Again, we have a situation where there is a policy area that Labor did not intimate before the election and before the budget and then brought in during that particular process—the private health insurance rebate for over-65s. If you're in that sector of society, you've done the hard yards. You've worked hard for what you have. You've perhaps raised a family. Perhaps you've even served. But I tell you what you don't expect, and that is the government of the day then taking away something that has been in place for many years past. In a cost-of-living crisis, it's just another body blow to those over-65s.

This will leave many older Australians with a very difficult choice—with a very tough choice—and that is to cut spending on other essentials, to potentially downgrade their cover or to drop it altogether. When you're out in regional Australia and you talk to the administrators, those people who run our hospitals, they are desperately worried. They are. They know, particularly in those private hospitals, that if people give up their private cover then the patients are going to go to the state public hospital system. If you read any report in any newspaper—or television or radio or wherever—you know that the state hospital system is already bursting at the seams. The waiting queues are very long and they can't sustain what they have, let alone then get all those private patients of people who are over 65 who've given up their health insurance because they simply can't afford it. There we have another example of the Labor Party doing one thing before a budget and then doing another completely after the budget. It doesn't matter whether it's veterans or whatever it is, we see this all too often.

One of the real problems with this government is that it reeks of arrogance. It reeks of hubris. We saw that this morning. It's just stopping debate. It's stopping democracy. It's stifling what we had in this place in the previous coalition governments—and that's a fair go on both sides. This Labor Party just rams through policy and legislation without so much as even a debate. We saw it last week with the social media bills. We saw it this morning with the veteran allied healthcare cap.

What we saw over in the Senate last week was a good and rational debate over a particular policy area. Every non-government member supported what was put before the upper house, and they voted accordingly— comprehensively, resoundingly—35-20. It came back to the House of Representatives this morning and just gets kicked into the long grass, potentially never to be seen again. Woe betide if you're a veteran who is actually over 65, because all of a sudden you've had your private health insurance affected and you've had your allied health affected. Those people just don't know where to turn. They simply don't. It's simply not right for the government to punish older Australians by taking away the private health insurance rebate.

The coalition has the team and the plan to fix these sorts of situations. We support choice. We believe that, if people work hard to pay for private health insurance their entire working life, then this should be encouraged. What you'll find them call it on the other side is intergenerational equity. That's what they'll say. That'll be the argument that they put forward in this debate. We're going to fight Labor's cut to the private health insurance rebate every step of the way. We're going to fight the $5,000 cap on allied health for our veterans every step of the way. Every time that Labor comes into this place and brings down, brings through and brings up a policy that they didn't discuss before the election and that they didn't put forward before the budget, and is wrong and is not seen to be fair by Australians, we will fight it every step of the way, as the Australian public deserves. The government should scrap the proposed cut in the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill.

We heard the Treasurer quite animated this morning. I've actually never seen him quite so worked up, but he's under pressure because Labor's hurtled well and truly over a trillion dollars worth of debt. In every field of the economy, they're looking at making cuts. Whether it's veterans or whether it's health, it doesn't matter. But they're affecting the people who are the most vulnerable. They're affecting people in the NDIS space. They're affecting older Australians who've worked hard all their life and our veterans who have done the right thing to protect our nation and to protect our people. They deserve the very best care, and the $5,000 allied healthcare cap is affecting them very much.

The Albanese government's been forced to admit that its cut to the private health insurance rebate for older Australians will place financial pressure on 1.2 million Australians—pensioners. On its own admission, the department doesn't have a reliable up-to-date count, despite the health minister announcing the $11 billion tax grab way back, even prior to the budget. We know that there's a mistake. We know that this is the wrong thing to do. We know that Labor is just turning a blind eye to the needs and wants and expectations and demands of Australians, particularly older Australians. But, rest assured, when those older Australians vote, they will remember this. They will remember how they've been betrayed by this Labor government, which has never seen a cut that it doesn't like to make.

Let's not beat around the bush. Let's be up front about what the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill actually does. It makes a difficult but necessary choice about where taxpayers' money can do the most good. Do we continue paying an additional private health insurance rebate purely on somebody's age, or do we put nearly $3 billion more into aged-care beds, more Support at Home places and better dementia care? We've chosen to invest in care.

This bill will bring the rebate for Australians aged 65 and over into line with the income based systems that apply to everybody else. Right now, two people can earn the exact same income and hold the exact same private health insurance but receive different rebates simply because one has turned 65. That doesn't make much sense to me. Under this bill, the support somebody receives will be based on their income, not their birthday.

Let me be absolutely clear about what this bill doesn't do. It doesn't abolish the private health insurance rebate, it doesn't take away anyone's private health insurance and it doesn't stop older Australians from using the private health system. People on lower and middle incomes will continue to receive substantial government assistance. A single person earning $101,000 or less will still receive a rebate of around 24 per cent on their premium. That support is not disappearing. The change will begin on 1 April 2027. The average impact is expected to be around $250 per person per year. That is less than a dollar a day.

I'm not going to stand here and pretend people will be happy about paying more. Household budgets are tight. Private health insurance is already a significant expense, and every extra cost does matter. But governing means making choices about where public money will make the greatest differences. This decision will raise nearly $3 billion over four years, and that money will be invested directly into aged care. It will help build more residential aged-care beds. It will provide more Support at Home places. It will reduce waiting times, improve specialist dementia care and help older Australians stay in their own homes for longer. That's the choice before this parliament.

Of course, the coalition have immediately reached for their usual playbook. They're going straight to the scare campaign, and shame on you all on that side! They want older Australians to believe they'll lose their private health insurance, they want people to believe private health membership will collapse, they want people to believe public hospitals will suddenly be overwhelmed and they want Australians to believe that this government is attacking older people. That is absolute rubbish, and you need to have a good hard look at yourselves.

Government modelling shows private health insurance membership will continue to grow overall. The estimated reduction resulting from this measure is around 0.4 per cent, or approximately 44,000 people. That's a long way from the collapse being predicted by those opposite. Some people may change their cover, but many would have chosen to use the public system anyway. The expected impact on the public hospital demand is minimal. The coalition know that, but the facts don't suit their political scare campaign, so they choose to ignore them. They would rather frighten older Aussies than have an honest conversation about how we fund aged-care services that this country desperately needs.

Frankly, I'm sick of hearing those opposite talk about Australians using public hospitals as if they're doing something wrong. Aussies are entitled to use Medicare. They're entitled to receive treatment in public hospital. They've paid taxes and contributed to this country throughout their whole working lives. They're not a second-class citizen, because they don't have private health insurance. Labor believes your Medicare card, not your credit card, should determine whether you receive health care or not.

We're backing that belief with record investment. We're investing $8½ billion to strengthen Medicare and expand bulk-billing. By the end of the decade that investment is expected to deliver another 18 million bulk-billed GP visits every year, with nine out of 10 GP visits expected to be bulk-billed. That matters right across the Hunter but also right across this beautiful country. It matters to the pensioner in Cessnock who needs regular appointments to manage diabetes or heart disease. It matters to the older couple in Kurri Kurri who are watching every dollar and shouldn't have to put off seeing their doctor because they're worried about costs. For older Aussies, going to the GP isn't something that happens once or twice a year. It can mean regular appointments, prescriptions, blood tests, referrals, care plans and follow-up visits. If those costs start piling up, people put appointments off. A small problem becomes a big problem. A condition that could have been managed by a GP becomes an emergency. Bulk-billing saves people money, but it also helps them receive care earlier and stay healthier for longer. That's why our investment in Medicare matters.

We are also expanding the Medicare urgent care clinic network. Medicare Urgent Care Cessnock gives locals another option when they need urgent medical attention but don't need a hospital emergency department. There are also clinics in Charlestown, Lake Haven and Maitland. They're fully bulk-billed. You don't need an appointment. You can walk in and receive care for things like minor fractures, infections, cuts requiring stitches and sprains. Think about what that means for an older person in Cessnock. Instead of finding someone to drive you to Maitland Hospital or the John Hunter, then sitting in the emergency department for hours, they can receive that care closer to home. It's better for the patient and easier for their families, and it takes pressure off our emergency departments so doctors and nurses can concentrate on the most serious of cases.

We're also making medicines cheaper. The maximum PBS co-payment for general patients has been reduced to $25. The concession price has been frozen at $7.70 until 2030. Sixty-day prescriptions are saving eligible patients time and money for an older Aussie taking several regular medications, those savings add up. They mean fewer trips to the pharmacy and less money coming out of the household budget.

We're also delivering record public funding for hospitals. From 2026-27 to 2029-30, the Australian government will contribute $168.7 billion for public health and hospital services under the National Health Reform Agreement. That funding backs the doctors, nurses, paramedics and health professionals who care for Aussies every single day in this country. It supports public hospitals Hunter residents depend on, including Maitland, Cessnock and John Hunter. So, when the coalition claims Labor is abandoning older Australians, people really should have a look at the full record. More bulk-billing, more Medicare, urgent care clinics, cheaper medicines, record public hospital funding, more aged-care beds, more Support at Home, better dementia care, better wages for aged-care workers—that's Labor's record.

What's the coalition's record, I hear you ask. It is a decade of underinvestment, delay and neglect. They were warned repeatedly that aged care was in crisis. Reports gathered dust. Providers struggled. Workers were underpaid and undervalued. Families waited too long for help at home. Older Australians remained in hospital because there was no appropriate aged-care place available for them. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety exposed a system that was understaffed, underfunded and failing too many people who built this country. The coalition had nearly a decade to fix this, but guess what. They didn't. Now they want Aussies to forget all of that. They want to lecture us about aged care while opposing funding needed to rebuild it. They demand more beds, more workers, more home-care places and shorter waiting lists, but, the moment the government makes a serious decision to pay for those services, they launch a scare campaign. That isn't leadership; it's political cowardice.

You can't rebuild aged care with a press release. You can't pay workers with slogans or build thousands of new beds by shouting across the chamber. You can't repair a system after a decade of neglect without investing serious money. This measure will help deliver an additional 5,000 residential aged-care beds every year through targeted capital subsidies and changes to the accommodation supplement for supported residents. It gives providers greater certainty to build new facilities and expand existing ones.

When there aren't enough aged-care beds, the impact is felt right across the healthcare system. An older person who's medically ready to leave hospital may have nowhere suitable to go. That's not good for them or their family, and it means that that bed is not available for another patient. Building more aged-care beds is also an investment in our public hospitals.

This bill also provides more support for older Australians who want to stay in their homes for longer. And let's be honest, that is what most people want. They don't want to leave their home they've lived in for decades or more or move away from their family, their neighbours, their local doctors and their community. People in the Hunter don't want to be forced out of towns like Cessnock, Singleton or Morisset because they cannot get the support they need at home. They may need help to shower safely. They may need help preparing meals. They may need assistance when cleaning, with mobility or to get to other medical appointments. Sometimes a relatively small amount of practical support can be the difference between somebody remaining independent and having to enter residential care. That's what Support at Home is designed to deliver. The government has listened to concerns during the rollout and made changes where they were needed. We changed the treatment of showering services so that, alongside clinical care, they are provided free of charge. We will continue to monitor the program and fix problems when they arise.

We will also invest more than $200 million in 20 additional Specialist Dementia Care Program units and expand the Hospital to Aged Care Dementia Support Program. Dementia affects the person diagnosed but also their entire family. Finding the right care can be incredibly difficult, particularly when somebody has complex needs. This investment will provide more specialised care and help people living with dementia move from hospital into an appropriate residential setting. That will give families greater certainty, provide better care for the individual and free up hospital capacity for other patients.

We're also backing the aged-care workforce. For years, aged-care workers were expected to perform demanding skills and deeply important work without receiving the pay or recognition that they deserved. These are the people helping our parents and our grandparents through some of the most vulnerable moments in their lives. Labor supported substantial wage increases for aged-care workers because good aged-care depends on attracting and keeping good people. The coalition talks about respecting older Australians. We're funding the workers who actually care for them.

It's a pretty simple principle behind this bill. A 64-year-old and a 66-year-old earning the same income should receive the same rebate. Someone's financial circumstances should determine the government assistance that they receive, not the date on their birth certificate. Private health insurance will continue to play an important role in our healthcare system. The government will continue working on improving its affordability and value. But we can't ignore the desperate need for more investment in aged care.

Those opposite have every right to oppose this decision, but they should have the guts to explain their alternative. If they oppose this measure, which aged-care beds should we not build? Which Support at Home places should we actually cut? Which dementia units should not go ahead? Which families should be waiting longer? Which older Australians should remain in hospital because an appropriate aged-care place is not available? They can't demand more aged-care funding while opposing every responsible decision required to pay for it. They can't spend a decade neglecting aged care and then pretend it's there to be its greatest defender. And they shouldn't frighten older Australians by making claims they know are not supported by evidence.

Older Australians deserve better than another dishonest political scare campaign. They deserve strong Medicare, well-funded hospitals, affordable medicines and an option to remain at home with the proper support. When residential aged care is needed, they deserve a safe place close to family and close to community. This bill maintains substantial income based assistance for private health insurance, while directing nearly $3 billion into aged care. That's $3 billion into more beds, more care at home, better dementia services and greater dignity for older Australians. And you know where that really matters the most? It's not just the older Australians; it's their family members, friends and communities, who actually care what happens to those older Australians. They actually care about aged care, the support older Australians need and the help that they are going to get in staying at home longer or in going out and being in those aged-care facilities. So I really hope those opposite actually choose to stop the scare campaign and actually get behind this, because the scare campaign is scaring older Australians for no reason. You guys should be ashamed of yourself. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak about the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. But I want to start with some quotes from people in my electorate who have written to me. Peter, who's a pensioner from Avoca, has said:

As an age pensioner, I want to say how annoying this "intergenerational" rubbish is.

The planned removal of the health fund rebates for older Australians, down to the base rebate, by Labor, is ridiculous.

With only a pension as income it is already a huge stretch to afford private health cover. Also, because I have private cover I find myself more out of pocket after a hospital visit than someone in the public system.

Peter, I want to say to you: I have the same questions. He continues:

The likely outcome will be a huge exodus from private cover to the public system.

Please look into this and see if it can be blocked.

Well, Peter, if I could block it by myself, I would. If the coalition with our current numbers could block this, we would.

Robyn from Mildura says:

I wish to express my strong opposition to the government's proposal to reduce the rebate available to Australians aged 65 and over.

Many older people rely on this support to help manage rising living costs, and reducing it would have a significant negative impact on their financial wellbeing. I believe the government should protect, rather than reduce, rebates.

Older Australians have contributed to society throughout their lives and deserve continued support, particularly during a time of increasing living expenses. I am sure they can allocate money toward Aged Care by another means than stealing again from those in need. We have not been a burden on the Public Health system due to paying Private Health Insurance.

Perhaps look after the older generation as we have paid our taxes and contributed to society for all our working lives.

And then there's Cheryl from Horsham. She says:

We need our health insurance we need it because of our age group we are both on the pension. Don't earn or have loads of money. Husband has type two diabetes and heart problems.

What we have here are voices from Mallee, who I am incredibly proud and honoured to represent, making it very clear they understand what this tax grab is all about. These are people who have paid their taxes all their lives, as Robyn said. These are people who have paid into their private health insurance for decades. They have paid and probably not required it. Now they're over 65, they do require it. They're pensioners. They don't have extra money. This is a fixed income, which, as Peter rightly pointed out when he wrote to me, makes it incredibly hard to stretch the increase in insurance so that he can remain insured. What it will mean is that these people will go into the public health system.

It seems to me that the Labor government hasn't caught up with the fact that our public health system is struggling. It is struggling with ongoing ramping at the doors of the emergency department. It is struggling to get GPs—particularly in the regions where I come from and which I proudly represent—let alone gerontologists or the number of nurses that are required to run a great aged-care system. There are so many problems. And yet what this Labor government wants to do is come after our elderly and say: 'Well, you know what? You and the 31-year-old living next door should pay the same thing for private health insurance.' It's like this intergenerational equity rubbish—and it is rubbish—means that people who have invested for decades are seen as the same people where this Labor government can come and take money out of their pocket.

And what is it going to do? It's like the government does not have the foresight to see the writing on the wall. It is not in its DNA to look into the future and see how this will actually work out. It won't work out well. What we know today is that 1.2 million pensioners are going to be impacted by this decision the government has made to cut the rebate for our older Australians. We know that the cost is going to be exponential into the future.

I ran a survey in Mallee in 2025. Although it was one year ago—I can't believe it!—57 per cent of those over 65 said they had private health insurance cover. So does this issue matter? Yes, I reckon it does. It absolutely matters to the people who live in my electorate. It matters to every person in every electorate. There are so many older people worried right now because of the moves of this government to take money out of their pockets.

Twenty per cent of those in my electorate who have private health insurance cover felt their current level of cover was inadequate. But guess what? Their cover will be even more inadequate thanks to this government. Labor—clever with the marketing; terrible in government—have discovered their spending was so out of control they needed more money. It's just an absolute shocker. Where were they going to go? That's right. Remember former health minister Plibersek said, 'Wherever I needed money in health, I went after private health.' So, today we have Labor's $11 billion hit on older Australians in this cut to the rebate for 65-year-olds and older. Minister Butler claims this brazen tax grab will pay for aged-care beds. What it won't pay for are the additional people ramped at public hospitals and in the public hospital beds because they've reduced or dropped their private health cover.

A brief trigger warning for the member for Barton and those opposite: I am again going to acknowledge the struggles public hospitals face. Somehow, when I talked about this on 18 August, the member for Barton thought that this was an attack on public health workers by me. Quite the opposite. It was a bizarre attack she made about my statements, as though somehow a member on this side of the House talking about public health was implicitly an attack. My point is very clear and I will say it again slowly: cutting private health rebates will put more pressure on public hospitals. This is not difficult. Labor are not helping public health with this bill. They are doing the opposite. I support our healthcare workers, regardless of where they work, and I will not wear unhinged rants from those opposite merely because we're speaking the truth about ramping and bed block in public hospitals.

The Albanese Labor government says its changes to the private health insurance rebate are about fairness, sustainability and intergenerational equity. Give me a break! Older Australians deserve more than slogans. They deserve respect. They deserve honest answers about the consequences of this policy. They deserve an explanation as to why they have paid private health insurance premiums for decades in anticipation of their older age, only to have that cost move further out of reach due to the decisions made by this Albanese government. They deserve an explanation as to why the government had not modelled how many age pensioners would be affected by this policy.

What we read today, through the Parliamentary Budget Office analysis, is that pensioners will collectively shoulder $1.6 billion of Labor's private health insurance cash grab. That's around half the $3 billion Labor expects to reap over forward estimates. There are 3.2 million Australians aged 65 and older who currently hold private hospital cover. Of those, 1.5 million are pensioners, age pensioners and self-funded retirees living on a very modest income which—I underline and highlight—is a fixed income. During a cost-of-living crisis, Labor will take money away from low-income, self-funded retirees and age pensioners. There is one word for this behaviour: shame.

From 1 April 2027, under this bill, Labor will remove eligibility for the higher age based private health insurance rebate, with rebates determined by income alone. National Seniors Australia has warned that some older couples could face premium increases of well over $1,000 per year depending on the type of cover they hold. A couple on gold cover could end up paying $1,600 a year more. The government argues that relatively few people will abandon private health insurance as a result of these changes. Given they didn't even model it, how would they know? The truth is that nobody outside government has seen the full modelling. Different forecasts point to different outcomes. The government's estimates suggest that 44,000 older Australians may leave private health insurance. However, National Seniors have warned that over 400,000 older Australians could downgrade their cover and a further 270,000 could abandon cover if premiums become unaffordable.

As I said on Monday in my private member's motion opposing this policy, National Seniors are not an insurance company, for the health minister's benefit. The health minister likes to smugly walk in here claiming we're speaking for the insurance industry. No, we are not. We on this side of the House are speaking for the millions of older Australians exposed to poorer health outcomes by this Albanese Labor government. And in my case, as shadow minister for regional health and member for Mallee, I am speaking for rural, regional and remote Australians, who will feel the pain of this policy first and hardest. Private hospitals—like the one in Lismore, New South Wales—which are already under severe pressure may close.

I understand that the underspend on rural health in Australia is now well past $8 billion. What does that actually mean? On average, about $1,000 per person is underspent on their health care just because they live in the regions. This is an absolute outrage, and I'll continue to call it out. I thank the National Rural Health Alliance for the work that they are doing on a repeat basis to ensure that this fact is well known. Their new report, I believe, is going to sound a whole bunch worse. Regional Australians die earlier. They are sicker longer. This is one of the reasons the underspend by this government is absolutely appalling—$1,000 per person. I recall the Prime Minister promising, in the 2022 election campaign, 'nobody held back, nobody left behind'. It was a slogan, and we now know that the Prime Minister's word is not his bond. This bill contains no safeguards to protect rural, regional and remote Australians most likely to suffer reduced health services as a result of this policy.

Australia's premiers get it, even the Labor ones. They oppose this travesty of a bill. It is a travesty, because it is worse than a cost shift of health burden to the states. It means people get sicker without their private health treatment. They end up in ambulances, emergency departments or wards and may be stuck there for some time. I actually heard a story the other day from someone who works in the hospital in Mildura, who said that a person had been held in a bed in the hospital because there was no aged-care bed for them to go to. I can hardly believe it. It is incomprehensible. The New South Wales health minister, Ryan Park—a Labor minister, I have to add—says that, in New South Wales alone, 80,000 people will cancel or downgrade their cover. They estimate that around 23,000 additional surgeries per annum will be necessary due to this policy. I urge the Labor government to rethink this bad policy.

It gives me great pleasure to stand here to talk about health policy, especially from this side of the House, because I'm very proud of Labor's record when it comes to health. We know that we are the party of Medicare, while they on the other side tried to destroy it. It's interesting listening to the previous member speak about certain promises that were made et cetera. I recall very well the promise made in this place by the then leader of the opposition, Mr Abbott, who said there'd be no cuts to health. In the first budget, in 2014, there was $2 billion in hospital cuts—$2 billion! You can't say that that doesn't have an effect for years to come.

That wasn't all. There was also a proposal for a $7 co-payment to Medicare a $5 reduction in Medicare rebates, and there was a proposed higher contribution for the PBS, at $5 per prescription. And not only that, let's not forget the freeze on the Medicare rebate. If they want to come in here and lecture us about health, they should have a memory of what they did whilst they were in government.

Every time that the coalition has been in government, there have been cuts to health. Whether it was the abolishment of the original Medibank—and it took a Labor government to come back and reintroduce Medicare—or the cuts of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments that pretty well destroyed our rebate system when it came to Medicare rebates for clinical visits to the doctor, it's taken this government to reintroduce many of the things that were cut and to ensure that we get health back on track. Whether it be with additional funding—for the clearest examples, there's the $1.7 billion hospital top-up for 2025-2026, paid through the Commonwealth agreement with the states and the territories; multi-year commitments such as the $8.5 billion to the Medicare package; longer-term hospital funding in 2026; and many, many other things.

You don't have to go that far back to recall what the cuts of a coalition government were doing for pensioners and older Australians when they were visiting a doctor, visiting the hospital or wanting to see a health clinic. So I'm not going to sit here and listen to their lectures about health to us on this side of the House when we know very well that every coalition government that's come in here has looked at destroying Medicare and making cuts to health, and there's evidence of this continuously.

Sometimes it's not about spending money either. This bill is about investing where money can make the greatest difference to people's lives. This Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 is founded on that principle. If you listen to the coalition, you'd think that the rebate is being cut completely and there is no rebate. Well, there still is. There's 24 per cent rebate for private health funding, just like there is for all Australians if they're under $104,000 income per year for a single. I've had people ring me in my office, thinking that there is no rebate, that the rebate's being cut, because of what has been promulgated by the other side.

This bill is about ensuring the government's support is targeted where it is most needed. It's about making the difficult but responsible decisions necessary to strengthen those aged-care services—money going into aged care—for generations of Australians who rely upon it. Australians are living longer than ever before, which is a fantastic thing; something that we should celebrate. But with an ageing population comes that growing demand for aged care: aged-care services, home-care support, residential aged-care places and workforce capacity.

Every Australian wants to know that, when they or their loved ones need aged care, the support will be there. They want shorter waiting times. They want quality care. They want more options to remain independent in their own homes and they want dignity as they age. Meeting those expectations requires investment, and it requires the government sitting down, investing in this area—and significant investment. This bill helps deliver that investment.

Under current private health insurance rebate arrangements, Australians aged 65 and over receive a rebate. Where they have exactly the same income as everyone else, they receive a slightly higher rebate. What this bill is doing is making it fair for all Australians to receive the same amount of rebate. In other words, two Australians with identical incomes can receive different levels of government support simply because one is older than the other. That's where we currently stand, and this bill addresses that. It ensures that all Australians receive the same private health insurance rebate based on their income rather than their age. It is a very modest reform but an important one because government assistance should be targeted according to the need and capacity to pay, not determined solely by age.

Importantly, this legislation does not remove the private health insurance rebate. There's 24 per cent which remains—far from it. Australians aged 65 and over will continue to receive that significant government support towards the cost of their private health insurance—unlike the other side, who froze the Medicare rebate and basically had doctor's costs when you were visiting go through the roof. That's what we saw under their government. In this case, individuals still qualify for the rebate. They'll continue to receive subsidies of up to 24 per cent of their premiums, just as other Australians do. The rebate remains. What changes is that the system becomes fairer.

As I said, the other side are promulgating that the rebate is gone. I've had people come and speak to me thinking that they will be getting no rebate. When it's explained to them, they understand it and they actually accept it and agree with us. I've had many, many discussions with constituents in my electorate. As I said, if you're under $102,000 per annum and you're over 65, you'll still receive the 24 per cent rebate. The savings that are generated are going to be reinvested directly into something that benefits older Australians: aged care. It'll be redirected into aged care. That's why this reform really matters.

The government has made that conscious decision to redirect approximately $3 billion into improving aged care services. That will mean that this change will mean more residential aged-care places, more Support at Home packages, reducing waiting times for care, and better services and support for older Australians. This is a substantial investment, and it will make a real difference to people waiting for the care that they need. When we talk about aged care, it's easy to focus on budgets and programs, but behind every aged-care package is a person, a parent, a grandparent who wishes to remain independent at home or a family trying to ensure their loved one receives the care that they deserve.

For those Australians, access to aged care is not an abstract policy debate; it is deeply personal. Every improvement we make to the aged-care system has a direct impact on people's lives. The government estimates that these changes will result in an average increase of around $250 per year for affected individuals, which is less than a dollar a day. At the same time, the savings generated will be invested directly back into aged-care services that benefit older Australians across the country. This is a case of asking those who are able to contribute a little more to help strengthen the services for everyone, and I believe most Australians understand that principle.

As I said, when I've had discussions in my electorate with constituents who are over 65 and think that the rebate is going and it's explained that 24 per cent will still remain and that if they're under $102,000 of income for a single per year they still will receive that rebate, most of them basically accept it and are quite pleased about it. Australians are fairly fair. We understand, and we understand the principle. Australians are fortunate to have one of the best public health policies in the world. Those who choose to maintain private health insurance will continue to receive the government's support—24 per cent; that's still approximately a quarter of the premium being paid for by the government—unless they're earning over $102,000. Those who choose to rely on the public system—

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