MMI Questions for Medicine in Australia and NZ (42 With Outlines)
The MMI questions Australian and New Zealand medical schools ask, grouped by type, with how to answer each.
Interviews in Australia and New Zealand test motivation, communication, ethics, teamwork and your understanding of the communities doctors serve, including rural patients and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Māori health. Most questions are short scenarios, so the skill is reasoning out loud to a clear decision.
How to answer an MMI question
Interviewers mark your reasoning and how you treat people, not one right answer.
- Use the reading time. Find the real problem and the people affected.
- Say what is going on. Open with it, then weigh the options out loud.
- Choose and act. Pick one option and say what you would do next.
Rural or Indigenous health? Avoid speaking for a community. Show that you would listen, work with local services and health workers, and respect the patient's choice.
Practice out loud, against the clock
Reading answers is not the same as giving one under time pressure.
Say it, time it, listen back. Say each answer out loud, time it, and listen back for a clear decision and a real next step.
Why medicine and about you
Why medicine, what you have done to test that choice, and what you would bring.
1.Medical schools here recruit students from rural backgrounds because they're more likely to go on to practice in the country. Whether you grew up in a city or a small town, how do you plan to contribute to rural health?
What it tests. A city applicant can't claim country roots. The answer needs a real reason and a plan, not a vague promise to go rural.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Answer (20 seconds). Opens honestly as a city applicant who can't claim to be going home, and answers that they'll contribute by choosing rural training early and testing whether they can build a career there.
- 2
Moment (45 seconds). Describes a St John first aid shift at a country agricultural show where they helped a local senior volunteer manage a farmer's cut, and watched her use local knowledge to get him to hospital.
- 3
What it changed (30 seconds). Says rural health depends on people who know the community and stay, and shows follow-through: reading about rural clinical schools and rural generalist training and talking to a country-trained GP.
- 4
Looking ahead (15 seconds). Plans to take every rural placement possible, ideally a longer one, keeps rural generalist training open, and ties back to the volunteer who knew which family could drive.
Common pitfalls. Claiming a rural connection the applicant doesn't have, promising to practice rurally forever without any evidence of interest, or describing rural towns as places to rescue rather than communities to join.
I grew up in suburban Melbourne, so I can't say I'm going home, but I plan to contribute by choosing rural training early and testing honestly whether I can build a career there. What made it real for me was volunteering with St John.
2.You've already completed a first degree. What happened during your undergraduate studies that made you decide to sit the GAMSAT and move into medicine?
What it tests. A career change needs a real turning point. The trap is a vague story or talking down your first degree.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Answer (20 seconds). Opens by naming the turning point: during a psychology degree, wanting to understand the whole person, body included, and to be responsible for working out what's wrong.
- 2
Moment (45 seconds). Tells of a weekend aged care shift when a resident was suddenly confused, staff blamed his dementia, and the applicant reported the change to the registered nurse, who arranged a GP review.
- 3
What it changed (30 seconds). Values what psychology taught about listening and behavior, but wanted to act on observations. Tested the decision by talking with two GPs and continuing aged care work before sitting the GAMSAT.
- 4
Looking ahead (15 seconds). Plans to bring the psychology lens into medicine, and to be the doctor who listens when a carer says someone isn't themselves.
Common pitfalls. Making the switch sound like a backup plan, talking down the first degree or other professions, or telling a story where the applicant claims to have diagnosed the patient themselves.
What pushed me to sit the GAMSAT was realizing, partway through my psychology degree, that I wanted to understand the whole person, body included, and to be the one responsible for working out what's wrong. In my second year I started weekend shifts as a support worker in an aged care home.
3.You're applying straight from school through the UCAT ANZ pathway. You haven't had the extra years of life experience a graduate applicant has, so what have you done to build the maturity to talk with vulnerable patients?
What it tests. A school leaver can't claim life experience, so the answer has to show real time with vulnerable people and what it taught.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Answer (20 seconds). Answers straight away: without a graduate's life experience, they've deliberately spent regular time with vulnerable people and learned from the moments they got wrong.
- 2
Moment (45 seconds). Saturday work as a lifestyle assistant in aged care, where correcting a resident with dementia about her late husband upset her, until a carer showed how asking about him calmed her.
- 3
What it changed (30 seconds). Learned to listen before fixing with facts, to ask a question first, and to seek feedback from carers after hard moments, plus a mental health first aid course in Year 12.
- 4
Looking ahead (15 seconds). Will keep seeking feedback and debriefing as one of the younger students on the ward, because maturity comes from reflection on hard conversations, not age alone.
Common pitfalls. Getting defensive about being young, claiming maturity without a real moment to show it, or telling a story where they handled everything perfectly with nothing learned.
I can't claim the life experience of a graduate, so I've tried to make up for it by spending regular time with vulnerable people and learning from the moments I got wrong. Since Year 11 I've worked Saturday shifts as a lifestyle assistant at an aged care home near us, running activities and sitting with residents.
4.In Australia, Medicare and public hospitals sit alongside private health insurance and private hospitals, and many doctors work in both. Why do you want to practice medicine in a system like this one?
What it tests. Not a policy lecture. The answer needs a personal reason for wanting to work where public and private care sit side by side.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Your reason (15 seconds). Opens with the reason: being the doctor who helps patients find a fair path through public and private care, so the right care doesn't depend only on ability to pay.
- 2
A real moment (45 seconds). As a Year 12 hospital volunteer, walked an older man waiting on the public list for knee surgery, found the clinic nurse to explain his situation, and saw him relax.
- 3
The test (30 seconds). Tested it with GP work experience, watching her explain public and private referral options, costs and waits plainly, and realizing those conversations are central to the job.
- 4
The direction (15 seconds). Holds the specialty loosely, general practice or hospital, but ties back to helping patients understand their choices honestly whichever side of the system they're in.
Common pitfalls. Turning it into a lecture on how Medicare is funded, criticizing private medicine or private patients, or hinting at income from private practice as a motivation.
What draws me is being the doctor who helps a patient find a fair path through a system with a public safety net and a private option, so the right care doesn't depend only on who can pay. That became real for me when I volunteered as a meet and greet volunteer at our regional public hospital in Year 12.
5.You're applying for medicine straight from school. What makes you confident that medicine is right for you now, rather than exploring other fields at university first?
What it tests. Claiming total certainty at seventeen sounds naive. Show your choice has been tested, and that you weighed the alternatives.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Your reason (15 seconds). Opens by being confident rather than claiming total certainty, and names the draw: working out what's wrong and staying calm with the person while it gets sorted.
- 2
A real moment (45 seconds). Describes a St John shift at a junior footy carnival, keeping a hurt nine-year-old still and calm and supporting his mum until a more experienced volunteer took over.
- 3
The test (30 seconds). Shows the choice was tested through a week of hospital work experience, weekend aged care work since Year 11, and real comparison with physiotherapy, engineering and economics.
- 4
The direction (15 seconds). Says they'd rather explore inside a degree with clinical contact, and ends picturing themselves as a doctor in a regional town people turn to.
Common pitfalls. Claiming absolute certainty, dismissing the other careers considered, or listing activities without saying what each one tested about the fit with medicine.
I'm not certain the way someone with twenty years of life behind them might be, but I'm confident, because what draws me to medicine is something I've already tested. I like working out what's going on with a person, and I like being the one who stays calm and stays with them while it gets sorted.
6.In your opinion, what is the single most important quality a doctor must have, and can you share an example of a time you showed that quality?
What it tests. Naming a quality is easy. The example has to show it costing you something, not just a trait you claim to have.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Name the story (5 seconds). Names the quality, honesty, including honesty about what you don't know, and the story that shows it: a part-time job at a community pharmacy in Year 12.
- 2
Situation and Task (20 seconds). Sets up the pharmacy front counter role, an older woman asking whether a cold and flu product was safe with her blood pressure tablets, and the duty to pass medicine questions to the pharmacist.
- 3
Action (50 seconds). Shows the pressure of a queue and a customer wanting a quick yes, then the honest choice: admitting they didn't know, explaining the short wait, and passing on her exact question and medicines to the pharmacist.
- 4
Result (15 seconds). Says the pharmacist suggested a different option and the woman came back to thank the applicant for not guessing.
- 5
Reflection (20 seconds). Notices how strong the pull is to sound helpful rather than be honest, and names the habit: say you don't know straight away and find the person who does.
Common pitfalls. Naming a quality with no real example, choosing a story where the quality cost nothing, or giving medical advice yourself in the story instead of showing the limits of your role.
For me the most important quality is honesty, including being honest about what you don't know. The time I'd pick to show it is from my part-time job at a community pharmacy in Year 12.
7.Tell us about a time when you had to work toward a long-term goal over several years. How did you stay motivated when you couldn't see immediate results?
What it tests. Years-long goals have no quick wins. The skill is showing what kept you going in the flat middle stretch.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Name the story (5 seconds). Names the story in one line: about three years learning Auslan so the applicant could talk properly with a Deaf cousin.
- 2
Situation and Task (20 seconds). Sets up the goal briefly: noticing the cousin on the edge of family conversations in Year 9 and aiming for a real conversation by the end of school.
- 3
Action (50 seconds). Covers the course, nightly practice, termly checkpoints, the Year 11 plateau, then weekly signing-only calls, a notebook of missed signs and a Deaf community social night.
- 4
Result (15 seconds). Reports a full conversation at Christmas in Year 12, while admitting they are not fluent, and the cousin's comment about not feeling left out.
- 5
Reflection (20 seconds). Reflects that small checkpoints and the person mattered more than the distant goal, and now breaks long goals into term-sized pieces with accountability.
Common pitfalls. Picking a goal that took only weeks, skipping the low point where motivation dropped, or ending on a vague lesson like "hard work pays off" with nothing they now do differently.
The time I'd pick is learning Auslan, which I worked at for about three years so I could talk properly with my cousin, who is Deaf. In Year 9, I noticed that at family gatherings she was always on the edge of the conversation, and all I could do was fingerspell slowly.
Rural, Indigenous and Māori health
Rural and remote care, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, and Māori health.
8.Why is it important for you to understand the goals of Closing the Gap, even if you plan to spend your whole career working in a large metropolitan hospital?
What it tests. Closing the Gap sounds like a remote-health issue. The question tests whether you see it in a city hospital too.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). States that the question asks whether Closing the Gap belongs only to remote doctors, and answers that it applies to every doctor, including one who stays in a city hospital.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Gives the view that city doctors have little influence over housing or remote access, then the case that many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people use city hospitals and that mainstream organizations are asked to change.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Lands on understanding it as part of doing the job well, backed by seeing an Aboriginal Liaison Officer help a family confused by the discharge process.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Admits a busy doctor can't fix everything and that training can become tokenism, and softens it by focusing on listening, referral and follow-up.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Would change only with evidence that urban services play no part in the gaps, while noting that what they've learned points the other way.
Common pitfalls. Treating Indigenous health as a remote-only issue, quoting gap statistics without care, or describing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people only as a problem to fix rather than partners.
This question is really asking whether Closing the Gap is only for doctors who work in remote communities, or whether it applies to everyone. I think it applies to everyone, including someone who spends their whole career in a city hospital.
9.Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services play a significant role in providing care across Australia. What do you think are the main benefits for an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander patient of attending a community-controlled clinic rather than a mainstream general practice?
What it tests. Name the real benefits of community control without implying mainstream GPs can't or shouldn't care well.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Says the question asks why it matters who runs a health service and what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients gain when their own community runs it.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Gives the case for community governance, trust and holistic care in one place with transport help, then the fair points that mainstream GPs can be closer, quicker or preferred for privacy.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Names trust through community ownership as the biggest benefit, backed by a community health day on a rural placement where people knew the staff by name.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Admits community-controlled services can't be everywhere, so mainstream practices must be culturally safe too, and sees the two working together with good referral.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Would change view if patients themselves said they felt equally safe and well served in mainstream clinics.
Common pitfalls. Implying all Aboriginal patients must or should use community-controlled services, using deficit statistics instead of strengths, or not explaining what community control actually means.
This question is really about why it matters who runs a health service, and what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients gain when their own community runs it. The case for community-controlled services is strong.
10.An elderly Māori patient is admitted to hospital with a terminal illness. The patient wants to stop treatment and go home to their whānau to die peacefully. Their adult children insist the team do everything possible to prolong their life. As a medical student observing this, how would you analyze the competing interests?
What it tests. The patient wants to go home to die. The children want everything done. Autonomy meets whānau, and grief.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by asking whether the patient has capacity and has been consistent, why the children want everything done, and whether the hospital's Māori health team has been involved.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts the patient first since it's their life and death, then the whānau, for whom decisions may be shared, and the medical team who must provide care they believe is right.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between the patient's right to refuse treatment and choose where they die and the children's wish to prolong life, plus respecting whānau without losing the patient's voice.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs following the children, which overrides a competent patient, following the patient without engaging the family, which leaves them hurt, and a family meeting with the patient's permission.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses a family meeting with the Māori health team and a kaumātua if wanted, where a capable patient's decision stands but the whānau are helped to understand it, backed by hospice volunteering.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). As a student, listens, supports the patient if they want to talk, raises observations with the supervisor, and reflects on handling such conversations as a future doctor.
Common pitfalls. Dismissing the children as obstructive, ignoring the role of whānau in Māori decision-making, or forgetting to ask whether the patient has capacity.
Before deciding where I stand, I'd want to know more. Does the patient have capacity to make this decision, and do they understand what stopping treatment means?
11.Institutional racism is recognized as a barrier to health equity for Indigenous peoples in Australia and New Zealand. Can you give an example of what institutional racism might look like in a hospital, and explain why it might put someone off seeking care?
What it tests. You need an example that's about the system, not one rude person, and it has to be believable.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Says the question is about racism built into how a hospital works, not only individual attitudes, even when staff mean well.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Gives examples of interpreters booked only if someone remembers, strict visitor limits that exclude family decision-makers and 'non-compliant' labels, then the view that no prejudice means no racism.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Lands on outcomes mattering more than intent, and explains deterrence through a man at a regional show who would rather tough it out than return to a hospital where staff talked over him.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Admits a systems focus could let individuals feel off the hook, and answers that each person is still responsible for noticing and speaking up.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Would change view only with evidence that these patterns don't affect who comes back for care.
Common pitfalls. Giving only an example of one rude staff member, quoting statistics the applicant can't support, or sounding accusatory toward health workers instead of explaining how systems produce unequal outcomes.
This question is really asking whether I understand that racism in health care isn't only about individual attitudes. It can sit in the way a hospital is set up, even when every staff member means well.
12.The Māori health model Te Whare Tapa Whā compares health to the four walls of a house: physical, spiritual, family and mental wellbeing. What do you think this model could add to the way doctors assess any patient, whatever their background?
What it tests. It's a Māori model, so the answer must value it for every patient while respecting where it comes from.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Frames the question as whether a Māori model of health can improve any doctor's assessment, and what using it respectfully involves.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). For: a clear structure across taha tinana, hinengaro, whānau and wairua, shown with a farmer's back pain. Against: lifting it out of context as a checklist, patients uneasy about spirituality, and short appointments.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Holds that it can improve assessment for any patient if used with respect for its origins, backed by a netball player whose drop in effort came from hardship at home.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Names time as the cost, softened by not covering every wall at every visit and building the picture over several appointments.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Would change how they use the model if Māori health leaders said using it outside Māori care misrepresented it.
Common pitfalls. Treating the model as a checklist with no understanding of its Māori origins, getting the four dimensions wrong, or applying it only to Māori patients when the question asks about everyone.
This is really asking whether a Māori model of health can make a doctor's assessment better for everyone, and what it means to use it respectfully. The case for it is that it gives a simple structure for looking beyond the physical problem.
13.You are working in a regional hospital and discharging an Aboriginal patient who needs ongoing chronic disease management. You could refer them to a local mainstream clinic or to an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service. How would you discuss these options with the patient?
What it tests. Two good referral options. The patient chooses, and you have to lay them out without steering.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by asking where the patient lives, which clinic they can reach, how past care went and who helps at home, and offers to involve an Aboriginal Liaison Officer or Aboriginal Health Worker if the patient wants.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts the patient first as the person managing a long-term condition, then the family who help with transport and medicines, and both clinics, which need a clear handover to continue care.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between steering the patient toward the option I assume is best and their right to choose where they feel safe, including privacy worries in a small town.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs choosing for them, which is fast but may mean they never attend, handing over pamphlets, which leaves them alone, and explaining both plainly so they can decide.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses a plain-language explanation of both clinics with an open question, listens, and respects their choice, including taking time to talk it over with family.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Sends a clear summary to the chosen clinic, checks there's an appointment and transport, documents the discussion, and as a student runs it past the supervisor first.
Common pitfalls. Assuming the community-controlled service is automatically right for every Aboriginal patient, talking only about the medical condition and not how they'll get there, or stopping at the conversation without making sure the referral lands.
Before I recommend anything, I'd want to hear from the patient. Where do they live, and which clinic can they actually get to?
14.In New Zealand, Māori experience significant health inequities, and living in remote areas with limited services can compound them. How can a rural doctor actively uphold the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi while managing the demands of a busy, isolated clinic?
What it tests. Te Tiriti in practice, when you're the only doctor and the waiting room is full. Big principles, small daily actions.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by asking which iwi and hapū are local, whether there's a Māori health provider, and what Māori patients and whānau say about their care, starting with the practice nurse and kaimahi hauora.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts Māori patients and whānau first, then other patients competing for limited time, the stretched clinic team, and the local Māori health provider carrying much of the load.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between the real limits of an isolated clinic and the Te Tiriti obligation to actively pursue Māori health equity rather than simply treat whoever walks in.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs carrying on unchanged, which keeps the gaps, trying to fix everything alone, which is unsustainable and decides for Māori, and building daily habits in partnership.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses partnership and small habits: correct pronunciation, room for whānau, following up missed appointments, and asking the community, such as a marae clinic, backed by a St John experience with kaumātua.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Checks whether changes help by asking patients and watching who returns, and protects their own workload with supervision and cultural support.
Common pitfalls. Reciting Te Tiriti principles without daily actions, assuming the doctor alone knows what Māori patients need, or treating a busy clinic as a reason for nothing to change.
Before saying what I'd do, I'd want to know the clinic. Which iwi and hapū are in the area, is there a local Māori health provider, and what do Māori patients and whānau say about the care they get now?
Health policy and social issues
Access, cost and fairness in the health system. Balance matters more than statistics.
15.Some clinics have stopped bulk billing, so patients now pay an out-of-pocket fee for a standard GP consultation. How do you think this shift affects the wider healthcare system in Australia?
What it tests. Sounds like a pricing question, but it's really about who delays care and where they end up instead.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Says the question is about what happens when a GP visit stops being free at the point of care, and that low-income people, young families and those with chronic conditions feel it most.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Gives the case that a gap fee delays care and pushes some people to emergency departments, then the clinics' case that the Medicare rebate alone may not keep a practice viable.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Lands on keeping GP care affordable because primary care is the cheapest place to keep people well, backed by people at St John events who said they'd wait and see.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Admits that protecting bulk billing without enough funding could push GPs out or shorten consultations, and softens it by targeting support where need is greatest.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Would change position with good evidence that people who lost bulk billing weren't delaying care or presenting more often to emergency departments.
Common pitfalls. Quoting current rebate amounts or bulk billing rates that may be out of date, blaming GPs as greedy, or talking only about individual patients without the knock-on effect on hospitals.
This question is really about what happens when a GP visit stops being free at the point of care, and who feels that most. It's usually people on low incomes, families with young kids, and people with chronic conditions who need to see a GP often.
16.Telehealth has expanded access to care in remote areas, but it has real limits. What do you see as the main practical and social barriers to relying on telehealth in rural Australian or New Zealand communities?
What it tests. Easy to list bad internet. Harder to name the social barriers and still say what telehealth does well.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Says the question is about whether telehealth can carry rural care alone and who it leaves out, especially older people and those without reliable internet or privacy.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Gives the strong case for telehealth on travel, cost and specialist access, then the practical barriers of coverage, data and examinations and the social barriers of confidence, privacy and trust.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Lands on telehealth as a supplement to local in-person care, backed by country parents who valued the local nurse who knew their family.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Admits in-person rural care is expensive and hard to staff, and softens it by pairing telehealth with local nurses, Aboriginal Health Workers or Māori health providers.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Would change view if remote patients reported that video care alone met their needs as well as in-person visits.
Common pitfalls. Listing only internet problems and missing privacy and trust, dismissing telehealth entirely despite its real benefits, or ignoring that some care needs hands-on examination.
This question is really about whether telehealth can carry rural care on its own, and who it leaves out. It affects people in remote communities most, especially older people and anyone without reliable internet or a private space to talk.
17.Why do you think many doctors are reluctant to practice in rural and remote areas of Australia or New Zealand, and what changes could encourage them to build careers outside the major cities?
What it tests. Money alone doesn't fix it. Strong answers name why doctors leave or never go, and which changes actually build rural careers.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Frames the question as why rural and remote communities struggle to attract and keep doctors, and what would change that for doctors and patients alike.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Names city-based training, heavy on-call, professional isolation and family factors as push factors, rural scope and continuity as pulls, then weighs incentives against compulsion and the limits of each.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Argues the strongest change is training people in the country: more rural-background students, longer placements and rural generalist pathways, backed by seeing which doctors stayed in their regional town.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Admits it takes years and doesn't help a town without a GP now, so it must sit alongside locums and telehealth in the short term.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Would rethink the focus if doctors who trained rurally turned out to leave at the same rate as everyone else.
Common pitfalls. Blaming doctors as selfish, offering only money as the answer, or quoting workforce numbers and percentages the applicant can't back up.
This is really asking why rural and remote communities struggle to get and keep doctors, and what would change that for both the doctors and the people who need them. On the causes, a lot of it is about where doctors train and how life looks once they're there.
18.Some new treatments for rare diseases can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient unless they're subsidized through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. How should a society decide which medicines taxpayers subsidize and which they don't?
What it tests. Every yes to one drug is a no somewhere else. Show you can weigh value for money against patients with no other option.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Frames the question as spending a fixed public budget fairly, where funding one very expensive medicine means less for everyone else.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Gives the case for value for money, as the committee advising on PBS listings weighs effectiveness, safety and value, then the case that rare diseases lose out through no fault of patients.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Keeps value for money as the main test, with stated room for severity, lack of alternatives and patient voices, because transparent rules beat decisions driven by media attention.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Admits some families will still hear no, and softens it with price negotiation, conditional funding with tracked results, and reviewing decisions when new evidence arrives.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Would change the view if exceptions for rare diseases were steadily crowding out treatments that would help far more people.
Common pitfalls. Answering only with emotion for the rare disease patient, inventing statistics or detailed PBS rules, or refusing to take a position because both sides matter.
This question is really about how we spend a fixed public budget fairly, when saying yes to one very expensive medicine can mean less for everyone else. The strongest case for strict value for money is that every dollar spent on one drug is a dollar not spent somewhere else.
19.A supply delay means your local GP clinic only has enough flu vaccines this week for about half of the patients booked in to get one. The rest will have to wait for the next delivery. How would you decide who gets vaccinated this week, and what criteria would you use?
What it tests. Bookings feel fair, but they ignore who would get sickest. The best answers prioritize need and look after those who wait.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Asks how long until the next delivery, who is booked in, which patients the GPs and practice nurse see as higher risk, and whether nearby pharmacies could vaccinate sooner.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts first the patients most likely to become seriously unwell from flu, then healthy adults who booked in good faith, and the reception staff who must tell them.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between first in, first served, which feels fair because people booked, and giving scarce doses to those who need them most.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Compares keeping booking order, running a lottery, and having the GPs set clinical criteria for higher risk patients, with what each costs.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses clinician-set risk criteria applied equally to everyone, including staff and acquaintances, because the vaccine's purpose is preventing serious illness.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Calls, apologizes to and rebooks everyone who misses out, offers pharmacy options, keeps a priority list for the next delivery, and records the criteria.
Common pitfalls. Defaulting to booking order without considering risk, inventing a personal ranking without involving the clinicians, or forgetting the patients who are turned away.
The first things I'd want to know are when the next delivery is due, whether it's days or weeks away, and who exactly is booked in. I'd ask the GPs and practice nurse which of those patients are at higher risk of getting seriously sick from flu, and whether there are other places nearby, like local pharmacies, where people could get vaccinated sooner.
20.Mental health stigma is still a significant barrier to seeking care, particularly in rural or male-dominated communities. What initiatives or approaches do you think could help normalize asking for mental health support in these groups?
What it tests. Big awareness campaigns sound good. The better answer works through the places and people men already trust.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Frames the question as making help-seeking feel normal for men in country towns and in jobs like farming, trades and mining, where toughing it out is often expected.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Contrasts broad awareness campaigns, which reach many people and shift attitudes, with the view that men already know help exists but that small-town visibility makes seeking it feel exposing.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Leans toward working through trusted people and places, drawing on a regional upbringing: training coaches, captains and supervisors, GPs asking about stress in ordinary visits, and private telehealth options.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Admits the approach relies on volunteers who may burn out or feel out of their depth, and softens it with training and a clear handover to professional support.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Says the applicant would change course if men reported that cost or distance mattered more than privacy, and would then bring services closer instead.
Common pitfalls. Offering only generic awareness ideas, speaking about rural men as a problem to fix rather than drawing on their own community strengths, or inventing statistics about rural suicide or service use.
This is about how to make asking for help feel normal for men in country towns and in jobs like farming, trades and mining, where toughing it out is often seen as the right thing to do. One view is that the answer is awareness, with campaigns, ads and well-known men talking openly about their own struggles.
21.Many university students struggle with their mental health. What barriers do you think prevent young people from accessing mental health services in Australia or New Zealand?
What it tests. Listing barriers is easy. A strong answer picks the one that matters most and says why, without inventing numbers.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Frames the question as why a struggling young person still doesn't reach a first appointment, especially students who have just moved away from home.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Sets supply barriers (waits, gap fees after the Medicare rebate in Australia, rural distance) against earlier barriers (stigma, not knowing where to start, confidentiality worries, services that don't feel culturally safe for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Māori young people).
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Leans toward the earlier barriers, using a cousin who had no GP in the city and waited months, and proposes making the first step obvious and low-pressure on and off campus.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Admits more students coming forward could lengthen waits for ongoing care, and softens it by linking outreach to GPs and community services so early help isn't a dead end.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Says the applicant would shift priority to funding and workforce if students said cost or waiting was what actually stopped them.
Common pitfalls. Giving a long unranked list of barriers, inventing statistics about student mental health, or ignoring differences for rural, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Māori young people.
I think the question is really why a young person who knows they're struggling still doesn't get to a first appointment, and that affects students most when they've just moved away from home. One view is that the main barrier is supply.
Ethics stations
Consent, confidentiality, capacity, honesty and fair use of limited resources.
22.You are volunteering at a clinic in a small rural town. Later that day, at the town's only pharmacy, you overhear the pharmacist loudly telling one of the clinic's patients that they shouldn't take the medication the clinic doctor prescribed, and refusing to dispense it. Discuss how you would handle this situation.
What it tests. You don't know who's right, and in a small town everyone talks. Tell the prescriber, don't referee at the counter.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Starts by admitting they heard only part of it, and asks whether the pharmacist had a safety concern or a disagreement about treatment, whether the patient left without medicine, and whether they're okay.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts the patient first, caught between two professionals, possibly without needed medicine, with their health discussed in public. Then the doctor and pharmacist who must trust each other, and the town relying on both.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between wanting to help the patient right away and being a volunteer who doesn't know the clinical reasons and must protect the patient's privacy.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs stepping in at the counter, which oversteps and exposes the patient, doing nothing, which may leave them untreated, and telling the supervising doctor privately and factually.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses to tell the doctor, who is responsible for the prescription and can call the pharmacist and the patient. Might quietly ask if the patient is okay without discussing their medicine in public.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Reports only what they heard, keeps it out of town gossip, and asks the doctor afterward how they handle professional disagreements, to learn from it.
Common pitfalls. Taking the doctor's side and confronting the pharmacist without knowing the reason, revealing at the counter that the person is a clinic patient, or ignoring a situation that may leave the patient without treatment.
My first question is what's actually going on, because I only heard part of it. The pharmacist might have a real safety concern, like a clash with another medicine the doctor didn't know about, or it might be a disagreement about the treatment itself.
23.You and a close friend are in the same first-year anatomy unit at university. During a practical exam, you notice your friend looking at notes hidden in their sleeve. You know they've been dealing with serious family problems and need to pass to keep their scholarship. What do you do?
What it tests. Real hardship makes covering for a friend tempting. Strong answers support them without staying silent about the cheating.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Checks first whether the notes were really notes or something allowed, and asks how serious the family problems are and whether the friend has told the university.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Names future patients who will rely on the friend's anatomy, then the friend facing a scholarship loss or misconduct finding, the students who sat it honestly, and the applicant themselves.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). States the pull between loyalty to a friend in a hard time and honesty about something unfair to everyone else who sat the exam.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs staying silent, telling the supervisor mid-exam, and talking privately to the friend right after, with the cost of each spelled out.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Talks to the friend, urges them to self-report and seek special consideration for the family problems, and offers to go with them to the unit coordinator.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Sets a clear limit: if the friend refuses, the applicant reports to the unit coordinator, and keeps checking in on the friend regardless.
Common pitfalls. Reporting coldly with no concern for the friend's hardship, letting sympathy excuse the cheating so nothing is said, or accusing the friend in the middle of the exam before being sure.
The first thing I'd want to be sure of is what I actually saw. Were those really notes, or something that was allowed in the exam?
24.A friend who is also applying to medicine tells you in confidence that they exaggerated their rural background on their application to get into a rural entry pathway. They say it doesn't matter because they plan to work rurally anyway. How do you respond?
What it tests. Your friend plans to work rurally anyway. Does a good goal excuse a false application that took someone's place?
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by asking whether the friend exaggerated something true or invented it, whether the application has been submitted and whether there's an offer, since those details change what can be fixed.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts the friend first, whose career could be at risk, then a genuinely rural applicant who may lose the place, the rural community the pathway serves, and the university relying on honesty.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between loyalty to a trusting friend and fairness to the people the pathway exists for, and identifies the friend's reasoning as the ends justifying the means.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs staying silent, which makes me complicit, reporting immediately, which skips their chance to fix it, and talking honestly first to encourage them to correct it.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses a direct, caring conversation urging them to contact admissions and correct it, explaining the harm to a rural applicant and the risk to their own career.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Sets a short timeframe and checks back, would seriously consider raising it with admissions if the false information stands, tells the friend so, and keeps it private from others.
Common pitfalls. Accepting the friend's 'I'll work rurally anyway' reasoning, reporting without first giving them a chance to correct it, or gossiping about it among other applicants.
Before deciding anything, I'd want to understand exactly what my friend did. Did they stretch something true, like how long they lived in a country town, or did they make something up?
25.You are a first-year medical student on a rural placement in a small country town. At the local pub on Saturday night, you see your supervising doctor drinking heavily. You know they are the only doctor on call at the local hospital tomorrow morning. What do you do?
What it tests. Small town, your supervisor, a Saturday night. Patient safety tomorrow versus a relationship you depend on.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by checking whether the supervisor is actually drunk or had a few drinks over hours, confirms when the on-call shift starts, and asks who else covers the hospital before assuming the worst.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts tomorrow's patients first, then the supervisor who may be overstretched in a small town, the nursing staff, and the student who depends on this person for the placement.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between patient safety and loyalty to a supervisor in a tight-knit town, and acknowledges the power imbalance for a first-year student.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs staying silent, which leaves patients at risk, confronting them in the pub, which could humiliate them, and raising it privately and then with the right person.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses a quiet, supportive check about the on-call shift, then contacts the rural placement coordinator or clinical school factually if still worried, without gossip.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Writes down what was seen and when, seeks support from the clinical school, and hopes the supervisor gets help rather than only punishment.
Common pitfalls. Assuming the worst without checking facts, staying silent because of the hierarchy, or confronting the supervisor publicly or gossiping in a small town.
Before doing anything, I'd want to be sure of what I'm seeing. Is my supervisor actually drunk, or did they have a couple of drinks over a long evening?
26.You are president of your university student union and are organizing an outdoor music festival. A local sunscreen brand offers a large sponsorship, but you find out a consumer group recently tested its SPF 50 product and found it didn't meet that claim. It is still legal to sell. Do you accept the sponsorship?
What it tests. It's legal and the money is real. The question is what your union's name tells people standing in the sun all day.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Asks who ran the test, how far the product fell short, whether the company has responded or retested, and whether the deal is a logo or handing out sunscreen at the gates.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts festival-goers in the sun first, then the students who benefit from cheaper tickets, the brand, and the union's reputation attached to the product's claim.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Frames it as funding that makes the festival better and cheaper versus promoting a sun protection product that could give false confidence where sun safety matters.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Compares accepting as offered, declining outright, and asking the company for current independent test results first, naming what each costs.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Takes it to the committee, accepts only with reliable evidence the product meets its claim, and otherwise declines politely despite the lost funding.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Makes the festival sun safe with shade, water and trusted sunscreen, and records the decision so future committees have a sponsorship policy.
Common pitfalls. Saying yes because it's legal, refusing instantly without checking whether the problem has been fixed, or deciding alone as president without the committee.
Before deciding, I'd want to know more about that test. Who did it, how far below SPF 50 the product came, and whether the company has responded, withdrawn that batch or had it retested.
27.Your study group has an assignment due tomorrow. One of your friends suggests submitting an essay they found online, saying that everyone does it and you just need to pass. How do you address this with your friend and the rest of the group?
What it tests. Nothing has been submitted yet, so the test is whether you can steer friends away from it under deadline pressure without preaching.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by clarifying with the friend and the group whether they mean submitting the essay as their own or using it for ideas, and asks why, reading "we just need to pass" as a sign of stress.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Explains that future patients are affected because honesty habits carry onto the wards, then names every group member whose name goes on it, the friend at risk, honest classmates, and the applicant.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). States the conflict in one line: loyalty to friends and deadline pressure on one side, honesty about whose work is being submitted on the other.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs going along (dishonesty under their own name), going straight to the coordinator (premature, as nothing is submitted) and refusing clearly while offering a plan to finish the work that night.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses to refuse and offer a plan: split the sections, use the online essay only to find sources, write it themselves and reference properly, or honestly ask the coordinator for an extension.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Checks in privately with the friend about broader struggles and study support, and says that if the group still submits it, their name stays off and they would tell the coordinator.
Common pitfalls. Lecturing the group without offering a practical way to finish, quietly going along to keep the peace, or reporting the group before giving them a chance to change course before anything is submitted.
The first thing I'd want to clarify, with my friend and the group, is exactly what they mean. Are they suggesting we hand in someone else's essay as ours, or use it as a starting point for ideas and sources?
28.You are volunteering at a local charity, and you notice a fellow volunteer taking home leftover food donations that are meant for clients. They tell you the food would just be thrown out anyway. How do you respond?
What it tests. It looks harmless and no one gets hurt. The skill is checking the rules before calling it theft.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by finding out the charity's actual rule on surplus food, from the guidelines or the coordinator, and whether this is a one-off, rather than assuming it is theft.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts the clients first since they lose usable food, then the volunteer, who may believe they are preventing waste or may be in need, then the charity and its donors' trust.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between avoiding food waste and being fair and honest about who the donations are meant for.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs ignoring it, going straight to the coordinator, and a private, non-accusing talk with the volunteer followed by raising the unclear rule, with what each costs.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses the private conversation with an open question, checks the rule with the coordinator regardless, and responds gently if the volunteer turns out to need food themselves.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Raises it with the coordinator as a question about policy, not a complaint about a person, and leaves any repeat behavior for the coordinator to manage.
Common pitfalls. Calling it theft in the first line, ignoring it because the food would be wasted anyway, or reporting the volunteer without ever asking what the rule is or why they took it.
Before deciding anything, I'd want to know what the charity's rule actually is for leftovers. Some food charities have a set process, like offering surplus to clients first, passing it on to another group, or letting volunteers take food that really is about to be thrown out.
Role-play and communication
An actor plays someone such as a friend, coworker, visitor or colleague. You are marked on how you listen and explain. This group also has communication and teamwork tasks.
29.Roleplay station: The actor is your friend, a fellow university student, who tore a knee ligament playing netball. They've been told the public waiting list for surgery could be over a year, or they could pay to have it done privately in a few weeks, which would use up most of their savings. They've asked for your help deciding. Enter the room and speak with your friend.
What it tests. Your friend wants an answer, but the choice is theirs. The trap is picking for them before you know what matters most.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Stay in the scene (15 seconds). Greets the friend, asks to sit and checks how the knee is today, speaking directly to them as a friend rather than describing the scene to the assessor.
- 2
Ask about them (45 seconds). Holds back opinions and asks one open question about what the surgeon said and what makes the decision hard, then listens to the end before saying anything else.
- 3
Name the feeling (40 seconds). Reflects the friend's details back: a year without netball, savings from two years of shifts, feeling silly for worrying. Says it makes sense to feel torn and that either choice is reasonable.
- 4
Say it plainly (45 seconds). Admits they can't judge what's better for the knee, then gives the questions worth asking the surgeon or GP: risk of waiting, insurance, what to do meanwhile, and what matters most to the friend.
- 5
Agree a next step (30 seconds). Suggests writing the questions down together for the friend to ask the surgeon's rooms or GP, offers to go through the costs afterward, and promises only what they control, like driving them.
Common pitfalls. Telling the friend which option to pick, giving medical opinions about the knee or the risks of waiting, or lecturing about the public and private systems instead of listening to what matters to them.
Hey, I got your message. Mind if I sit down?
30.Roleplay station: The actor is Sam, your co-worker at a busy cafe. For the past two weeks, Sam has been arriving late and taking long breaks, leaving you to handle the morning rush alone. Talk to Sam about it while keeping a good working relationship. Enter the room and begin the conversation.
What it tests. You're annoyed, but opening with blame shuts Sam down. Ask first, then say it plainly and agree a fix.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Stay in the scene (15 seconds). Greets Sam by name, picks a quiet moment before the lunch crowd, and asks to sit down out the back, speaking directly to Sam rather than the assessor.
- 2
Ask about them (45 seconds). Describes the lateness and long breaks factually as a check-in, then asks one open question about what's been going on and listens to the full answer.
- 3
Name the feeling (40 seconds). Reflects Sam's details back: a mum on early shifts, school drop-offs, a late bus, exhaustion. Acknowledges it's a lot to juggle and thanks Sam for sharing.
- 4
Say it plainly (45 seconds). States the impact honestly using specifics: running the coffee machine and register alone, customers walking out, feeling frazzled. Makes clear it isn't anger, and that the roster is the manager's call.
- 5
Agree a next step (30 seconds). Suggests talking to the manager about a later start, swapping shifts or staggering breaks, asks what would work for Sam, offers support, and sets a Friday check-in.
Common pitfalls. Opening with an accusation or a list of complaints, dropping the issue once Sam shares a hard reason, or promising roster changes that only the manager can make.
Hey Sam, have you got a few minutes before the lunch crowd? Mind if we sit down out the back?
31.This is a roleplay. You are a community pharmacist. A regular patient brings in a prescription for a medicine that isn't subsidized under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and tells you they can't afford it. They ask if you can just give them a cheaper medicine instead, even though it isn't what their doctor prescribed. Please speak with the patient.
What it tests. You can't swap the medicine, but you can't just say no and send them home without it either.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Stay in the scene (15 seconds). Introduces myself as the pharmacist, invites the patient to the private consultation area and asks them to sit, speaking to the patient throughout.
- 2
Ask about them (45 seconds). Asks one open question about how long they've taken the medicine and what happens without it, and listens before offering any options.
- 3
Name the feeling (40 seconds). Names the worry using their details, a long-time customer shocked by the cost of a medicine they need, pauses, and thanks them for raising it rather than going without.
- 4
Say it plainly (45 seconds). Says plainly that a different medicine can't be given without the doctor's prescription and why, then offers a cheaper brand of the same medicine if substitution is allowed and a call to the doctor about a subsidized alternative.
- 5
Agree a next step (30 seconds). Asks whether they'd like the call made now or would rather speak to the doctor themselves, and promises to look at safe ways to avoid a missed dose while it's sorted.
Common pitfalls. Lecturing about the rules before hearing the patient, quietly swapping medicines to be kind, or promising the doctor will change the prescription when that isn't the pharmacist's decision.
Hi, I'm Sam, one of the pharmacists here. Would you like to come over to the consultation area so we can talk privately?
32.This is a roleplay. You are volunteering at a hospital information desk. A visitor comes up, very angry, shouting that their elderly father has been stuck in an ambulance outside the emergency department for three hours because there are no beds. Please speak with the visitor.
What it tests. You can't find a bed or move the ambulance. All you control is how you listen and who you fetch.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Stay in the scene (15 seconds). Introduces myself as a volunteer, acknowledges how upset they are, and invites them away from the queue with a seat or water, speaking to the visitor throughout.
- 2
Ask about them (45 seconds). Asks one open question about what happened with their father, then lets them finish before saying anything else.
- 3
Name the feeling (40 seconds). Reflects back their details, three hours, an elderly father, standing and not knowing, names the anger and fear as understandable, then pauses before naming the worry underneath.
- 4
Say it plainly (45 seconds). Says plainly that a volunteer can't find a bed or change the order, explains the paramedics are still caring for him, and offers to fetch the nurse in charge or patient liaison.
- 5
Agree a next step (30 seconds). Asks permission to take the father's name and their number, makes the call while staying with them, and offers the patient liaison details for a complaint.
Common pitfalls. Arguing with the visitor or defending the hospital, promising a bed or a time, or stepping out of the scene to explain ramping to the assessor.
Hi, I'm Alex, I'm one of the volunteers here at the information desk. I can see you're really upset.
33.Roleplay station: You are a medical student on a rural placement. The town's only GP, Dr. Harris, tells you privately that they are exhausted and burned out, and plan to leave town next week with no replacement. Enter the room and speak with Dr. Harris.
What it tests. The town needs this GP, but your job here is the person in front of you. Don't guilt them into staying.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Stay in the scene (15 seconds). Thanks Dr. Harris for confiding, asks to sit down, and speaks to them directly as a student who wants to hear more, without addressing the assessor.
- 2
Ask about them (45 seconds). Asks one open question about how they've really been and listens before offering anything, then gently and directly asks whether burnout has brought thoughts of self-harm.
- 3
Name the feeling (40 seconds). Reflects the details back: the only doctor in town for years, on call most nights, no proper break, feeling leaving is the only way out. Says it makes sense to be worn down.
- 4
Say it plainly (45 seconds). States plainly that a student can't fix the workload and won't pressure them to stay. Encourages their own GP or a confidential doctors' health service, and raises telling the practice so patients aren't left without care.
- 5
Agree a next step (30 seconds). Asks Dr. Harris to choose the first step, offers help within a student's role for the remaining weeks, and promises to check in tomorrow.
Common pitfalls. Guilting the GP into staying for the town's sake, skipping a gentle check on their safety, or promising to solve the staffing problem or keep everything secret when the student can't control either.
Dr. Harris, thanks for telling me. Is it okay if I sit down for a minute?
34.Australia and New Zealand have some of the highest skin cancer rates in the world. Despite decades of campaigns like Slip, Slop, Slap, many young people still take risks in the sun. Why do you think public health messaging sometimes fails, and what could make it work better for young people?
What it tests. Young people already know the message. Explain why knowing isn't doing, and what actually shifts behavior.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Says the question asks why people ignore messages they already know and how to reach young people specifically.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Credits the campaigns with making sun safety familiar, then explains the gap between knowing and doing: distant risk, immediate social rewards, and messages that feel like lectures.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). Lands on making the healthy choice easy and social, backed by a coaching story where a pump bottle and captains leading by example worked better than reminders.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Admits influencer or appearance-based messages can backfire, and softens it by testing messages with young people before launch.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Would change view with evidence that fear-based or information-heavy campaigns work better for young people than social approaches.
Common pitfalls. Blaming young people as reckless, assuming more information will fix it, or quoting skin cancer statistics the applicant can't stand behind.
This question is really asking why people ignore health messages they already know, and how we'd reach young people in particular. On one side, the campaigns have clearly worked in many ways.
35.You are about to explain a complex treatment plan to an older Indigenous patient whose first language is not English. Several family members have come with them. How would you approach this consultation so the patient fully understands and feels supported?
What it tests. The family offer to translate. It seems helpful, but whose understanding and whose consent are you actually getting?
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by asking the patient's preferred language, whether a professional interpreter is available, who the family members are and who the patient wants involved, and whether liaison staff can help.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts the patient first, who must understand in their own language, then the family who may share decisions and care at home, and the team who need genuine consent.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between the convenience of family interpreting and the patient's right to accurate, direct understanding, noting family may soften news and the patient may not ask freely.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs explaining in English and relying on nods, letting family interpret, and using a professional interpreter with Aboriginal Liaison or Health Worker support and family involved as the patient wishes.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses the professional interpreter, asks who the patient wants present, sits at their level, explains in plain chunks and checks understanding with teach-back, backed by aged care experience.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Offers time to talk with family before deciding, documents the discussion and who interpreted, arranges follow-up, and as a student works alongside the supervisor.
Common pitfalls. Using family members as interpreters by default, asking 'Do you understand?' and accepting a nod, or excluding family entirely when the patient wants them involved.
Before starting, I'd want to know a few things. What language does the patient prefer, and is a professional interpreter available, in person or by phone?
Professionalism, teamwork and problem-solving
Teamwork, honesty and boundaries, and how you would act day to day as a doctor in the Australian and New Zealand health systems.
36.Closing the Gap is a national agreement between Australian governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled organizations to improve life outcomes, including health. How would you make sure your own day-to-day practice as a doctor actively contributes to this goal?
What it tests. A national policy, but the question is about your Tuesday afternoon clinic. Vague goodwill won't pass.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by asking which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are local, whether a community-controlled service and liaison officers exist, and what patients say, starting with Aboriginal Health Workers.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts patients and families first because daily care builds or loses trust, then colleagues whose habits spread, and the community-controlled services the doctor works with.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between a busy day's urge to treat everyone the same and the commitment to work actively toward equity, noting Closing the Gap asks mainstream services to change.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs leaving it to policy makers, which changes nothing, one-off gestures that don't last, and small habits built into ordinary practice.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses daily habits: asking every patient about identity rather than guessing, offering liaison support, involving family, plain language and following up missed appointments, backed by disability support work.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Keeps learning from community members and Aboriginal colleagues, asks for feedback, and raises recurring system barriers with the team instead of working around them.
Common pitfalls. Staying at the level of national targets with no daily action, guessing who is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander instead of asking, or describing patients only through deficits.
Before I could answer for a specific job, I'd want to know who I'm serving. Which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are local, is there a community-controlled health service nearby, does the hospital have Aboriginal Liaison Officers, and what do patients say about the care they've received?
37.Some people argue that doctors who enter medicine as graduates are more emotionally prepared for clinical work than those who come straight from school. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of the entry pathway you've chosen?
What it tests. Easy to defend your own pathway. The stronger move is naming its real downsides and admitting age doesn't guarantee maturity.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
What it's about (15 seconds). Frames the question as whether the entry route shapes clinical readiness, and whether the applicant can judge their own graduate pathway honestly rather than just defend it.
- 2
Both sides (40 seconds). Gives graduate entry's case (more life experience, a tested decision) and school leaver entry's (maturity isn't age, more time to grow), plus graduate costs like extra years, debt and family commitments.
- 3
Your position (20 seconds). As a graduate-entry applicant with a biomedical science degree and disability support work, sees the main advantage as choosing medicine with eyes open, backed by hard conversations with families.
- 4
Its downside (15 seconds). Names being older, more debt and the risk of overrating their experience, softened by staying teachable, including from school leaver classmates.
- 5
What would change it (10 seconds). Would stop treating their route as an advantage if research comparing pathways showed no meaningful difference in how graduates cope clinically.
Common pitfalls. Putting down school leavers, claiming age automatically means maturity, or ignoring the real costs of the graduate route like debt and time.
This is really asking whether the route into medicine shapes how ready someone is for clinical work, and whether I can judge my own route honestly. The case for graduate entry is that people have had more years to work, study and make mistakes before facing very sick patients, and they've usually tested the decision to do medicine.
38.You share a flat with a fellow medical student. You discover they have been lying about having a serious illness to get extensions on their university assignments. How do you address this?
What it tests. Living together makes it personal. The skill is caring about why they lied without pretending you don't know.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Starts by separating what is known from what is assumed, and asks why the flatmate might invent an illness, such as an unspoken mental health or family struggle.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts the flatmate first as unsupported and at risk, then classmates who rely on fair extensions, then future patients who need honest doctors.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between loyalty to a friend and flatmate and the honesty expected by the university and the profession.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Compares staying silent, reporting straight away, and a private conversation that gives the flatmate a chance to correct it, with the cost of each.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses a calm private talk led by concern, encourages a GP, counseling and honesty with the faculty, and makes clear the applicant can't pretend not to know.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). If the lying continues, warns the flatmate, seeks advice from the year coordinator or student support, and keeps checking in on them.
Common pitfalls. Reporting before checking the facts or asking why, staying silent to keep the peace at home, or lecturing the flatmate without considering that they may be struggling.
My first step would be working out what I actually know. Did I see something that proves they're lying, or have I pieced it together from things I overheard?
39.Working in a rural town often means treating patients who are also your neighbors, friends or local business owners. How would you maintain professional boundaries in a small community where everyone knows you?
What it tests. Being part of the town is the job's appeal. The hard part is keeping clinical things in the clinic when everyone knows you.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Answer (20 seconds). Answers that the approach is being friendly and involved in town while keeping clinical matters in the clinic and guarding confidentiality closely.
- 2
Moment (45 seconds). Tells how a GP at a netball game deflected a parent asking about test results and arranged a Monday call, mentions she asks a colleague to see close friends, and the applicant kept a classmate's visit private.
- 3
What it changed (30 seconds). Reflects that small-town boundaries mean being predictable rather than distant, so people trust their privacy, and that having a life outside work prevents feeling always on duty.
- 4
Looking ahead (15 seconds). Ties it to being an involved rural doctor whose community trusts that what they say stays in the room.
Common pitfalls. Describing boundaries as staying aloof from the community, claiming rural experience they don't have, or ignoring the risk of talking about patients with friends and family.
I'd keep boundaries by being friendly and involved in town, but keeping anything clinical inside the clinic, and by being extremely careful about confidentiality in a place where everyone knows everyone. I grew up in a small country town, and I saw this up close during a week of work experience at our local GP clinic.
40.You are a medical student on a surgical team. Before a patient goes for surgery, their whānau ask to say a karakia, a prayer, at the bedside. It will hold up the list by about ten minutes, and the team, already running behind, is visibly impatient. How do you handle this?
What it tests. Ten minutes of prayer against a team running late. You're the most junior person there, and the whānau are watching.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by asking whether the team knows what the whānau requested, whether the patient wants the karakia, whether ten minutes matters clinically, and whether a Māori health team or kaumātua can support.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts the anxious patient first, for whom the karakia may matter greatly, then the whānau, and the surgical team under real pressure with other patients on the list.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between keeping the list moving and the patient's and whānau's need for a karakia, and the student's own tension of seeing both sides without authority.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs staying quiet, which may rush the whānau, accusing the team of disrespect, which isn't a student's place, and quietly explaining the request and helping it work.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses a quiet word with the registrar explaining the request and asking for a few minutes, with a senior explaining respectfully if there's a genuine clinical reason it can't wait.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Reflects afterward and, if it recurs, suggests to the supervisor planning for karakia earlier in the day so it doesn't become a delay.
Common pitfalls. Lecturing the team about cultural safety in front of the whānau, staying silent out of hierarchy, or assuming a short delay is clinically harmful without asking.
Before reacting, I'd want to understand the situation. Has anyone actually told the team what the whānau have asked for, or are they just seeing a delay?
41.You are a junior medical student on placement in a busy public hospital emergency department. The waiting room is full, and you notice a patient who has been waiting for hours looking increasingly pale and distressed. The nurses around you are all busy with a major trauma. What do you do?
What it tests. Everyone's busy, and you're just a student. But staying quiet about a patient who looks worse is the one wrong answer.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Starts by going to the patient to find out what has changed and how they look, then asks who the triage nurse is and whether a supervisor or another doctor is free outside the trauma.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts the patient first, who may be deteriorating unnoticed, then the other people waiting, the trauma patient and nurses, and the student who has noticed.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the pull between not interrupting a stretched team or overstepping a student's role, and the risk of a patient getting worse where no one is watching.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs waiting for the nurses, which loses time, acting alone, which could cause harm, and staying with the patient while escalating to the triage nurse or a free doctor.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses to escalate clearly and specifically, because a patient whose condition changes should be reassessed, and calls loudly for help at once if the patient collapses or struggles to breathe.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). Returns to reassure the patient and stays nearby until staff arrive, then debriefs with their supervisor to learn whether they handled it well.
Common pitfalls. Staying quiet because everyone looks busy, trying to assess or treat the patient beyond a student's role, or interrupting the trauma team when the triage nurse or another doctor could respond.
My first step would be to go over to the patient and find out what's changed. I'd introduce myself as a medical student, ask how they're feeling and whether it's getting worse, and look at whether they're alert and breathing comfortably.
42.Imagine you're on a clinical placement and a senior doctor says to you, "I treat everyone exactly the same, so I don't need to worry about cultural safety." How would you respond?
What it tests. Treating everyone the same sounds fair. The challenge is explaining why it isn't enough without lecturing a senior doctor.
How a strong answer is built
- 1
Ask questions (25 seconds). Opens by asking what the doctor meant and what prompted it, whether a patient's care was affected, and remembers that as a student their first move is a question.
- 2
Who is affected (20 seconds). Puts patients first, especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients and anyone whose background differs, who may not return or speak openly if unsafe, then the doctor, team and student.
- 3
The conflict (20 seconds). Names the conflict as respecting a senior doctor who is teaching them versus speaking up about something that affects whether patients feel safe in their care.
- 4
Options (40 seconds). Weighs staying silent (comfortable but leaves the idea unchallenged), arguing in public (embarrasses and shuts down), or raising it privately with a curious question about cultural safety being judged by the patient.
- 5
Choose (30 seconds). Chooses the private, curious conversation because most doctors who say this want to be fair, using a simple example of a rushed explanation leaving some patients unable to ask questions.
- 6
What next (20 seconds). If only a comment, reflects and perhaps raises it in teaching; if a patient's care was affected, talks to the placement supervisor or coordinator and writes down what happened.
Common pitfalls. Lecturing or shaming the senior doctor, opening with a verdict that they're racist, or ignoring it completely because of the hierarchy.
I'd start by wanting to understand what the doctor meant and what prompted it. Did it come up after a particular patient, or in a teaching session?
Frequently asked questions
What questions are asked in a medicine MMI in Australia?
Expect a mix of motivation questions, ethical scenarios, role-plays with an actor, teamwork and problem-solving tasks, and questions about health in rural, remote and Indigenous communities. Each school sets its own stations, so read the school's own interview page.
Is there a right answer to an MMI scenario?
Usually not one single right answer, but there are unsafe or disrespectful ones. Interviewers score how you reach a decision: who you consider, what you would find out, and the first step you would take.
How should I prepare for questions on Indigenous health?
Learn the basics from official sources, think about what culturally safe care means in practice, and practice answers that center the patient's choices and involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or Māori health workers where they exist.
Should I memorize answers?
No. Prepare your examples and reasons, then practice saying them in different ways so you can handle follow-up questions.