piecemeal, that fragments care even more, and does nothing to improve
In the lead-up to Australia's federal election, a debate over fifty proposed urgent care clinics has surfaced a deeper tension between political expediency and structural reform in the nation's health system. The Australian Medical Association's president, Omar Khorshid, warned in Perth that well-intentioned gestures risk repeating the mistakes of past governments — offering the appearance of change while leaving the foundations untouched. Both major parties, he suggested, have yet to demonstrate the courage that genuine Medicare reform demands.
- The AMA's president delivered a pointed warning that fifty clinics scattered across eight thousand existing practices amounts to little more than political theatre dressed in medical clothing.
- The comparison to Kevin Rudd's failed GP super clinics landed as a deliberate provocation — a reminder that Australia has been here before, and that history has a way of repeating when consultation is skipped.
- The medical establishment itself is divided: while the AMA demands systemic overhaul, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners sees cautious potential in building on existing infrastructure rather than competing with it.
- Labor insists its plan is enhancement, not disruption — a new funding stream to let GPs do what they already want to do but cannot afford to offer under current Medicare arrangements.
- With the Coalition holding an unfunded ten-year plan and Labor still consulting no one, the election campaign risks producing a health debate rich in announcements but poor in commitment.
On a Wednesday in Perth, Omar Khorshid, president of the Australian Medical Association, turned his attention to one of Labor's signature health promises — fifty new urgent care clinics — and found it wanting. His objection was both mathematical and philosophical: with roughly eight thousand general practices already operating across the country, fifty additions would touch only a sliver of the system and leave most patients' experiences unchanged. Worse, he argued, the model was being built without meaningful input from the doctors and emergency physicians expected to run it. The ghost of Kevin Rudd's GP super clinics — widely regarded as a costly disappointment — hovered over his remarks.
What Khorshid called for instead was structural honesty: a real commitment to Medicare reform and to the Ten Year Primary Health Care Plan the Coalition had drafted but never funded. In his telling, both parties were failing Australians — one by offering shallow fixes, the other by producing blueprints without budgets.
Yet the medical world was not speaking with one voice. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, through Karen Price, expressed a more open posture — willing to explore a model that strengthened existing clinics rather than duplicating them, provided any successful pilot could eventually reach practices nationwide.
Labor's shadow health minister, Mark Butler, framed the policy as exactly that kind of reinforcement. The issue, he said, was not a shortage of willing doctors but a funding structure that prevented GPs from extending their hours and services. Labor's proposal was to create the financial pathway that would make it possible. More health announcements, he added, were still to come.
The deeper question left unresolved was whether either party would move beyond its current position — and whether the profession's divided response reflected genuine disagreement about the policy or simply different ideas about what meaningful reform looks like.
In Perth on Wednesday, Omar Khorshid, president of the Australian Medical Association, delivered a sharp rebuke of Labor's plan to establish 50 new urgent care clinics across the country. The proposal, he suggested, had the appearance of solving a problem without actually addressing it—a familiar pattern in Australian health politics.
Khorshid's core objection was mathematical and structural. Australia has roughly 8,000 general practices. Fifty new clinics, he argued, would support just a fraction of them and do little to change the experience of most patients seeking primary care. More troubling, he said, was the underlying model itself: piecemeal, fragmented, and built without meaningful consultation with the doctors and emergency physicians who would need to make it work. He compared it to the GP super clinics championed by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a policy he characterized as failed.
What the country actually needed, Khorshid insisted, was structural reform—genuine Medicare overhaul and commitment to a Ten Year Primary Health Care Plan that the Coalition had developed but failed to fund. Both major parties, he suggested, were falling short. Labor was offering superficial fixes instead of deep change. The Coalition had a plan but no money behind it. "Right now we've got both parties that are failing the needs of Australians when it comes to health care," he said.
But the medical establishment was not monolithic. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners took a different view. Karen Price, speaking for the college, said the organization was willing to explore a model that built on existing clinics and infrastructure rather than competing with them. The college saw potential in reducing duplication and strengthening what was already there—provided the pilot, if successful, would expand to practices nationwide.
Labor's shadow health minister, Mark Butler, defended the policy as precisely that kind of enhancement. The government wasn't trying to create rival clinics, he said, but to work with existing practices and give them additional funding to extend their hours. The problem, as Labor saw it, was that current Medicare arrangements didn't allow GPs to offer these services. Doctors wanted to provide them. The funding structure simply wouldn't permit it. Labor's proposal was to create a new funding stream that would.
Butler also signaled that this announcement was only the beginning. More health policies would be unveiled as the campaign progressed. The question hanging over the debate was whether either party would move beyond their current positions—whether Labor would deepen its thinking beyond the 50 clinics, whether the Coalition would actually commit resources to the plan it had created, and whether the medical profession's divided response reflected genuine disagreement or simply different thresholds for what counted as meaningful reform.
Notable Quotes
A model that allows 50 clinics to open after hours will make very little difference to the average Australian when there are 8,000 practices across the country— Omar Khorshid, Australian Medical Association president
We want to work with existing GP practices to enhance the service they already provide, rather than setting up a new clinic that might compete with them— Mark Butler, Labor shadow health minister
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Khorshid focus so heavily on the number 50 out of 8,000? It seems like an odd thing to emphasize.
Because it's the whole argument in one ratio. He's saying this isn't a solution—it's theater. Fifty clinics can't move the needle on a system-wide problem. It lets politicians claim they're doing something without actually doing the hard work.
But Labor says they're not trying to replace practices, just fund them to stay open longer. Doesn't that address his concern?
Partially. But Khorshid's real complaint isn't about the funding mechanism—it's that Labor is treating a symptom instead of the disease. He wants Medicare itself reformed. Labor's offering a band-aid.
So why did the College of General Practitioners say they'd explore it? Aren't they the ones who'd actually run these clinics?
They're being diplomatic. They're saying yes to the conversation, but they're also hedging—they want to see the details, and they want guarantees it won't just be a pilot that dies. They're not endorsing it so much as refusing to dismiss it.
What's the real divide here—is it about money, or philosophy?
Both. But underneath is a question about whether you fix a broken system by adding pieces to it or by rebuilding the foundation. Khorshid thinks Labor's doing the former. Labor thinks they're doing the latter, just starting with something achievable.
And the Coalition? Where do they stand in all this?
Caught. They have a plan everyone agrees is good, but they won't fund it. So Khorshid's criticism lands on them too—maybe harder, because they're in government and could actually do it.