The health of "vulnerable" people living in remote communities across Australia could be put at risk if the Commonwealth pushes ahead with its Religious Discrimination Bill 2019, experts say.

Key points: Health experts say it is "not clear" how the bill will interact with other anti-discrimination laws

Health experts say it is "not clear" how the bill will interact with other anti-discrimination laws In rural and remote areas, there are fewer health professionals, sparking fears some people may be denied care

In rural and remote areas, there are fewer health professionals, sparking fears some people may be denied care Federal Attorney-General Christian Porter insists nothing in the bill permits discrimination against patients

Australian Medical Association NT president Dr Rob Parker has written to Federal Attorney-General Christian Porter asking for significant changes to the proposed legislation.

Dr Parker was concerned conservative doctors could deny vulnerable patients health care on moral grounds, leaving them with few other options.

"The main issue is the fact that we already have really poor health outcomes in remote and rural areas compared to the rest of Australia," he said.

"If people can't have the confidence in their health practitioners, they have nowhere else to go."

Dr Parker said the patients "most likely" to be affected by the proposed laws were already vulnerable.

"Young women facing issues about termination of pregnancy, or people with sexual identity issues who are seeking further advice," he said.

"They are the sort of issues that are likely to trigger people with tightly held religious convictions."

Dr Parker said people living in Sydney or Melbourne could always see another GP, but the lack of options in remote communities left patients with very few options.

He said it also was not clear exactly how the bill would interact with other anti-discrimination laws and the legislation did not define conscientious objection.

According to Dr Parker, the patients "most likely" to be impacted by the proposed laws were already vulnerable. ( Flickr: Alex Proimos )

Health experts worried about legislation

Associate professor Suzanne Belton, the NT president of the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA) and past chairwoman of Family Planning NT, echoed similar concerns.

"In rural and remote areas, there are few health professionals," she said.

"There may be only one or two GPs or nurses in a town and if they hold a particular religious belief that withholds a health service, this makes it very difficult for consumers to find the care they need.

"Even in Darwin, there are restricted choices in health providers and specialists."

Dr Belton said the bill provided, "special protections for health professionals who hold religious beliefs that could harm their patients" and PHAA NT felt this bill was not needed in Australia.

"We already have strong anti-discrimination laws that protect people's rights, including the rights of health professionals," Dr Belton said.

"Health professionals not only have rights but they also have responsibilities to their patients, the organisation they work for and the community."

Dr Belton also said, if passed in its current state, the sparse health services provided to Territorians would be, "reduced by some religious health professionals who refuse to provide health care without discrimination and privileging their own belief system over the welfare of their patient".

She was also concerned LGBTIQ patients and people seeking termination advice may be disproportionately affected by the proposed laws.

Health Minister Natasha Fyles has also written to the Commonwealth, reiterating the AMA's concerns. ( AAP: Neda Vanovac )

NT Health Minister Natasha Fyles has also written to Mr Porter and Health Minister Greg Hunt, reiterating the AMA's concerns.

"We are waiting for the Australian Law Reform Committee's report into religious freedoms before any changes are considered to the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Act," she said.

"Any changes will be as a result of consultation with the public. As such, we are not in a position to comment on commonwealth changes at this stage."

Bill 'protects existing rights'

Despite these concerns, Mr Porter said the bill did not "create a new right to conscientious objection".

"Instead, it protects the existing right not to provide or be involved in procedures to which a healthcare practitioner has deeply held and sincere objections, and which the AMA itself recognises," he said.

Christian Porter says nothing in the bill permits discrimination against patients. ( AAP: Lukas Coch )

Mr Porter said nothing in the bill permitted discrimination against patients.

"Instead, the bill addresses circumstances that might arise where a rule has the effect of discriminating against nurses, doctors, and other healthcare practitioners, because the workplace rule prevents them from exercising their right to conscientious objection," he said.

"The bill says those types of rules are unreasonable. Notably, that general position protecting a conscientious objector is subject to some important other principles."

Mr Porter also said he was working through submissions on the exposure draft and would introduce the bill before the end of the year.

"The bill will then be subjected to the usual senate review process, which will provide all interested parties an opportunity to make further submissions," he added.