We Asked, You Said, We Did

Between 24 July and 18 September 2025, we sought your feedback on the consultation version of the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) prepared for the DIR 217 licence application (Commercial supply of genetically modified therapeutic from Ferring Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd).

During the 8-week consultation period, we received advice from prescribed Government agencies, the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, and the public.

We heard support for:

• the thoroughness of the RARMP
• the overall conclusions of the RARMP
• the inclusion of post-release review in the draft licence conditions.

Some submissions sought clarification on prevalence and serotyping of human adenoviruses in Australia.

We analysed the feedback provided during the public consultation process in finalising the RARMP. The issues raised and how they were addressed can be found in Appendices B and C of the final RARMP.

The Gene Technology Regulator issued a licence to Ferring Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd for the commercial supply on 17 October 2025. More details, including the final version of the RARMP and the licence, are available at DIR 217 | Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

We appreciate all those who provided input to the consultation – your feedback will help to ensure that any risks posed by gene technology to people and the environment continue to be managed.

Between 15 July and 9 September 2025, we sought your feedback on the consultation version of the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) prepared for the DIR 216 licence application (commercial release of genetically modified cotton from Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd).

During the 8-week consultation period, we received advice from prescribed Government agencies, the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, and the public.

We heard support for:

• the overall conclusions of the RARMP
• the licence conditions for DIR 216

We also heard concerns for:

• the potential negative impacts on people and the environment
• the cumulative risks of the introduced genes
• the potential for increased weediness as a result of the introduced genes

We analysed the feedback provided during the public consultation process in finalising the RARMP. The issues raised and how they were addressed can be found in Appendices C and D of the final RARMP.

The Gene Technology Regulator issued a licence to Bayer CropScience Pty Ltd for the commercial release of a genetically modified (GM) cotton on 07 October 2025. More details, including the final version of the RARMP and the licence, are available at DIR 216 | Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

We appreciate all those who provided input to the consultation – your feedback will help to ensure that any risks posed by gene technology to people and the environment continue to be managed.

Earlier in 2025, over 200 participants from local government aged care providers and sector peak bodies shared their views on aged care changes.

Thank you to everyone who participated.

Local government aged care providers told us they:

• have stable and experienced workforces and many volunteers
• often serve as a provider of last resort in rural and remote areas or for people with complex needs​
• help older people to understand the aged care system, including referrals to other support services and programs
• have strong relationships and knowledge within their communities.

Providers raised concerns about:

• providing aged care services with different funding arrangements, including the setting and collecting of participant contributions
• increased costs and resources to deliver services in rural and remote areas and for people with complex needs
• meeting community expectations to help older people navigate the aged care system and manage their cases
• balancing local council governance and community consultation requirements, with the operational and business requirements to deliver aged care services
• attracting and retaining staff in rural and remote areas, the cost of training and registering volunteers, and offering competitive employee wages
• understanding the transition to the new aged care system and changes to provider obligations and funding.

We are considering all feedback for future policy decisions.

If you would like to provide any further feedback on the delivery of aged care services by local governments, please contact us at AgedCareMarket@health.gov.au

Between 2 April and 13 May 2025, we sought your feedback on the consultation version of the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) prepared for the DIR 215 licence application (field trial of genetically modified canola from Miruku Australia Pty Ltd).

During the 6-week consultation period, we received advice from prescribed Government agencies, the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, and the public.

We heard support for:

• the proposed limits and controls listed in the RARMP
• the uncertainties identified in the RARMP
• the overall conclusions of the RARMP.

Some submissions sought clarification on the potential for increased weediness as a result of the inserted fusion protein, the ability to inspect for related species, and on oversight of the proposed sensory testing.

We analysed the feedback provided during the public consultation process in finalising the RARMP. The issues raised and how they were addressed can be found in Appendices A and B of the final RARMP.

The Gene Technology Regulator issued a licence to Miruku Australia Pty Ltd for their research work with the GM canola on 16 June 2025. More details, including the final version of the RARMP and the licence, are available at DIR 215 | Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

We appreciate all those who provided input to the consultation – your feedback will help to ensure that any risks posed by gene technology to people and the environment continue to be managed.

Between 17 March to 28 April we sought your feedback on the consultation version of the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) prepared for DIR-214 licence application (Trial of a genetically modified (GM) vaccine for the prevention of respiratory disease in horses). 

During the 6-week consultation period we received email advice from prescribed Government agencies and the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee but did not receive any public feedback.

We heard support for:

• the thoroughness of the RARMP
• the proposed limits and controls listed in the RARMP
• the overall conclusions of the RARMP

We analysed the feedback provided during the public consultation process and took into account submitter suggestions to improve clarity on the methods of decontamination and the origin of the genetic material inserted into the GMO in finalising the RARMP (comments addressed in Appendix A).

The Gene Technology Regulator issued a licence to The University of Queensland for their research work with the GM vaccine for horses on 4 June 2025. More details are available at DIR 214 | Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

We appreciate all those who provided input to the consultation – your feedback will help to ensure the OGTR continues to manage any risks posed by gene technologies to people and the environment.

Between February and April 2025, we asked for your feedback on a national registration scheme to support personal care workers in aged care. 

We received 585 online survey responses and 48 written submissions from older people, carers, workers, providers and organisations.

Common themes that emerged from this consultation include:

• strong support for aligning requirements and systems between personal care and disability support workers 
• preference to create a register, using a similar model to other professional workforces in aged care, including nurses and some allied health professionals
• strong support for establishing a mandatory minimum qualification 

• support for requiring workers to complete annual continuing professional development hours for their ongoing training requirements. 

We created a summary report that highlights feedback and common themes from the consultation.

This feedback will help shape future policies to professionalise the personal care workforce and better protect older people receiving aged care.

Read the summary report.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the consultation. 

Between 6 March and 17 April 2025, we sought your feedback on the consultation version of the Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan (RARMP) prepared for the DIR 212 licence application (field trial of genetically modified canola from The University of Adelaide).

During the 6-week consultation period, we received advice from prescribed Government agencies and the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, and received email submissions from the public.

We heard support for:

• the proposed limits and controls listed in the RARMP
• the uncertainties identified in the RARMP
• the overall conclusions of the RARMP.

Some submissions sought clarification on the effect of overexpression of one of the inserted genes, the potential for pollen flow outside the trial, and on requirements for further data about the GMOs.

We analysed the feedback provided during the public consultation process in finalising the RARMP. The issues raised and how they were addressed can be found in Appendices A and B of the final RARMP.

The Gene Technology Regulator issued a licence to The University of Adelaide for their research work with the GM canola on 21 May 2025. More details, including the final version of the RARMP and the licence, are available at DIR 212 | Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

We appreciate all those who provided input to the consultation – your feedback will help to ensure that any risks posed by gene technology to people and the environment continue to be managed.

Between November and December 2024, we invited feedback on draft national standards for counsellors and psychotherapists—covering expected experience, skills, and behaviours.

We heard from counsellors, psychotherapists, peak bodies, educators, service providers, and others.

From 19 interviews and 593 written submissions, key themes included:

• Strong support for national standards, along with interest in ongoing consultation.
• Endorsement of a domain-led approach, with constructive suggestions to refine and strengthen the proposed domains.
• Support for aligning with AQF education levels, accompanied by recommendations to assess their suitability across different career stages.
• Suggestions for minor updates to improve workability, particularly in areas such as supervision, professional development, and disciplinary requirements.

We refined the national standards based on your feedback.

You can view the updated standards on the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing website.

Further consultation to guide implementation will begin in late 2025. Details will be shared on the Consultation Hub.

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

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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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***

The Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) (the Act) forms the basis of a nationally consistent scheme for the regulation of genetically modified organisms, known as the National Gene Technology Scheme (the Scheme).

The Department of Health and Aged Care (Department) asked for your views and input on proposed amendments to the Act through submissions to the Consultation Hub.

A consultation paper, fact sheets and compilation draft of the draft Gene Technology Amendment Bill 2024 (the Amendment Bill) were published online alongside the Amendment Bill to assist all interested stakeholders in addressing the consultation questions.

Additionally, a public information webinar, and a one-day information workshop with targeted stakeholders, were also held to further support understanding of the proposed changes to Australia’s gene technology legislation. 

In total, over 700 subscribers to the National Gene Technology Scheme were directly engaged to participate in the consultation, not including other announcements shared by state and territories and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

58 submissions were received from regulated organisations, peak bodies, interest groups, universities and researchers, government agencies and members of the public.

A majority of the submissions indicated broad support for the proposed amendments to the Act. However, some submissions asked for more information and clarity on the changes planned for the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 and proposed Rules. Submissions offered a range of suggestions to refine or clarify the operation of specific provisions, including for example certain definitions and in relation to the expanded compliance enforcement and monitoring provisions.

We note that a small number of submissions provided feedback that was outside the scope of this phase of consultation, was general in nature, or which had been considered through earlier consultation phases for these reforms.

We have analysed the feedback provided during the public consultation process, and are working with the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, the Gene Technology Standing Committee and relevant government agencies to develop a final draft of the Amendment Bill for consideration and approval by Commonwealth, State and Territory gene technology ministers, before its introduction into the Federal Parliament.

The draft National Nursing Workforce Strategy (strategy) was released for public consultation between 11 September to 20 October of 2024. Public consultation provided stakeholders and interested members of the public an opportunity to share their views and feedback on the draft strategy before its finalisation.   

Feedback was sought on the vision, outcomes, and priority actions. Stakeholders were asked if they could see how the strategy’s actions can be applied or implemented to their sector or area of work. Stakeholders were also asked if they could see the link between the actions and the strategy’s vision to improve the health and wellbeing of all Australians. 

A total of 1,210 stakeholders were engaged throughout the consultation period. This included 487 stakeholders engaged in workshops, meetings and focus groups, 661 engaged with the online survey and 62 provided a written submission.

The high response rate from stakeholders providing feedback on the draft strategy was welcomed. The mix of responses from consumers, nurses, other health professionals and organisations provided a comprehensive picture of how the vision, outcomes, and actions of the strategy were received.  

The feedback heard through this round of consultation has been summarised into a report.

In November 2024, the strategy project team undertook analysis of the feedback received during consultation.  

The qualitative data collected from the survey and written submissions was simultaneously analysed with the feedback heard from the stakeholders that engaged in other consultation activities. The data was synthesised into an analysis framework. This involved coding the qualitative responses for feedback on key themes and the creation of analysis notes to further refine the draft strategy. 

Suggestions proposed during this round of consultation will be considered by the National Nursing Workforce Strategy Steering Committee and Strategy Advisory Group and utilised to refine a final draft of the strategy. 

We thank all those who took part in this consultation. Stakeholders’ willingness to share ideas and provide constructive feedback demonstrates the genuine care for the future of nursing in Australia. 

As part of a broader review, we sought feedback on proposed changes to the Stoma Appliance Scheme (SAS) clinical eligibility, maximum quantities, Group 9 products and product pricing.

We received 438 submissions from ostomates and carers of ostomates, stomal therapy nurses and other key SAS stakeholders including product sponsors and system administrators.

We reviewed the submissions and prepared a summary report of key themes and feedback. This feedback is being used to refine proposed changes to the SAS and the SAS Schedule.

The Stoma Product Assessment Panel has considered feedback from the consultation. Together with the work already completed in the Review of the SAS Schedule, this feedback will inform final recommendations for approval by Government.

We appreciate the interest in the consultation and the views and expertise shared through the consultation, and thank all stakeholders who participated.

We asked you to provide your views, suggestions, and concerns on various aspects of integrity, utilisation, and growth in expenditure related to General Use Items (GUIs) on the Prescribed List (PL).

We invited practical suggestions to strengthen the integrity of PL settings and to propose mechanisms that ensure any growth in GUI use per episode of care leads to improved patient outcomes.

We received 21 submissions from a range of stakeholders, including private hospitals (9), sponsors (7), insurers (3), and one each from a clinician and an independent consultant.

Some stakeholders stated there is insufficient evidence of issues with current PL settings and that increased GUI use reflects clinical need.

Others raised concerns about uncontrolled growth in GUI utilisation and expenditure without measurable improvements in patient outcomes.

There was broad agreement that clinician engagement, education, and improved data accessibility are key to addressing concerns around integrity and growth.

We published a high-level summary and released individual submissions.

We asked you to provide views, suggestions, and ideas on how to implement the MSAC advice about the cost of technical support services (TSS) for CIED.

We asked you to raise any matters of concern or negative implications for your organisation, you and/or your sector.

This was stage 1 of consultations on this matter.

We received over 30 submissions across sectors including clinicians, technicians, consumers, hospitals and state government, insurers and sponsors with differing issues, suggestions and views.

• There is not a single funding model/model of care for CIED across sectors or even within a sector
• There are issues and benefits with the current funding models/models of care
• Changes may have impact on service delivery and may increase load on public hospitals
• There were suggestions on alternative models or changes to the current model of care.

We published a high-level summary of submissions to stage 1 and released individual submissions.

We will use the information and learnings gathered in stage 1 to guide stage 2 discussions with each stakeholder group.

As part of Machinery of Government changes, the Office for Sport has now moved to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts.  If you have any questions regarding the Review of the Australian Sports Commission Act 1989 these can now be directed to ascactreview@infrastructure.gov.au . 

The review team, led by Professor John McMillan AO developed an Issues Paper to seek your views on the Australian Sports Commission Act 1989 (the Act).

Stakeholders engaged during the consultation period included:

• National Sporting Organisations and National Sporting Organisations for people with Disability
• Commonwealth sports portfolio agencies
• state and territory sport portfolio agencies, and sporting institutes and academies
• Olympic-based bodies and other peak sporting bodies; and
• academic and legal experts.

The review team received 47 written submissions from individuals, organisations and groups.

Submissions have been published where respondents provided consent for this to occur.

As part of the consultation process, the review team also conducted 5 workshops and 16 interviews. We thank all stakeholders for contributing their time and insights.

The review team has developed a Consultation Summary of key themes arising from consultation. 

Input from the consultation process will inform the review report to the Minister for Sport, with recommendations on changes to the Act.

Between June and July 2024, we sought your views on national standards for counsellors and psychotherapists. This included feedback on the experience, capabilities, and behaviours expected in these professions.

We received feedback from counsellors, psychotherapists, peak bodies, service providers, consumers, carers, and other interested parties.

From over 30 interviews and 315 written submissions, we heard:

• Broad support for mandatory national standards to ensure high-quality services.
• General support for including education and training, supervision, and CPD in the national standards.
• Strong interest in providing feedback on the draft national standards, once available.

We developed draft national standards based on your feedback and research.

A second round of consultation is now open to gather your views on the draft standards.

You can find a copy of the draft standards and information on how to get involved in consultation here.

We asked for views on after hours primary care policies and programs, including the need for primary care after hours services, the current state of after hours service provision and successful models of primary care after hours service provision. While the consultation was open to the public, we sought input in particular from primary care providers.

The Discussion Paper Allen + Clarke Consulting – After Hours Review evaluation report | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care provides further details on the consultation.

The online survey received a total of 457 responses, including:
• 253 from practice owners/managers and primary health practitioners
• 51 from Primary Health Networks
• 58 from peak bodies, colleges, or other organisations
• 95 from others, primarily members of the public.

42 written submissions were also received from organisations and individuals.
As part of the review, focus groups and interviews were also held with more than 34 key stakeholder organisations, and workshops with 61 healthcare consumers. We thank all stakeholders and consumers who provided input into the Review for contributing their time and insights.

We reviewed all submissions, alongside other consultation feedback and data. The Findings Report of the evaluation to support the review of primary care after hours programs and policy provides an analysis of all stakeholder input. The Findings Report will be made available on the Department of Health and Aged Care’s webpage A better after-hours system – Review of After-hours Primary Care Programs and Policy | Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care

The Department will continue to address key concerns and issues while we consider options for improving the after hours primary care system. We will continue to keep stakeholders informed of the reform process and will provide opportunities for engagement wherever practical.

The Department of Health and Aged Care asked for feedback on the draft Impact Analysis for the Review of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 (FSANZ Act Review). The Impact Analysis outlined the cumulative costs and benefits of concepts identified through the FSANZ Act Review. We asked stakeholders to give feedback on the Impact Analysis and proposed concepts.

The Department received 78 submissions across government, industry, public health, consumer and other stakeholders. Stakeholders had diverse views:

• Public health and consumer groups focused on FSANZ protecting short- and long-term public health. They were also concerned about industry capture of FSANZ, and the timeframes for proposals.
• Industry reiterated their frustration with the time applications take for processing. They also raised how important FSANZ is in making timely decisions for innovation, international trade and the consumer.
• Government highlighted the importance of consultation on the risk-based framework, and FSANZ being resourced appropriately to complete its core functions. They also raised concerns about a cost recovery levy.
• Other stakeholders (including individuals, academics, research organisations and ‘other’ groups) raised similar issues to public health and consumer groups. This included the risk-based framework and the importance of further engagement to develop it.

The Department reviewed and analysed all submissions received. Feedback will inform a revised Impact Analysis, which we will publish online once finalised. The Department will also publish submissions on the Consultation Hub (where respondents granted their consent to publish).