The Australian Medical Association has criticised the lack of resourcing for the medevac expert panel and said it must be fixed by bipartisanship on medical transfers from offshore detention.

The call came in a submission by the AMA to the Senate inquiry examining the Coalition’s bill to repeal the legislation, which gives clinicians a greater say in the medical transfers of asylum seekers.

A number of other medical and refugee groups – including the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – are also urging against the proposed repeal.

The AMA submitted that it “supports a body of clinical experts, independent of government, with the power to investigate and advise on the health and welfare of asylum seekers and refugees”.

But while the independent health advice panel has been a success it is also “significantly relying on the personal efforts and funding of the nominated individuals or organisations”, the AMA said.

“This is extremely problematic in the long run especially if the case load should increase significantly.”

It noted the lack of funding was caused by “last minute amendments” to the bill, which was legislated in the last parliament with the support of crossbenchers, Labor and the Greens at the time Scott Morrison governed in minority.

The amendments removed ongoing funding to overcome the objection that the bill was unconstitutional, because the government refused to support passage of a bill with a properly funded panel.

“In the absence of any other alternative independent medical panel that is demonstrably superior, the AMA affirms its support for the [independent panel], in assessing the needs of asylum seekers and refugees for transfers for medical and psychiatric assessment and treatment,” the AMA said.

“However, we also want to see the [independent panel] properly resourced, including remuneration for members, recognising the workload and commitment that it involves.”

The RACGP said it had provided “in principle support” for the medevac bill and expressed “its continued support of the intent of this process in Australia, including the role of the [independent panel]”.

The RACGP noted that applications for temporary transfers to make medical assessments “are being coordinated and written by volunteer doctors”. It called for adequate resources to process applications, information and advice on medical indemnity and access to government-funded indemnity insurance.

The UNHCR’s submission stated that the “deteriorating health situation” of refugees and asylum seekers in Papua New Guinea and Nauru “has led to significant risks of irreparable harm and loss of life”.

“Despite an urgent imperative for medical evacuations in a substantial number of cases, transfers to Australia were previously subject to protracted delays.”

The UNHCR noted that before the medevac bill some 890 people had been transferred from both countries to Australia for medical treatment, or were born in Australia to parents who were, but the system was characterised by a “low level of transparency and predictability”.

“This has undermined confidence in critical healthcare decisions and led to multiple cases in which delayed or inadequate treatment has had tragic consequences,” it said, citing the death of Hamid Khazaei.

The UNHCR said the bill would “explicitly authorise the forcible return” of refugees and asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea, Nauru or their country of origin, irrespective of whether they had completed care.

Labor has continued to express support for the medevac procedures. The shadow home affairs minister, Kristina Keneally, has said there is “no evidence” the laws are not working but Labor will consider government amendments if necessary.

Other opponents of the repeal of medevac include former independent MP Kerryn Phelps, one of the architects of the original bill, and Shaun Hanns, a home affairs departmental official who quit his job in the refugee processing area to argue publicly for an overhaul of Australia’s border protection regime.