this framework should only be available for the secretary to use when appropriate and alongside publication of relevant case complexity where relevant.”
“It also enables publication of information about hospitals and insurers, including what policies cover, how gap arrangements work and how often patients face out-of-pocket costs. Importantly, this is done without publishing any patient information, so privacy is protected. I'm glad this process will be done without requiring specialists to manually provide this information, instead using existing data. However, it is important that we continue to hear feedback from specialists as this process evolves to ensure that there's a smooth transition and that the data that is collected is actually an accurate representation of what is being offered to the patients. This reform will breathe new life into the Medical Costs Finder. We know that the current model hasn't worked.”
“Schedule 1 introduces a transparency-by-default model. It amends the Health Insurance Act and Private Health Insurance Act to allow the department to publish clear comparable information on medical fees and expected out-of-pocket costs. Crucially, this information will no longer rely on voluntary participation. It will be drawn from existing databases—Medicare claims, hospital data and insurer billing data—and brought together to give consumers a clearer picture of the cost of their care. This means patients will be able to see in one place what different specialists charge for the same service, the likely out-of-pocket costs after Medicare and insurance, whether a doctor participates in gap-cover arrangements and where services are provided.”