Today, I rise to speak in support of the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. Before coming to this place, I spent decades working as a registered nurse and midwife, and, when you spend your life on the front line of healthcare, you learn very quickly that every health system is really about practical care, responsible choices of where resources go, dignity for people and when systems are well supported.

You can see the strain that's placed on hospitals and families when aged-care services fall behind. This legislation delivers on our 2026-27 budget commitment to modernise our health framework and, crucially, to deliver more funding into aged care.

This reform is about fairness, and it's also about intergenerational equity. Above all, it's about making the deliberate, responsible choice to reinvest every single dollar saved from the private health insurance rebate straight back into aged care because the dignity and quality of life for our older Australians is crucial. It's what they deserve.

To understand why this bill is necessary, let's look at the current private health insurance rebate operations. Under existing arrangements, the Commonweal provides a higher percentage rebate to Australians aged over 65. That's regardless of their income. A retiree on a substantial, comfortable income receives a greater taxpayer funded percentage discount on their private health premium than a younger working family on an identical or even lower income who are balancing mortgages, child care and the daily pressures of modern life. The current policy has become increasingly hard to defend.

I have had complaints. I met with a constituent—let's call him Geoff—in my office. He was complaining about this reform. I have received many emails from constituents raising their concerns as well, but let's take Geoff as an example. He is a gentleman who is retired. He is on a joint income with his wife of $180,000 a year. He is the owner of three investment properties. He has had his children grow up, go through school and university, and move on. It's hard to defend why he should continue to get an extra rebate as opposed to young families who are paying off a mortgage and have the same joint income but also have the added expenses of child care and education ahead of them.

This bill addresses the inequity of that. It provides the private health insurance rebate for older Australians to the same standard as everyone else—it's income based, not age based. Crucially, this bill does not withdraw from older Australians the private health insurance support that we all get. The government will still contribute to subsidised discounts of up to 24 per cent of their private health insurance premiums—the exact same level of support that is provided to younger people.

We must face the reality of the long-term sustainability of Australia's private health insurance ecosystem. Private health insurance works only when there is broad, balanced participation across all age cohorts. Australians under 65, on average, pay more in private health premiums and draw less in benefits from them. Younger, healthier participants are effectively cross-subsidising older and higher-risk policyholders, ensuring that private cover remains viable for everyone. But if we price younger people out, or if we maintain settings that are fundamentally unfair across generational lines, then young people will drop their cover.

When younger Australians exit private health insurance, the risk pool deteriorates, average claims spike, premiums rise across the entire system and the burden ultimately falls right back onto the older policyholders and the public health system. By aligning the rebate tiers so that support is based strictly on financial means, rather than age, we restore that intergenerational balance. We ensure that younger Australians feel that the system is fair, encouraging them to maintain their cover, while ensuring that older Australians continue to benefit from substantial income tested relief.

Governing responsibly means making hard decisions. I recognise that the changes to the subsidies will impact people in my electorate, and we understand that not everyone will welcome this change. However, good government cannot simply be about maintaining legacy policies that no longer stack up on equity grounds. It's about having the courage to make a principled choice and ensuring that public money delivers the greatest possible benefit to our society. We have made the decision to take every dollar saved by modernising this rebate and channel it directly into aged care, where it is so desperately needed. This will deliver a massive, transformative $3 billion investment back to older Australians.

This is a direct transfer of resources back to the generation that built this country, targeted precisely where the need is most acute: in our aged-care homes, in residential support, in dementia care and in our home-care packages. Older Australians in Bullwinkel, across Western Australia and across the nation don't just need a rebate calculation; they need guaranteed access to high-quality aged care when they need it most. They need certainty that, if they want to remain in their own homes as they age, the services are going to be there to support them. They need to know that, if they require residential care, there will be an accredited high-standard bed available in their local community. That's what this $3 billion investment will deliver. It'll deliver more residential aged-care beds. It expands the Support at Home packages. It will drive down waiting times. It lifts the overall standard of care across our aged-care network.

Having just recently visited BaptistCare in York over the weekend and having seen the standard of aged care that's being delivered to people in the rural areas of my electorate, it was heartwarming to know that that standard of care was extremely high and the staff were extremely generous, caring and compassionate.

This funding builds directly upon the structural reforms of the Albanese Labor government that we delivered in our first term, where we incentivised the construction of new beds for aged-care residents. Aged-care providers, particularly those serving our outer suburban fringes, regional towns and rural communities, need capital certainty. They need the confidence to plan, construct and maintain modern, fit-for-purpose residential accommodation. This investment delivers that long-term stability.

Furthermore, this legislation directly supports our first response to the Independent Review of Residential Aged Care Accommodation Pricing, which was released on 22 April. That review laid out a comprehensive, evidence based roadmap to build a sustainable residential sector that truly delivers the homes that older Australians deserve. Through our response to the review, we are delivering targeted new capital subsidies and updates to the accommodation supplement for supported residents, unlocking an additional 5,000 residential beds every single year. It delivers an active consultation process with providers on capital assistance mechanisms to help accelerate the construction of modern facilities, especially in underserved areas.

In communities like Bullwinkel, spanning the Perth Hills and down through our expanding valleys and regional districts, we cannot afford to have a shortage of aged-care beds. Where local beds are unavailable, older residents are forced to move away from their lifelong communities, their families, their GP networks and their social ties. That's unacceptable. By funding 5,000 new beds annually, we can keep older Australians connected to the towns and the suburbs that they love.

Reform must always go hand in hand with listening. As I say, I have listened to the people that have written to me about this item, including Geoff, who I sat down with for an hour. Most Australians want to stay in their homes for as long as safely as possible, surrounded by the memories and the communities that they cherish. That's why our government has introduced the new Support at Home program as well as this reform. We have been closely monitoring the rollout of Support at Home to ensure it achieves its core mission of delivering more packages, higher quality support and shorter waiting times. Importantly, when our communities spoke up about aspects of that rollout, we listened. We heard clear concerns regarding the treatment of essential daily living assistance. In direct response to the community feedback, our government changed the treatment of showering services under the Support at Home package, ensuring that showering is now provided completely free of charge alongside clinical care. That is what a responsive government looks like. We assess how the programs work on the ground. We identify where the burden falls, particularly where it falls unfairly on vulnerable people, and we fix it. Reinvesting rebate savings directly into this framework makes Support at Home more affordable, more dignifying and fairer for every Australian who relies on it.

As someone with a clinical background in nursing, I also want to speak particularly to the specialised healthcare challenges facing our older population. Dementia is one of the most complex, emotionally demanding health challenges facing Australian families today, and it places immense emotional and physical demands on carers, loved ones and clinicians alike. Our government is allocating over $200 million from these savings to establish 20 additional specialist dementia care program units. These are units that provide tailored intensive clinical and behavioural support for people experiencing severe behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, offering a calm, structured and compassionate environment just like the one I saw in York at the BaptistCare aged-care centre.

While this bill modernises the rebate structure to fund aged care, the Albanese Labor government remains resolutely committed to the ongoing affordability and value of private health cover. We know that private health insurance plays an indispensable role alongside Medicare in the Australian health architecture, and this is why the government is actively engaging with the sector and examining a wide range of industry identified reform options to reduce unnecessary procedural costs, cut administration waste and ensure policyholders receive genuine value for every dollar they spend on their premiums. The government will continue to work collaboratively with insurers, private hospitals, medical professionals and consumers to keep private coverage robust and sustainable.

We could have left an outdated, unbalanced subsidy arrangement untouched, ignoring the growing intergenerational gap and the structural pressures on our health system. Instead, the Albanese Labor government has chosen fairness, we have chosen simplicity and, above all, we have chosen to back older Australians where it counts. It counts the most in regard to their health, their homes and their care.

By aligning the private health insurance rebate so that all Australians are supported on the basis of income rather than age, we treat taxpayers equitably. By pouring the $3 billion in resulting savings straight back into aged care, we're delivering more residential beds, expanding home care, funding specialist dementia services and guaranteeing that older Australians can age with the respect and quality of life that they have earned. This bill strengthens Medicare, supports our broader health system and prepares our aged-care sector for generations to come. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. Let me be clear from the outset: the coalition opposes this bill. We oppose it because, for all the language about modernising, this bill does one thing. It cuts the private health insurance rebate for older Australians. Make no mistake: this is an $11 billion tax on the private health insurance of older Australians.

Let me explain what that means in plain terms. Right now, our system recognises something simple and fair: that older Australians use more health care and that as a country we want to keep them in private cover, not push them into an overstretched public system. So, since 2005, under the Howard government, Australians over 65 have received a higher rebate on their private health premiums. This bill takes that help away.

Under this bill, the higher rebate for older Australians is unwound. For Australians aged 65 to 69, the rebate is cut by around four per cent. For those over the age of 70, it is cut by as much as eight per cent. Every Australian aged 65 and over with private cover will pay more—not because their income changed, not because their circumstances changed, but simply because of their age.

The timing could hardly be worse, because this cut lands on top of the premium increase already expected in April 2027. Put the two together and older Australians on gold cover face a combined increase of up to 21.3 per cent. For a couple aged 70 and over on gold cover, that is up to $1,614 more a year. For a single older Australian it's up to $807. On the government's own numbers, that is the biggest rise in private health costs for older Australians on record, and this hits 3.1 million older Australians.

The government did not even bother to work out how many of them are pensioners until stakeholders forced it to. Now we know: 1.2 million of the older Australians this bill hits are pensioners living on a fixed income, with no real way to absorb a shock like this.

Let me put it the way older Australians will feel it. Under this bill, older Australians will pay more, wait longer and get less. They will pay more because their premiums will go up. They will get less because industry research suggests that more than 250,000 older Australians will drop or downgrade their cover. They'll walk away from the gold and silver cover that pays for the very procedures they are likely to need: joint replacements, cataract surgery and scopes that catch cancer early. And they will wait longer because every older Australian who drops or downgrades their cover goes back on the public system and on an elective surgery waiting list that is already too long. The government's own modelling concedes that at least 44,000 older Australians will give up their cover altogether, and even that almost certainly understates it. That is not a rounding error; that is a wave of older Australians walking away from private health and into a public queue.

Here is the most cynical part of it all. The government is banking on the rest of them not leaving. Its own department has conceded that older Australians are so dependent on their cover and so fearful of losing access to care, that most will have no real choice but to grit their teeth and pay. So this policy is built on the vulnerability of older Australians. That is not fairness. That is exploitation. These are not abstract numbers. These are people who have rung into radio stations to say that this will cost them, that they will have to turn their heating off in winter and that they will have to give up the one meal out that they still allow themselves. Every one of them held their cover through every premium rise. They did the responsible thing and they are the ones this government has chosen to hit.

Here is the part the government would rather not talk about. The government calls this a saving. It is not a saving; it is a cost shift. Independent modelling by Affinity Consulting, which was handed to this very government, shows that for every dollar the Commonwealth saves by cutting this rebate the public hospital system is charged about $1.20. The cost does not disappear; it moves from the Commonwealth to the states. Once you count everyone that is expected to give up their cover, that cost to the states climbs to more than $8 billion a year. So let us call this what it is. It's a false economy that's designed to make the Treasurer's budget look a little better on paper. More pressure on emergency departments, more ambulances ramped outside them, longer waits for surgeries, poor outcomes for patients—this is not reform. It is an invoice posted from Canberra to every state and territory in this country.

The government did all of this without doing their homework. Its own impact analysis was so thin that the Office of Impact Analysis could only bring itself to call it adequate. When you are reshaping the health cover of every older Australian in the country, 'adequate' is not good enough, and nowhere will this be felt harder than in regional Australia. Regional private hospitals keep their doors open on the high-volume procedures older Australians rely on, such as joint replacements and cataract surgeries. In many country towns, the private hospital is the only hospital doing that surgery. Take those patients away, and if it closes that care does not move down the road. It completely disappears.

The government will tell you that this is really about fairness. It says that it is fixing generational inequity by basing the rebate on income instead of age, but there is nothing fair about it. The rebate is already based on income. Higher earners already receive less. Keeping older Australians in private cover is exactly what takes pressure off the public system that every taxpayer of every generation pays for. Push them out, and younger Australians do not save a cent. They inherit longer public waiting lists and a bigger public hospital bill, and it does not stop there. Our own Senate inquiry has heard that this policy is putting private maternity services under even more pressure at a time when they are already closing across the country. A cut sold as helping young Australians could end up making it harder and more expensive for a young family to have a baby.

Do not just take the coalition's word for this. This bill is opposed by Private Healthcare Australia, the Members Health Fund Alliance, National Seniors Australia, Australian Private Hospitals Association, Catholic Health Australia and the Australian Medical Association. The insurers, hospitals, doctors and seniors are all telling this government the same thing: this is the wrong policy at the wrong time and it's hitting the wrong people.

Let me be very clear about where the coalition stands. We believe in a strong private health system working alongside a strong public one. We support genuine reform. We support real transparency so patients know what they will pay before they walk through the door. But this is not reform; this is a cut dressed up in the language of reform. Calling it 'modernising' does not change one dollar of what it does to an older Australian's premium. This bill is part of a pattern. This is a government that keeps deciding which Australians are worth helping, and older Australians keep finding themselves at the back of the line, told to pay more for their private cover, left waiting for their aged care and at every turn left behind. The coalition will not stand for it. We are opposing this bill in this place, we are fighting it through the Senate inquiry, which reports in October, and we are calling on this government to do the right thing and scrap this damaging policy altogether. We stand with older Australians who have worked and saved and done the right thing and who are now being asked to pay more for less.

The government can call this 'modernising the rebate', but there is nothing modern about making older Australians pay more for the cover they have held for decades. Pay more, wait longer, get less—that is what this bill delivers, and that is why the coalition opposes it. For all these reasons, I urge the government, even now, to think again about the older Australians it is asking to foot the bill.

In 2004, the Howard government looked at the private health insurance rebate and made it bigger—not for everyone, of course, but for Australians aged 65 and over and for them alone. It was an election year. Our economy was riding a global resources boom and revenue was arriving faster than the government of the day knew what to do with it. In weather like that, you never have to choose. You can simply add. So they added. They drew a line at a birthday and they wrote a bigger cheque to everyone on one side of it. It wasn't argued for; it wasn't modelled against the purpose of the rebate; it didn't come out of any considered view about what older Australians would need as they aged. It came in a year when there was money on the table and a government that wanted to get re-elected. That was 22 years ago. For over half of that time those opposite sat on the government benches. In every single one of those years, the line stayed exactly where it was. It didn't stay there because it was a defensible policy. It stayed because taking it away would have been unpleasant. It was much easier to put it in the too-hard basket and let someone else deal with it later.

Well, our government is capable of making hard decisions. The bill before us, the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026, does one thing. It returns the rebate for Australians over 65 to the same rate that every other Australian receives, including those with chronic illnesses and including those going through cancer treatment. From 1 April 2027, the rebate will be calculated the same way for a 70-year-old as it is for a 40-year old. It will stay means-tested, of course. It will stay higher for people on lower incomes. Age stops being the thing that decides it.

Here is what the current arrangement actually looks like on a street in my electorate. Two houses next door to each other have the same financial situation, the same policy and the same insurer. One household gets a larger contribution from the Commonwealth than the other, and the only difference between them is the year that they were born. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to rationalise the argument for that, and I can't get there. Very few people, being genuine, can. That is why nobody has tried in 22 years. They have simply hoped another government would come along and do it for them—or, in the case of those opposite, they preferred to maintain the status quo of inequity.

It gets harder still when you look at how private health insurance already works in our country. Under community rating, everybody pays the same premium for the same policy. Your health status doesn't change it and your age doesn't change it, which means younger policyholders are already carrying a share of older policyholders' claims, and they are doing it quietly, every month, without complaint. The rebate then goes back on top of that and hands the larger share to the same group again. Like so many of the economic settings John Howard is responsible for, it destabilised the playing field and tilted it against younger generations.

There's one more thing that makes it indefensible. The rebate exists to encourage people to take up private cover in the first place. Older Australians are the group most likely to hold private health insurance and to keep holding it. We are paying a premium price for a decision people are already making. My community is home to 26,100 Australians over 65. That's about 17 per cent of my community, well above the state average. About 7½ thousand of them are over 80, which again sits above the state average—and so does our dementia rate. Plenty of them hold private health insurance, and they have held it for decades. A lot of them took it out the moment they could afford it, in the years when affording it took some doing, and they've kept paying, through every premium rise since. They keep it under this bill.

In my electorate—and I spoke about this just the other day—14 per cent of people provide unpaid care to someone with a disability, with a health condition or because of their age. Victoria's figure is just under 13 per cent, and the national figure is just under 12. My community carries more of this than most places across the country. There are people in my electorate who are somewhere in their 50s, working, raising kids who are not quite out of home and driving to their parents' place four or five nights a week to look after them. They are the ones who cook the meals, sort the medications and sometimes help their parents shower because their loved one can't do it safely on their own anymore and the package hasn't come through yet. Her mother has held private health insurance for 35 years, gold cover—never missed a payment. That gap gets filled by families. It always has been. Those carers have been sidelined by those opposite in this rebate debate entirely. For me and our government, they are part of the reason we are making this hard decision.

The Commonwealth spends about $8 billion a year on the private health insurance rebate. That is a very large amount of money, and this government continues to spend it because keeping private cover affordable does take real pressure off our public hospitals. That case is sound, and there is no intention of walking away from it. But $8 billion a year is a choice, and the shape of it is a choice. Every dollar spent on an age based top-up that brought no additional take-up was a dollar not spent on the aged-care system that our older Australians reach eventually—every one of them, whether they have cover or not.

We have made the hard decision. The $3 billion this measure saves goes straight into aged care. It delivers an additional 5,000 residential aged-care beds a year through targeted capital subsidies, and it changes the accommodation supplement for supported residents. More importantly, it gives providers the certainty they need to actually build accommodation and to maintain it properly once it is built. It puts more Support at Home packages into the system and gets them out faster. Waiting for a package can be awful. It goes beyond inconvenience. I think of the families in my community and how they do so much unpaid care four or five nights a week and for months longer than they should need to. We have already responded to what people have told us about that program. Showering services through Support at Home are now free of charge, alongside clinical care. Personal dignity should not be an optional extra with a co-payment attached.

There is over $200 million for 20 additional Specialist Dementia Care Program units and an expansion of the Hospital to Aged Care Dementia Support Program. My community has an above-average dementia rate and an ageing population, and I have families in Maribyrnong navigating that right now, with very little underneath them. All of it eases pressure on our public hospitals too, because an older person stuck in a hospital bed waiting for an aged-care place is a bed no-one else can use.

I'll deal with the two objections that will come and that are already coming, because I'd rather answer them than have them shouted at me. The first is that this drives older Australians out of private cover. The modelling says otherwise. The number of insured Australians over 65 keeps growing. By 2028-29, there are expected to be about 45,000 fewer people over 65 with cover than if we'd changed nothing. That's 0.4 per cent in a sector that is growing two per cent a year. That's five times the change in the opposite direction.

The second is that this abandons older Australians. It does not. Australians over 65 keep a government subsidised discount of 24 per cent of their premiums, exactly as every other Australian on their income does. They keep the community rating. They keep indexation of the rebate, which this government restored, whereas those opposite froze it. While we're here, I note that the rebate is means tested because a previous Labor government introduced that test in 2012. Those opposite fought us on it. Then they governed for nine years and kept every cent of it, because they knew perfectly well we were right.

The best argument for this bill is the one those opposite have been making by omission for 22 years. They have never defended the age based rebate on the merits. They've only ever defended it for their own political purposes, as they so often do. That perfectly highlights their time in government and their approach to the decisions that were sitting in the too-hard basket.

The easy thing is available to all of us here today. I could stand here and say nothing, let it pass and hope that the letters land in somebody else's office, and I would probably get away with it. But my community has 26,100 people over the age of 65 and over 7,500 over the age of 80, and the number of older Australians in my community is going up, not down. What they will need is not a slightly better rebate on a hospital policy; it's a bed in a good home near their family, without having to wait; a package that arrives while they can still use it; or someone to help them shower who is paid properly and has the time to do it kindly. That is what the $3 billion can be better spent on, and it is why this difficult decision is the right one. That is why this government has made the decision those opposite spent 22 years avoiding, because, when it comes to building a dignified aged-care system that values older Australians and cares for them, it is only those on this side of the House who are committed to improving the systems of inequality in order to ensure better and fairer outcomes. I commend the bill to the House.

Cost of living isn't a problem. We do not have a cost-of-living problem in this country at all. What we have is an economic mismanagement problem. Cost of living, sadly, is just a symptom of the chronic poor economic management of this Labor government. And what are we seeing with this poor economic management? We're seeing an absolute grab for tax, with higher CGT, tackling negative gearing, and income tax being the highest percentage of total income it has ever been in Australia's history. This is the highest taxing budget of all time. And why? Because it's the highest spending budget in over 40 years outside the pandemic.

I can't find much this government wants to cut. They don't want to cut anything. But there are two things I've found that they do want to cut. The first is veterans' health care. They want to cut health care for veterans, people who've laid their lives and limbs on the line for the country. Then they want to cut private health care for over-65s.

Unfortunately, while I might be new to politics, one thing I've seen, particularly from this prime minister, who sits in this very chamber and talks at this very dispatch box, is that he knows how to play politics exceptionally well. We see it with gambling, we see it with his electoral policies, where he's trying to buy votes, and we see it where he targets groups he thinks he does not have to win to win government.

Unfortunately, I'm learning politics is about buying votes. It's about who he thinks will vote for him and which votes he thinks he can get. I think, if you look at this budget, there are two groups he doesn't think he can get and he's happy to discard. The first group is veterans: 'I'll save $748 million from them. I'll cut their health. I don't care that some of them have put their lives on the line for the country.' I had a Vietnam vet with no legs in Cronulla last Friday night. He was saying how disgraceful it was and how let down he felt. Another man had brought his two kids—three and five years old, sitting there with happy meals. He got up the front and tried to speak but burst into tears; he couldn't even talk. He's not getting his claims covered by DVA. The second group is the over-65s. I will stand up for over-65s. Cook disproportionately is an older electorate, and I'll stand up for them. But the Prime Minister, again, has made a political calculation: 'This group votes less for me. They vote less for Labor.'

For the schoolkids here today, it's a good lesson in politics and a good lesson in how these guys play politics, which is: 'How do we carve up to the vested interests, and what do we need to do to get 50 per cent plus one?' It's not about what should be done. It's not about what should be done to veterans, and it's not about what should be done to people who've spent 30, 40 or 50 years paying private healthcare premiums, planning their entire financial life to be covered.

It's actually not going to have the savings or effect we hope for. It's just going to shift costs from the feds to the states, and I'll tell you why. Let me read two emails I've had from my electorate. The first reads:

As a 70 year old Australian, I am writing to express my concerns about the Government's proposal to reduce the higher private health insurance rebate for Australians aged 65 and over.

I have held private health insurance since age 18—

This person's been paying private health insurance for 52 years—

because it has reduced the burden on the … public health system—

That's saved money—

and allowed me to have my choice of treating doctor.

If this proposal goes ahead, it would mean that I will have no option but to cancel my coverage … forcing me onto the public system—

and incurring costs there—

Now, as a Stage 2B colon cancer sufferer, I will have much longer waiting periods for treatment and scans.

What he doesn't say is that that will be jammed onto the state system. The Prime Minister is shifting the costs from the fed books onto the states. Here's another email from another constituent:

I am very concerned about the Government imposing higher costs for mature folk that have maintained their Private Health cover for many years.

This would affect me greatly as I am a pensioner, and have tried very hard to maintain my health cover so that in my older age I can have the comfort of knowing that I will be covered and be able to have an operation when needed instead of having to wait for 18 months or so in the Public … system.

If, as the government is suggesting, my health cover will go up by a huge amount, I unfortunately would have to seriously think about withdrawing from my private health cover.

I have spoken with many other seniors and they all feel the same way. Why is the government doing this to us in our older years, when we've held private health cover for many years, in my case nearly 60 years and had hardly used it until I reached my late 70's. Now the government wants to penalise us because we have been diligent in maintaining private health cover.

Well, yes, it does. Sadly, this government wants to penalise you. It wants to penalise the older Australians in Cook, in my electorate. It's made the political calculation that you won't vote for it. Well, that's not good enough.

I will stand up for the older Australians in Cook, for the older veterans all around Australia and for the oldest seniors in health care, the people who've spent their entire life paying tax. They are now paying the highest tax of any generation ever. Why? Because this government has mismanaged the budget, and that's what this is about.

This is not about the cost of living. Yes, it's going to increase for the three million Australians who have this private health cover in older age. It's going to affect you. Why is cost of living bad? Cost of living is not a problem; it's a symptom. What is the problem is the economic mismanagement.

It's no surprise. This is the largest business in the country—the Australian government. Almost one in two dollars in the economy comes out of this Australian government. Who have we got managing it? A bloke who has only ever really worked in this building—he spent six months as a bank teller in the CBA in the eighties, and that's his whole private-sector experience—and another bloke, his treasurer, who spent six months in a lobbying firm. That's his private-sector experience. Is it any wonder cost of living has spiralled out of control?

We need to start talking about economic management and economic mismanagement. That is why it's so important for the coalition to strengthen, be a strong opposition, get rid of this Labor government and get someone who can manage the economy. If we don't manage the economy, cutting private health care will be first, and then cutting veterans and their gold cards will be second. We've already seen them try and come after unrealised gains in super. We've seen them make up economic policy on the run, with a minimum CGT rate of 30 per cent, going up to 47 per cent, the highest CGT rate in the world. It's zero per cent in New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong and only 20 per cent in communist China, but 47 per cent is the top rate here, and there's a minimum of 30. If you're a nurse or a teacher or you're on the dole and you've managed to save some money or inherit it, you'll get charged 30 per cent CGT.

Then they will cynically thumb through the budget pages looking for groups they think won't support them and come after them. Well, it's weak. They're going for weak people who are not usually the ones who protest—our retirees and the veterans, quiet Australians who don't ask for much. They pay their health premiums and assume they'll be looked after. They serve their country and assume they'll be looked after. They are people who rarely complain. They don't chain themselves in protest marches or march up and down the streets carrying placards. They're Australians who contribute and who actually put this country on their back with taxation or with weapons in hand serving this country. That is who this government is coming after. Why? Because electorally they think you're weaker. Well, that's not good enough, and the coalition won't stand for it.

Many people have reached the period in life where they're now more likely to need this insurance, like those two I talked about in my electorate. The government has decided this is the moment, right when these people have been paying their premiums for 60 years, to take away the rebate. That last constituent has been paying since they were 18 and is now in their late 70s—over 60 years of premiums.

It's not going to bank the savings the government think. What did we hear from the last speaker? 'Oh, people aren't going to go out of private health and into the public system.' Why not? They've modelled it. Well, do you know what else was modelled? We heard here, just three months ago, that house prices would continue to go up but two per cent slower as a result of that budget. Last week, we read in the Australian that house prices could go down by up to 18 per cent this year. All the major banks are modelling double-digit decreases in house prices. But they'd modelled it. How could that be right? Do you know what else they modelled? Your bills. Energy bills should be $275 below the 2022 energy price. You're now paying up to $1,500 more. But they modelled it.

They love to stand in this chamber at the dispatch box, grab a good little bit of modelling, hold it up and say: 'Trust us. House prices will continue to go up, two per cent slower. Energy prices will be $275 cheaper.' Well, they're up 40 per cent, and house prices might be down by up to 18 per cent, and now they're telling us to trust the modelling on private health. They say, 'No-one's going to go into the public system.' Well, I've got anecdote after anecdote from people writing into my office. They modelled that rents would only go up by $2 a week. We're seeing that called out on Sunrise with the housing minister and others. We cannot trust this government. They have absolutely lost control of the economy and absolutely lost control of the budget. They're now cynically picking through groups that they believe won't vote for them. That's why Australians feel these cost-of-living pressures.

We will stand up for you. It is about economic management. That is what this is about. I met a lady earlier here in the aged-care sector talking about the two per cent increase in wages while costs are going up four per cent. I met childcare people in here talking about pulling out of the childcare industry. This government's belatedly trying to subsidise these sectors. You can't subsidise sectors while the economy is crashing. People get poorer. That is what everyday Australians watching this are experiencing. You are continuing to get poorer, and what this government is just belatedly starting to find out is it can't subsidise everything. Yes, they'll give 20 per cent off university fees. Yes, they'll give free TAFE. Why are they coming after over-65s with health? Why are they coming after veterans? How are they making these budget trade-offs?

Every student, no matter how long they've studied, no matter whether they've got 12 degrees, 300 grand in HECS—let's give them 20 per cent off. Why did they do that? Why not give a tax cut to every young person in the workforce, apprentices and people who didn't go to uni? Why not give it to people who start work straight out of school? It's been suggested to me they're cherry-picking groups that they believe electorally will vote for them, where they can lock them in, while groups they can't—they target. That's not good enough. What we need is people who are responsible managing this economy, people who know the only way to make Australians wealthier is to grow this economy.

A government subsidy in a cost-of-living crisis that doesn't solve it—the government giving you a cheque. People in Victoria are just starting to wake up to this, as the Victorian government in its dying days is trying to say it will give you free dental care—'vote for us'. People have worked out they're running out of other people's money, and people, nationally, are starting to work out the reason they're CGT's up and the reason their income tax is up because these guys are running out of money. They're running out of money to buy votes, and they've started to work it out too.

That's why veterans are staring down $750 million worth of cuts. That's why veterans were crying in each other's arms in the RSL in Cronulla last Friday night. That's why retirees are writing to me scared and terrified with colon cancer and who've had private health for 60 or 70 years and are now terrified with cancer going back onto the public system in the middle of their treatment. It's not good enough. To the people of Cook and the older people of Cook, I will stand with you. I will fight with you to get rid of this terrible government and to put the Liberals back in charge of the economy.

I understand the member for Pearce would like to present a copy of her speech for incorporation into Hansard, in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 6 November 2025.

() (): The incorporated speech read as follows—

I would like to speak in support of the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. This is a practical and responsible reform. It modernises the private health insurance rebate, improves fairness in how government support is delivered and ensures taxpayer funding is directed where it can make the greatest difference. At its core, this bill reflects a simple Labor principle: government policy should be fair, sustainable and fit for the times in which we live. As Australia changes—through an ageing population, rising health costs and growing pressure on household budgets—our policies must evolve to remain effective and equitable. This bill does exactly that.

The Australian government currently invests around $8 billion each year in the private health insurance rebate. It is a significant investment that supports Australians to take out and maintain private cover, promotes consumer choice and complements our public health system by easing pressure on hospitals. Labor recognises the important role private health insurance plays within Australia's mixed health system. A strong Medicare, well-funded public hospitals and a sustainable private sector are not competing priorities. They are complementary parts of a system that supports Australians at every stage of life. But, when governments invest billions of taxpayer dollars, we have a responsibility to ensure that funding is fair, effective and aligned with contemporary needs. That is the question this legislation addresses.

The higher rebate for Australians aged 65 and over was introduced by the Howard government more than two decades ago, in very different economic and fiscal circumstances. Today, it is increasingly difficult to justify. Under current arrangements, two households with the same income and the same level of cover can receive different levels of government support solely based on age. That distinction no longer reflects a fair or consistent approach. The rebate was originally designed to encourage people to take out and retain private health insurance. However, older Australians are already far more likely to maintain their cover than younger Australians.

At the same time, Australia's community rating system ensures that everyone pays the same premium for the same policy regardless of age or health status. This means younger Australians already help subsidise the higher health costs of older policyholders. Over time, older Australians also receive significantly higher benefits from their cover. In that context, providing an additional age based rebate on top of these arrangements no longer aligns with the original purpose of the policy. This bill restores a simple principle: Australians on the same income should receive the same level of government support, regardless of age.

Importantly, the rebate itself is not being abolished. It will remain in place and continue to be means tested. Australians on lower incomes will continue to receive higher levels of support, because Labor believes assistance should be based on need not arbitrary distinctions. These changes will commence on 1 April 2027, providing time for households, insurers, and the sector to adjust.

I acknowledge that this reform will not be welcomed by everyone. Around 3.2 million Australians aged 65 and over will be affected. For many, the average increase in premiums is expected to be around $250 per year—less than one dollar a day—although some may pay more, depending on their policy. No government takes decisions like this lightly, but responsible government requires us to ensure that limited public resources are used where they will have the greatest impact, particularly at a time of growing demand for health care, aged care and disability services.

This reform is also about intergenerational fairness. Younger Australians today face significant financial pressures—housing affordability, cost of living and economic uncertainty. Older Australians deserve security and dignity in retirement. Good policy must balance these needs without privileging one group where circumstances no longer justify it. By removing an age based distinction while retaining income testing, this bill strikes that balance.

For my electorate of Pearce, these issues are not abstract. My community is one of the largest and fastest-growing in Western Australia. We have young families establishing themselves in Yanchep, Alkimos, Butler and Eglinton, alongside retirees who have chosen our coastal suburbs as their home. Across Pearce, people are managing mortgages, rent, groceries, childcare, fuel and insurance costs. They expect government to spend public money wisely and fairly. This legislation meets that expectation.

One of its strongest features is not only that it improves fairness but that it allows government to invest where the need is greatest. The savings from this reform—around $3 billion—will be reinvested into strengthening Australia's aged-care system. This includes delivering more residential aged-care beds, expanding Support at Home packages, reducing waiting times and improving the quality of care. That is a clear choice about priorities. As Australians live longer, demand for aged care continues to grow. Families expect that, when their loved ones need support, it will be available, timely and of high quality.

This government has already taken significant steps to rebuild aged care—improving standards, strengthening accountability and supporting the workforce. This legislation builds on that work by providing additional investment to expand capacity and improve services. It is also an investment in the broader health system. When older Australians cannot access appropriate aged care, the effects are felt across hospitals through delayed discharges, increased pressure on emergency departments and longer waiting times. Expanding aged-care capacity helps address those pressures, ensuring people receive care in the right setting, and hospitals can focus on acute care. That is sensible policy and responsible budget management.

The government has also carefully considered the impact of this reform on private health insurance participation. The evidence indicates the effect will be modest. By 2028-29, there may be around 44,000 fewer insured Australians aged 65 and over than otherwise projected—around 0.4 per cent. Participation overall is still expected to grow. Importantly, the impact on hospital admissions is expected to be minimal. This demonstrates that we can improve fairness and redirect investment without undermining the broader health system. Australians will continue to receive the private health insurance rebate. Lower income households will continue to receive greater support. Community rating will continue to ensure fairness in premiums, and the rebate will continue to be indexed. This bill also removes a now redundant exemption in the Age Discrimination Act, reflecting the move to an age-neutral rebate and simplifying the legislation.

For communities like Pearce, this reform has real significance. People want a health system they can rely on. They want Medicare to remain strong. They want access to hospitals and primary care. They want quality aged care for their families, and they want confidence that their taxes are being spent responsibly. This legislation helps deliver that. It forms part of the Albanese Labor government's broader agenda to strengthen Australia's health system—rebuilding Medicare, investing in bulk-billing, supporting hospitals, improving access to medicines and delivering once-in-a-generation aged-care reform.

It also reflects something fundamental about good government. Good government is not about maintaining policies simply because they have existed for many years. It is about asking whether those policies still serve their purpose, whether they are fair and whether they deliver the greatest benefit to the community. In this case, the answer is clear. The age based rebate may once have been appropriate, but circumstances have changed. Our demographics have changed. The pressures on our health system and budget have changed. Public policy must evolve accordingly. This bill modernises the rebate, ensures fairness across income groups and redirects resources to where they are most needed—supporting older Australians through better aged care. That is not withdrawing support. It is delivering it in a more effective way.

There will always be differing views about how public funding should be allocated, but most Australians would agree on some core principles. Australians on the same income should be treated equally. Public funding should be directed where it has the greatest impact. Older Australians should have access to high-quality aged care, and governments should have the courage to modernise outdated policies. This legislation reflects each of those principles.

For the people of Pearce—for young families, retirees, workers and small businesses—these principles matter every day. They want fairness, they want a strong health system, and they want responsible decisions from government. That is what this bill delivers. It modernises an outdated policy. It improves intergenerational equity, it maintains support for private health insurance through a fair, means tested rebate, and it strengthens aged care through a $3 billion reinvestment. It demonstrates that responsible economic management and compassionate policy go hand in hand. For the people of Pearce, for older Australians who deserve better care and for the long-term sustainability of our health system, I commend the bill to the House.

From the outset, I want to say that I oppose the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 because there is nothing modern about making health care more expensive for older Australians. This bill strips away the additional private health insurance rebate for Australians aged 65 and over and imposes an $11 billion hit on people who have spent decades working, saving and paying their own way. Labor calls it modernisation. Older Australians call this for what it is. This is nothing other than a tax grab.

For Australians aged between 65 and 69, the additional rebate will be cut by four percentage points. For those aged 70 and over, it will be cut by eight percentage points. From April next year, some couples aged over 65 with gold hospital cover could pay up to $1,614 more on their private health insurance every year, simply to keep the same policy. For an individual, that increase could be as much as $807 a year. For some couples, that's a 21.3 per cent increase. That is not modernisation. That is a health tax on seniors.

What makes this policy even worse is what we've learned since the government announced it. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing admitted that Labor announced this $11 billion measure without first working out how many pensioners would be impacted. Can you believe that? They announced an $11 billion tax on pensioners without even working out how many people this would impact. Only after pressure from stakeholders and the coalition did the department go back and do its maths, and the result was around 1.2 million pensioners potentially affected. Many are living on fixed incomes with very little ability to simply earn more money to cover yet another rising household cost. Yet the government did not even count them before they announced this policy. That is not careful health policy. It is a cash grab designed first, and, 'We'll think about the consequences later.'

The people Labor is targeting have done exactly what governments have asked them to do for decades. They worked hard. They saved. They budgeted. They maintained private health insurance because they wanted certainty over their health care and they wanted to take responsibility for themselves. They paid their own way where they could and, in doing so, helped reduce pressure on the public health system. Many maintained that cover through decades of rising premiums because they believed that it was the responsible thing for them to do. These Australians should be thanked. They shouldn't reach retirement and discover that Canberra, this government, has suddenly decided that their health cover is just another source of revenue.

That $807, or $1,614 if you're a couple, may not sound like much money to people in this room. It may not sound like much money to people around the cabinet table, but speak to any pensioner on the Sunshine Coast or around the country and ask them what $800 means. Ask a retired couple what $1,600 means. I've done it; I've asked them. For them, it's groceries, it's electricity, it's insurance, it's fuel, it's medication and it's the ability to pay their rates. That's the reality of living on a fixed income—'fixed' being the operative word. You can't simply work another Saturday or ask the boss for some overtime. When Canberra adds another major household cost, something else has to give.

Patricia from Dicky Beach, in my electorate, is a retired widow. She lives on the age pension. She and her late husband sacrificed over many years to maintain private health insurance because they valued continuity of care and the security it provided. They made the responsible choice, like millions of others before them. Labor now wants her to pay more for making that choice. John from Golden Beach is 68. He receives a part age pension and he rents. He has to rent his home. His rent has gone up. His everyday costs have gone up. His household budget is already under significant pressure. Now Labor wants to add another private health insurance cost increase on top of those cost-of-living costs that they're wearing already. These are not wealthy Australians sitting on limitless savings. They know exactly what comes in every fortnight and exactly what goes out.

One of the most foolish aspects of this policy is that it may ultimately cost the health system more than it saves. Independent modelling from Finity Consulting estimates that for every dollar the Commonwealth saves, the public health system could face around $1.20 in additional costs. Save a dollar; create $1.20 problem for the states. This is a false economy designed to make the federal budget look better while shifting the real cost onto the states. Canberra takes the saving; the state government inherits the problems. Public hospitals inherit the waiting lists, and taxpayers pay through the nose.

Older Australians do not stop needing health care because they can no longer afford private cover. Their knees still need replacing. Their cataracts still need surgery. Cardiac conditions still need treatment. Mental health conditions still need care. Australians aged 65 and over accounted for more than 2½ million private hospital admissions in 2024-25. If large numbers are pushed out of private cover, they do not disappear from the health system. They move back into the public system. That means longer elective surgery queues, greater pressure on emergency departments and fewer resources for everybody else waiting to see a doctor. The government itself concedes around 44,000 Australians could abandon private health insurance because of these changes. External modelling by Medibank suggests that number could be as high as 91,000 people.

Labor has also failed to properly model how many people will remain insured but downgrade their cover. Previous industry research suggests more than 250,000 older Australians could drop or downgrade altogether. That matters because older Australians disproportionately hold gold and silver policies covering procedures they are more likely to need, including joint replacements, cataract surgery and cardiac services. Someone may technically remain insured after downgrading, but, if the treatment they need is no longer covered, they're still pushed back towards the public system.

Labor says that this policy is about addressing so-called generational inequity. I totally and utterly reject that argument. Age is not some arbitrary characteristic in health care. It affects the level of health care people require, the type of cover they need and their ability to absorb premium increases. A 72-year-old pensioner is not in the same financial or healthcare position as someone aged 35 working full-time. There was a clear reason the Howard government introduced additional support for older Australians. Older Australians are more likely to be on fixed incomes, are higher users of hospital services and have less capacity to absorb major premium shocks. Keeping them in private health insurance also reduces pressure on the public system. That is sound public health policy.

This is not simply a coalition argument. Queensland, Tasmania, New South Wales and South Australia have all raised opposition or serious concerns about this measure. In Labor and coalition states alike, the governments that actually operate our public hospitals are warning Canberra about the pressure this policy will create. Medibank, HCF and Bupa have warned the changes will fall hardest on poorer retirees and older Australians in regional communities. The AMA has questioned whether there will be any genuine net savings once pressure on hospitals is discounted. Doctors are concerned, insurers are concerned, state governments are concerned and pensioners are sure as hell concerned. How many warnings does this government need?

This matters enormously to my electorate of Fisher, where more than 22 per cent of the population is aged over 65. We're proud to be one of the places in Australia to live, work and retire. But regional communities already face challenges accessing timely health care. The coalition's position is clear we oppose these cuts, and we will fight them in this parliament and in the Senate. Australians who have spent decades maintaining private health insurance should be supported to keep it.

Following the budget in May, I launched a petition calling on the Albanese government to reverse these cuts. The response has been extraordinary; 10,340 Australians have signed this petition. 10,340 Australians have told the Prime Minister and health minister to keep their hands off the health cover older Australians have worked, saved and budgeted for throughout their lives. These are pensioners, self-funded retirees and families worried about their parents and grandparents. They understand this means real money coming out of household budgets. They understand it may mean deciding whether they can keep the health cover they've paid for over decades. This is more than a petition. It's a warning. 10,340 Australians have put their names on paper to say, 'Enough.' This parliament should listen.

On that note, I seek leave to table a petition containing 10,340 signatures from Australians opposed to the government's changes to the private health insurance rebate.

Leave not granted.

That says it all. More than 10,340 Australians have put their names to this petition, opposing this policy, and this gutless government won't even let these 10,340 Australians have their position tabled in this parliament. What a disgrace. This government is a disgrace. It is prepared to make some older couples pay more than $1,600 a year simply to maintain the same gold hospital cover, but, apparently, hearing directly from the Australians who will pay that bill is a step too far.

Those signatures may not be sitting on the table of this House, but the Australians behind them are not going away. They are pensioners and retirees who have worked, saved and maintained private health insurance because they wanted certainty over their care, because they knew they were helping reduce pressure on the public health system. They did the very thing that this government, and the previous government, and the government before that, and governments for years have encouraged Australians to do—to look after themselves. Now the Albanese government is ripping those rebates away and is going to drive up the cost of living even further for elderly pensioners. What a disgrace.

State governments have raised concerns. Doctors, insurers, private hospitals and senior groups have raised concerns. Now 10,340 Australians have raised their voices in protest. Refusing leave does not make these signatures disappear. It does not make the extra $807 disappear for individuals. It doesn't make the $1,614 disappear for couples. It does not make the patients who could be pushed into public hospitals disappear. Labor can shift the costs on a spreadsheet, but they can't shift the costs for these pensioners. They are coming for you at the next election. The coalition will be reminding them every single day that you have driven up their costs. Shame on this government.

Before we proceed to the next speaker, I'd like to remind the member for Fisher, and indeed all members, that the standing orders and Practice are quite clear about opportunities to table petitions in the parliament.

The government could have given leave.

You do not have the call, Member for Fisher.

I've worked in the healthcare system for over half a century. The Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 is about equitable access to health care, as really all of the government's healthcare policies are, and it's a very important bill. I should point out also that I'm affected by this bill. I'm well over the age of 65. I've paid private health insurance since I was 18, as did my parents, my grandparents and, I suspect, also my great-grandparents. I strongly believe in taking responsibility for your own health care and your family's health care if you can afford it. It's a very important, fundamental practice in a country like Australia. It's an important bill because it goes to the fundamental question of how we fund health care in Australia. It asks us to consider not simply what governments spend but whether the way we spend taxpayers money is fair, equitable, sustainable and delivering the greatest benefit to the Australians who need care.

The Labor Party is the party of health care. That's one of the reasons that I'm a member of the Labor Party and why I stand here in this parliament. It's a party of health care and always will be. We will always defend equitable access to health care. We believe in the importance of public healthcare initiatives, such as Medicare, the PBS system and urgent care clinics. We believe in the importance of public hospitals; hence, our record of investment in them across the nation, as well as access to primary care and specialist care. We're aware of the importance of private health insurance. We believe in the hybrid model that we've had in health care in Australia for many years. I've worked in the public hospital system for many years, and our hybrid model of care is the envy of the rest of the world.

We also believe strongly in the equitable access to care. At present, Australians aged 65 and over receive a higher private health insurance rebate than younger Australians, and I don't think that's fair. I don't think it's fair that my private health insurance is cheaper than my kids' private health insurance with their young families. I just don't think that's fair. As an older Australian, I know that I will need to use more of our health system, particularly our public hospital system, than younger people. I don't think it's fair that I should pay less for that, and that is what this bill is all about. This bill removes the age based uplift which I don't believe is fair. From 1 April 2027, the rebate will be calculated on the same basis for Australians aged 65 and over as it is for people aged under 65, which is only fair, with income remaining the basis for determining the rebate. I think that is fair.

This is a reform about fairness and impartiality. It's about making sure that every dollar we responsibly redirect from one part of the health system can do more good somewhere else. It's important to know that we also live with an ageing population, so the demands on health care will be greater. It's up to us as a government to make sure that every dollar of healthcare spending is spent in the most efficient way. It's important to be clear that this bill does not abolish the private health insurance rebate, as some from the opposition are saying, nor does it abolish private health insurance. In fact, it encourages private health insurance. Because we have community rating, younger people don't have to continue to overly subsidise the health insurance of older people. It does not undermine the role that private health insurance plays alongside our public health system.

As I've said, that hybrid system has worked well for generations. As I've said, it's the envy of the rest of the world. I've examined health systems throughout the developed world, and ours is probably the best. It doesn't undermine the role that private health insurance plays alongside our public health system in providing the best possible care in the 21st century. The private health insurance rebate remains. What we are changing is the additional age based loading that currently means an older Australian can receive a higher rebate simply because they've turned 65.

We also need to be clear about the choices confronting our healthcare and aged-care systems. The money saved by this reform is not disappearing, nor is it being used to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. Our government has made a clear commitment that these savings will be reinvested in aged care. We are living with an ageing population that continues to grow older and we do need to increase the funding in the aged-care system. There's no question about that, and that's what our government is doing. This measure is expected to save $3 billion over four years and about a billion dollars every year after that. That is $3 billion that can be put towards more residential aged-care beds, more home-care support and better care for older Australians. That's a very important distinction.

This is not simply a savings measure. This is a way of getting better, more equitable access and more efficient use of the health dollar. It's a reprioritisation. It is taking money currently used to provide a higher rebate on private health insurance premiums for older people and redirecting it towards a more fundamental need—making sure older Australians can access the care they need when they need it.

The reality is that Australia is ageing and more Australians are living longer, and, as they are living longer, their healthcare needs are increasing. That's something that we should celebrate: amongst the developed world, we have one of the highest life expectancies—far higher than the United States, for example, that spends almost twice what we spend on health care. We should celebrate this and we should celebrate the fact that our healthcare and aged-care systems support older Australians. With longevity, however, there are responsibilities, and that means we should be responsible, as older Australians, for paying our fair share of health costs. It means that we need to make sure that we take responsibility when we can for our own health care.

We do need more aged-care places. We do need more aged-care workers. We do need more home-care packages. There's no question about that. We all know that our offices are often contacted by people needing access, either for themselves or their aged relatives, to aged care. We need to make sure that an older Australian who can no longer safely live independently is not left waiting, and we need to make sure that an older person who is medically ready to leave hospital has somewhere appropriate and dignified to go to. It's not simply an aged-care issue; it's also a hospital issue. Every hospital bed occupied by someone who is clinically ready to leave hospital is a bed that cannot be used for another patient who needs acute aged care. We need to make sure that we can provide that, and I think every member of this House would agree with that.

These sometimes are difficult choices to make, and we have a government that is willing to make those hard choices to support our healthcare system. We've seen that with increased Medicare rebates for GPs. We've seen it with higher bulk-billing rates. We've seen it with better hospital access. This investment in aged care is also an investment in our hospitals. That's why the Albanese government's record on public hospitals matters so much and why we have done so much to increase our hospital funding.

When Labor came to government in 2022, we inherited a health system that was under enormous pressure and hadn't changed for many years. Bulk-billing had been declining. Patients were waiting longer to get care. Our elective-surgery waiting lists were getting longer and longer. Emergency departments were under a lot of pressure, and they still are. Our public hospitals were dealing with years of inadequate Commonwealth funding growth. We have turned that around and we've changed that trajectory completely. Under the new, 2026-2031 National Health Reform Agreement, the Commonwealth is providing an additional $25 billion for public hospitals. That takes Commonwealth funding for state run public hospitals to a record $220 billion over five years. That's an extraordinary investment in Australia's public health system. It's three times the additional funding provided under the previous five-year agreement. We have done an enormous amount and will continue to do so.

There are still concerns in our public hospital system; we know that. State governments have underfunded the public hospital system persistently for years, and the Commonwealth government is having to pick up a lot of that slack. Our emergency departments continue to be terribly stressed, and waiting times to be seen in our emergency departments are not acceptable. It demonstrates that there are continuing concerns, and the federal Labor government is really dealing with that by getting more extra supports and more funding for our public hospital system than there have ever been. It demonstrates that there's something fundamental about the Labor Party's health policies, and we continue to make sure that we do the very best we can to make sure health spending is equitable across the system for everyone. We believe in Medicare. We believe in our public hospital systems, and we fund them.

At the present time, as chair of the House of Reps health committee, we are undertaking now a deep look into access to specialist care in the 21st century, and that will again provide more support for our public health system. We believe in it and we fund it, and we are doing our best to make sure we're making our health system fit for purpose for the 21st century. We believe in it and we fund it, and we are doing our best to make sure we're making our health system fit for purpose for the 21st century.

Part of that is redirecting health spending, as we've said, and this bill is an important part of it. We believe in public hospitals, and we don't just say it; we do something about it. We invest in them. And we believe that older Australians deserve dignity and quality care, not just in the healthcare system but also in the aged-care system, and we're doing something about it. We're prepared to make difficult decisions. The health system is made up of a whole lot of vested interests, and some people will not be happy with this decision, but I am convinced it's the right one. It's the right one for our community and for our country. We believe in what we are doing. In contrast, the coalition, unfortunately, really has no effective public health policy. I just have to mention their policy on tobacco excise. It's really a terrible public health policy, and I hope that we never see it implemented. We have a health minister and a government who believes in public health and in public health policy, and this is part of it.

We've seen what happens when public hospitals are treated as someone else's problem, and we don't want that. We've seen the consequences of funding cuts with the Abbott government, for example, cutting back on healthcare costs in the public system. It was terrible. We've seen the consequences of shifting costs onto the states and territories and allowing pressure to build throughout the health system. Labor's approach is very different. It is something that I deeply believe in. I know we are doing the right thing, and I recognise that it is our responsibility to make those difficult decisions. We recognise that public hospitals are an essential part of Australia's universal healthcare system, and we recognise that aged care is not just an optional extra; it's an essential service. That's why we need to make sure our health funding costs take that into account. It's part of the social contract that we have between the generations and with our community, and we want to make sure that people feel confident in our health system as we evolve into the 21st century.

There are many more challenges. Health treatments are changing. We need to change our system. The Medicare system was designed a long time ago. We need to make sure that we take into account some of the new treatments—for example, the infusion based treatments for autoimmune disease, which sometimes require hospital admission to have that take place. We need to make sure we fund that properly. The new CAR T targeted cancer treatments require both Commonwealth and state support to make them happen. Some of the new treatments for genetic disorders, such as we've seen for cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy, require ongoing support from both the state and federal health systems. These are changes that are dramatically changing our health system. We've heard recently about the mRNA cancer treatments developed by Moderna and the first clinical trial occurring in Australia, with the Melanoma Institute at the Mater Hospital at Sydney. It has really changed the whole playing field for cancer treatments. Melanoma will now be a cancer that can be managed, not a universally fatal death sentence.

These are dramatic changes, but they need to be accommodated by changes in our healthcare system that it's never had to deal with before. These things will be happening as we evolve into the next century, and we need to make sure that our health system is fit for purpose for this. The private health insurance system now has to deal with things like Hospital in the Home treatments, which weren't available until recently. These changes are dramatic. They're changing our health system. We have a government that supports it.

They did the right thing. This government is punishing them. I rise to speak on behalf of thousands of families in Monash and millions of older Australians right across this country who are being punished by this government's cut to the private health insurance rebate for Australians aged 65 and over through the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. This is a government going after people who have worked hard, saved hard and done the right thing. At a moment in their lives when they will most need this assistance, they will be least able to afford it.

A few months ago, I asked people across my electorate for feedback on this policy. In the space of just a few days, I was inundated with hundreds of emails from people who told me they felt let down, hurt and betrayed by another broken promise. There are 1.4 million Australians in the affected age bracket, and this change is set to cost many of them up to $640 more every year.

One of the emails I received came from a woman in my electorate I'll call Rhonda. This is the first time in her life she has written to a member of parliament. Rhonda told me that older Australians are made to feel, by this government's own rhetoric, like they are stealing from younger generations simply by existing. Rhonda's husband spent his whole working life as a brickie and a landscaper. He spent decades doing physical labour, and that hard work has worn his body down. He has had to scale back his work, and, like many tradies across the Gippsland region, he's going to need real medical support in the years ahead. Rhonda and her husband did everything right. They worked hard. They saved hard, and, for decades, they paid into private health cover so they would not be a burden on the public system. And, now, because of this rebate cut, they will barely be able to afford to hold on to that cover, precisely at the point in their lives when they will need it the most. That is desperately unfair. It is wrong and it is bad public policy.

Rhonda is far from alone. Chris wrote to me and simply said, 'I've always had private health insurance until Labor decided to take away my ability to pay for it.' Robyn, an age pensioner who has held cover for more than 50 years, is worried about the growing burden on the health system for people like her who have tried to do the right thing all their lives. I could stand here and read from hundreds more emails just like these, and every single one of them tells the same story. People have worked hard, saved hard and paid into their own cover for decades so that they would not be a burden on the public system, and now they're being told by their own government that their contribution doesn't count. That is not fair.

Let's be clear about what this government has actually done. Since 2004, Australians aged 65 and over have received a higher private health insurance rebate than younger Australians on the same income, in recognition of the fact that older Australians are more likely to need hospital care. That's just a simple fact. It's a simple reality. This government's bill rips that recognition away and makes the rebate purely income based. The health minister stood up in question time and called this 'intergenerational equity'. Well, I call it what it is—a broken promise dressed up in fairness language, used to raise $3 billion off the backs of the generation that helped build this country. This is a government that promised Australians it would ease cost-of-living pressure; instead, it has gone looking for savings in the private health cover of pensioners and retirees on fixed incomes to fix their bad economic management.

Now, let's talk about what this actually does to our health system, because this is where the government's own arguments fall to pieces. The health minister claims there will be no material impact on public hospitals. Every credible piece of evidence outside his own department says otherwise. I draw your attention to Private Healthcare Australia, the peak body representing more than 20 health funds and 50 million Australians with cover. They estimate that as many as 62,000 older Australians will drop their cover altogether under this change and that a further 200,000 will downgrade it. National Seniors Australia's own member survey found that 8.4 per cent of older Australians are considering dropping their hospital cover entirely and 12½ per cent are considering downgrading—figures that, if reflected across our entire population, would mean that up to 270 000 people will be dropping their cover and 400,000 will be downgrading it. That's not a rounding error; that is hundreds of thousands of older Australians who will sooner or later turn up at the door of public hospitals instead—public hospitals like the Latrobe Regional Health hospital, West Gippsland Hospital, South Gippsland Hospital and Bass Coast. These are hospitals that do the best they can with the limited resources that they've got with highly skilled, highly dedicated staff. But those hospitals are bursting at the seams.

I was at West Gippsland Hospital only recently, with my state Liberal colleague Wayne Farnham, the member for Narracan. Jess Wilson, the Victorian coalition leader, was in town as well. I am so pleased that Wayne has fought successfully for a commitment for a new West Gippsland hospital. We need it very, very badly, because that hospital is bursting at the seams, and the policy change by this federal government on this issue will exacerbate that. It will make it worse. Well done, Wayne Farnham. Keep fighting for West Gippsland and a new West Gippsland hospital.

Think about what our public system looks like. More than 800,000 Australians delayed or missed specialist care last year because of costs. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. The price of everything, from electricity to insurance to health care, is going up and up. I talk to families in the Monash electorate who are staring at an electricity bill stuck to their fridge, wondering how they're going to pay that and afford their grocery bill for the week. This policy change will make that worse.

We've got bulk-billing collapsing, down 11 per cent, with 40 million fewer bulk-billed GP visits in the last financial year alone. In the last five years, 82 private hospitals have closed nationally, and 14 private maternity wards have shut their doors under this government. Every one of those closures pushes more patients, older Australians among them, into a public system that is already buckling under the weight of this federal Labor government's economic mismanagement, disdain for regional Australians and lack of care and regard for older Australians, many of whom have worked all their lives, standing on their feet and working with their hands in blue collar jobs right across this country. They have worked hard, saved hard and done the right thing, and, now, at the very point in their lives where they need a federal government to stand with them, to reward people who work hard and save hard, they've got a federal Labor government letting them down.

Maryvale Private Hospital in the Latrobe Valley, just outside Monash's doorstep in my good friend and colleague the member for Gippsland's electorate, is on the list of private hospitals that will be negatively impacted by this change. If patients in our region drop or downgrade their cover, hospitals like Maryvale don't just lose patients; they lose the very patient base that helps keep their doors open. Once a service like that closes in a regional community, those patients don't just evaporate into thin air. They join the queue at our already overstretched public hospitals.

We are seeing the same warning signs elsewhere. In Mildura, a not-for-profit member owned health fund with more than 40,000 members, 41 per cent of them over 65, say their membership growth is already slowing and premiums for older members could rise by as much as 12 per cent next April once this rebate cut is combined with rising medical costs. My colleague, the fantastic member for Mallee, the shadow minister for regional health, has made the point better than I can that, when private services disappear, patients do not. They are pushed into the public system, and regional hospitals like Mildura Base Public Hospital are already struggling with workforce shortages, long waiting lists and limited specialist access. That's Mildura today, but it could be Foster, in my electorate, or Leongatha or Warragul tomorrow.

When the health minister tells this parliament there will be no material impact on our hospitals, I beg to differ. I don't believe him, and, more importantly, the people who actually run our regional health services don't believe him either. This is a government prepared to gamble with the capacity of public hospitals that are already stretched to breaking point to fund an aged-care announcement off the back of a policy that punishes the very people who helped keep our public health system viable and sustainable in the first place, and that's the injustice at the heart of this.

For decades, government after government has asked older Australians to do exactly this—take out private health cover, please; keep it up, please; take the pressure off Medicare and our public hospitals, please. Rhonda's husband did that. Chris did that, too. Robyn did that for more than 50 years. They worked hard. They saved hard. They did the right thing by Australia. Now this government is telling them that the deal is off—that special compact—right when they need their cover the most, and it is expecting our public hospitals to somehow absorb the consequences.

I want to salute the nurses and doctors and medical staff who work extremely hard in regional communities like mine. They do their very, very best with dedication and with limited resources. They bring expertise, compassion and deep care to patients every single day under the most trying of situations and circumstances. I will not stand by while that happens to people in Monash. I will keep fighting this cut in the parliament, alongside my coalition colleagues, and alongside peak bodies and consumer groups—Private Healthcare Australia and National Seniors Australia among them—who are standing up for older Australians on this issue.

A Senate inquiry into this bill reported reports on 7 October, and the government still needs the support of the Senate crossbench to pass it. There is still time to stop this, and I would urge anyone here today, anyone listening in the public galleries or to the broadcast who is worried about their own cover or about what this means for health services in our region to have your say. Your voice matters. Regional Australia matters. Older Australians matter. They matter to the Liberal Party, to the National Party, to the coalition. We will stand up and fight for you even if your federal government has let you down. The generation who built this country and the Gippsland region, who worked hard and did the right thing, deserve better than a government which punishes them for it. I will keep standing up for you.

It is interesting that I am rising to speak on the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 with the shadow minister and the minister for regional health in the chamber at the table. Those two, the member for Mallee and the member for Dobell, respectively, have a big duty of care, and that duty of care is to regional Australians, who need better health services. I certainly know that both are hard-working. They are. I've had dealings with both in the realm of making sure that regional people get looked after. But, with all due respect to the minister, who is a good person with a good heart—I do acknowledge that—this Labor government has been neglectful when it comes to regional Australians and, particularly, older regional Australians.

As we've just heard, excellently articulated by the member for Monash, regional Australia is doing it very, very tough at the moment. It has not had any respite, any help, any support from this Albanese government, which, let's not forget, came to office in May 2022 promising not to leave anyone behind. But all that this Labor government has done is leave Australians, and certainly regional Australians, behind. Let us not forget either that it is regional Australians who keep this country running. It's regional Australians who grow the food. It's regional Australians who produce the fibre. It's regional Australians who have the mining and the resources wealth that we sell overseas—those things which the Treasurer couldn't bring himself to say. He described coal, iron ore and energy as the 'things' we sell overseas.

Let me tell you, but for those things that we sell overseas—and you could throw agriculture in as well—this Treasurer and this country would be up to their eyeballs in debt. Hang on—they already are! They already are up to their eyeballs in debt. In fact, they're over their eyeballs in debt, and it's on Labor's watch. What do we see Labor doing when things get tough, when things go start to go awry? They start to punish those people who are keeping the lights on, those people who have done the hard yards for and on behalf of this nation. Particularly when it comes to this bill, I refer to those over-65s. Many of those people have actually put on a service uniform. Many of them have rolled their sleeves up and gotten dirt under their fingernails to help build this nation, to help make Australia what it is today. We do live in the best country on earth. Make no mistake, we do. That's on the back of the hard work, dedication and perspiration of so many older Australians.

Sixty-five is not the twilight years. Trust me, it's not. The older I get, the less twilight that becomes! For those older Australians—who are looking towards retirement, who deserve their place in the sun and the breeze at their backs—what are they facing? They're facing a Labor government that wants to take away what they are entitled to, what they should be eligible for and what they certainly have been eligible for for some years past.

By taking away the private health insurance rebate, what we hear and what we see out in regional Australia is that private hospitals are really worried about their modus operandi and really worried about their bottom lines. We've heard from many experts in the field that they are worried about whether they'll be able to keep the doors of their hospitals open because of this stupid, senseless policy.

I really don't understand it. When Labor is putting together the budget—I appreciate that budgets start getting prepared around January, February. These bright sparks from the bureaucracy and elsewhere think up these schemes, these ideas, about how we're going to save money so that we can continue our climate folly and how we're going to save money so that we can continue having the Minister for Climate Change and Energy as the President of COP and other things. Where are we going to get the money from? They look at the wrong areas. We've seen in recent weeks, certainly in this parliament, our veterans pushing back against the insidious $5,000 allied health cap that has been placed on their duty, service and sacrifice. And we see that with this policy. It's just penny pinching. It's stingy. It's miserable. It's Labor. It's lazy politics. It's lazy Labor politics. I am sorry for the tautology. For lazy Labor politics, I should probably just should say 'Labor politics' or 'lazy politics' because they're all one and the same.

I note too that, with the speakers list for this particular amendment bill, there are not too many regional members here. Perhaps he might have spoken already or perhaps he might be on the speakers list later, but where is the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, the member for Hawke, in all of this? He has overseen the home-care packages queue stretch out as far as the eye can see, and, sadly, tragically, people are dying while waiting to get those packages. That simply isn't right. It's simply not fair. It's simply un-Australian, and it has to stop. Our older Australians deserve better.

Our older Australians shouldn't be used as a punching bag for this Labor government, which can't seem to balance the books. This Labor government can't seem to manage the finances of the nation. When you look at the finances of this nation, you see that iron ore and coal—the things we sell overseas, according to the Treasurer—are priced pretty well at the moment.

On the East Coast, we've got a pretty good harvest coming up. I was in Western Australia last week, and the same goes for there.

And Mallee.

In Mallee, the Riverina, Nichols and those areas of Farrer, the crops are good. The canola is great. Despite the vagaries of weather, the hard work they do and the risks they take, our farmers are looking at a pretty good summer cropping season. Never mind the water buybacks. That should stop too. There's always money for water buybacks! There's always $430 million and the equivalent of 34,400 swimming pools worth of water taken out of farming production. But, anyway, we'll have more to say about that later on.

When you have a bill such as this, which comes before the parliament and wants to stingily squeeze just a little bit more out of those over-65s, it just makes no sense. You have to ask yourself why. Why is this so? Why are our over-65s once again on the chopping block for lazy Labor politics? I'll tell you why. It's because Labor can't manage the economy, Labor can't manage health. And Labor can't manage a system by which older Australians can get ahead.

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be given leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.