Just before the RACGP unveiled its 2026-2030 advocacy plan, two-thirds of GPs said the profession could benefit from a separate organisation set up specifically to lobby on its behalf, a Healthed survey found.

But with a significant minority against it—and fewer than four in 10 willing to fund it—could such an organisation work?

Easier said than done

Several groups representing GP interests have emerged over the past few decades, notes Dr Aniello Iannuzzi, chair of the Australian Doctors Federation. While some have disbanded, others—like the AMA Council of General Practice, Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine and the Australian GP Alliance—still play a role in advocacy, he says.

“Starting afresh with a new body that has very low membership and has to find a management structure de novo is going to be very difficult. I would much prefer GPs support existing organisations and make them stronger. And all those organisations, in my experience, are always very open to new talent and people interested in contributing.”

Professor Charlotte Hespe, head of General Practice and Primary Care Research at Sydney’s University of Notre Dame, suggests the mixed feelings among GPs in Healthed’s survey indicate a new venture is “doomed to fail.”

“Advocacy is not cheap. It takes a lot of time and a lot of effort,” she says, noting it’s taken the RACGP 20 years to become the go-to for opinions.

“It’s all about relationships and trust. It isn’t just a matter of standing up and saying I’ve got a point of view that matters. It is actually about making sure people know who you are. Who do you represent? How are you proving with data that you are that group?”

Pharmacy Guild successes driving renewed lobbying interest

Dr Anita Muñoz, chair of the RACGP’s Victoria Council, says it makes sense the issue has cropped up again given the “Pharmacy Guild has been exceptionally successful in lobbying government recently with all the changes to pharmacy prescribing.”

Healthed’s survey results indicate some GPs want to see stronger advocacy from the RACGP because they feel it’s less assertive than the Pharmacy Guild, she says.

The membership needs to be consulted about its risk appetite and how much tension to maintain in conversations with government, she adds.

“To be effective in advocacy, you need to have assertive conversations, but you still need to be diplomatic and respectful—because to lose those elements of diplomacy can very quickly render you totally ineffective if the people you’re wanting to influence no longer have an appetite for discussing anything with you at all,.”

There are also important distinctions between the two organisations, she stresses. “We are an academic college, we set the standards, we train GPs. The essential raison d’etre of the College is different from the Pharmacy Guild, so in some ways you are comparing apples and oranges.”

“The Pharmacy Guild is essentially a pharmacy owner lobby group that is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on political donations in order to promote their interests—and those interests have very little to do with the interests of working pharmacists.”

“The College does not want to say it is willing to become an advocate for only one type of GP. We want to promote the profession and the role of the profession in the health system and the outcomes for our patients.”

Networks and funding can’t be ignored

The College is well-positioned for the role, and capable of delivering more for its members, Dr Muñoz says.

“Our advocacy has improved and become more forthright over the last 10 years, and I believe we can build on that momentum rather than say all that advocacy should be handed off to a new organisation.”

It would take years before a “new organisation had the gravitas and the reputation and the standing with the government to be able to have the impacts the membership is seeing,” she adds.

Professor Hespe agrees, noting the College has existing funding and relationships. “So if you don’t like what they’re doing, then go and talk to them and say why they’re wrong, show the evidence and make sure your voice gets heard.”

Dr Iannuzzi favours the AMA’s Council of General Practice. “The AMA’s got very good networks,” he says. “I think its influence has diminished somewhat over recent years but there’s no reason why that can’t be built back up.”

Is the College too conflicted?

Dr Iannuzzi says the survey findings reflect widespread feelings the College is conflicted — dealing with issues like mandatory reporting, CME, and accreditation, but also “taking so much government money that they inevitably have to modify their response to these issues because they don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them.”

If a new lobbying group went ahead, it should be independent, Dr Iannuzzi adds. “Anything that’s political or industrial needs to be kept out of the colleges.” The College would also need to accept that advocacy discussions stay outside their walls, he says.

Sixty-two percent of surveyed GPs thought the RACGP should endorse such an organisation. In free text responses, some GPs said it should be completely separate from the RACGP, with others preferring a partnership—and several commented that they should not be in conflict.

Dr Muñoz agrees the survey results signal that “some members are worried the relationship between the government and the RACGP has changed because of the education grant.” However, “the fact that we are executing that grant does not mean that we will shy away from frank and fearless conversations with government about the future of our profession,” she says.

The RACGP did not respond to requests for comment.