Consultation Hub

Welcome to the Consultation Hub. This site will help you find, share and participate in consultations that interest you. Below you will find links to the consultations we are currently running.

Alternatively you may search for consultations by keyword, interest or status.  Once finalised, decisions will be published under Closed Consultations.

Open Consultations

Closed Consultations

We Asked, You Said, We Did

Here are some of the issues we have consulted on and their outcomes. See all outcomes

We asked

Between November and December 2024, we sought your feedback on how Star Ratings are calculated and other proposed improvements.

You said

We received feedback from residential aged care providers, workers, peak bodies, older people and their support networks.

Approximately 271 people participated in the consultation through in-person and virtual sessions, online surveys and written submissions.

We heard support for:

  • changing the way the Compliance and Staffing ratings are calculated and displayed –providing more clarity on the quality of care in aged care homes
  • the introduction of half stars to the Overall Star Rating – helping people to make more informed choices about residential aged care
  • the display and explanation of environmental restraint policies alongside the Quality Measures rating – providing greater transparency around the use of these practices in aged care homes.

We did

We developed a report of findings. You can access the summary report here.

Star Ratings will transition to a re-designed Compliance rating from commencement of the new Aged Care Act on 1 July 2025.

From 1 October 2025, aged care homes need to meet care minute targets to achieve 3 or more stars for their Staffing rating.

We appreciate all those who provided input to the consultation – your feedback will help to ensure Star Ratings continues to be a valuable resource for all.

We asked

Australia’s National Gene Technology Scheme for the regulation of genetically modified organisms is comprised of the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 and Gene Technology Regulations 2001 (the Regulations), and corresponding State and Territory laws.

The Gene Technology Regulator sought the views of anyone likely to be affected by proposed minor and technical amendments to the Regulations.

A consultation paper was published online to assist interested stakeholders in addressing the consultation questions.

You said

During the 4-week consultation period, a total of 15 submissions were received from the research sector (universities, research institutes and researchers), agriculture-related peak bodies, government agencies, one company and one non-government organisation.

Submitters generally indicated they would benefit from improved clarity in the legislation.

Submitters that are regulated under the Act indicated that their regulatory burden would be either unchanged or reduced as a result of the amendments, for example, through improved clarity of regulatory requirements.

Although the amendment proposals received varying degrees of support from submitters, the issues raised by submitters did not warrant changes to the proposals.

We did

We analysed the feedback provided during the public consultation process and took into account submitter suggestions to improve clarity in finalising the Gene Technology Amendment (Minor Measures) Regulations 2025.

Following approval by the Gene Technology Ministers’ Meeting, the amendments to the Regulations were made by the Governor-General and commenced on 26 February 2025.

We asked

We sought your feedback via the Consultation Hub followed by a stakeholder workshop about the proposed new format for Prescribed List billing codes.

Our initial proposal was a 5-digit ANNNN format.

You said

You raised concerns that the ANNNN format did not allow for sponsor-specific prefixes.

You raised concerns about system changes and implementation timeframes.

You suggested alternative formats:

  • a 6-digit format
  • using the same format as Part B billing codes (AAANN)
  • remapping billing codes
  • reusing previously deleted billing codes
  • using AANAN format

Other parameters or matters we all identified:

  • preference to retain a sponsor-specific prefix
  • the format must clearly distinguish between PL and MBS and ARTG codes
  • the format must clearly distinguish between medical devices (Part A, C and D) and human tissue products (Part B)
  • remapping would require substantial resources
  • reusing billing codes would risk losing or mixing historical data between devices and/or sponsors

We did

We reviewed all suggestions, feedback and parameters and decided on the following format:

AXNNN, with AX remaining as a sponsor-specific prefix.

This format addresses all risks and parameters.

There are over 80 previously deleted billing codes that have used this AXNNN format. We will ensure that these billing codes are not reused or reallocated by the Health Products Portal (our online application system for the PL) in the future.

***YOU CAN FIND A TEST XML FILE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN THE 'RELATED' SECTION BELOW***

***PLEASE NOTE THERE WILL BE NO FORMAT CHANGES TO PART B BILLING CODES***