Reported use of artificial intelligence scribes in Australian general practice rose from 22 per cent in August 2024 to 40 per cent in November 2025, on polling run by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Briefing papers prepared for the February 2026 Senate estimates round, released under freedom of information, record the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing's own assessment that the tools "have little oversight".
The 40 per cent is a softer number than it looks. The college's newsGP poll asked respondents whether artificial intelligence scribes were being used in their general practice, which counts a clinic where one doctor is trialling one. A survey run by Healthed and The Medical Republic in May asked 1,535 GPs whether they personally used a scribe when consulting. On that question the answer was 18.7 per cent, up from about 8 per cent in October 2024.
Among the doctors who do use one, the habit is heavy. In the May survey, 37.3 per cent said they used a scribe in 80 to 100 per cent of consultations and 18.3 per cent in 60 to 80 per cent. One practice in four had an artificial intelligence governance policy. Three in four did not.
The consent obligation already exists. College guidance last updated in October 2025 says GPs must obtain a patient's consent before running a scribe during a consultation, and notes that some medical defence organisations advise obtaining it in writing. Recording a private conversation without consent is a criminal offence in several states and territories, which is a separate exposure from the health regulator's.
“There's less documentation after hours, which is a real driver of burnout," said Dr Janice Tan, who speaks for one of the college's expert committees. She drew the line at what the software is allowed to add. "A product that starts suggesting a diagnosis or treatment the clinician didn't state is no longer a scribe.”
The Therapeutic Goods Administration has drawn the same line in regulation. Software that transcribes a consultation and turns it into a written record is not a medical device. Software that interprets the conversation and produces a diagnosis, a differential diagnosis or a treatment recommendation the practitioner did not state is a medical device, and has to be entered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods before it can be supplied.
Where the recording goes afterwards is the part nobody has mapped. "We don't know how these notes are being used, we don't know how safely they're held," said Andrew Cullen of the University of Melbourne's School of Computing and Information Systems. The department's briefing raised the same point from the supply side, noting that some vendors may not know their own cloud platforms send data outside Australia.
Responsibility for the record does not move. The college's guidance is explicit that the GP remains accountable for the accuracy of a patient's health record, whatever produced the draft, and that the software mishears terminology, drops relevant detail and misclassifies data.
Changes to the Privacy Act extending the Australian Privacy Principles to certain automated decision making take effect in December. Until then the control sits in the consulting room, in the question a doctor asks at the start of the appointment. A patient can say no.
