My question is to the Prime Minister. Last Tuesday, the Minister for Health and Ageing said:

… you can't be serious about strengthening Medicare without strengthening women's health.

But the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says Labor's cruel cuts to people's private health cover will lead to 'increased private health insurance costs, particularly older women who require gynaecological care'. Prime Minister, why is Labor making it harder for women to access the health care they need?

I thank the member for Capricornia for her question, and I will make some comments before I refer it to the Minister for Health and Ageing. My government is really proud of the fact that we have introduced the largest-ever women's health program in Australia's history. It's not only a specific program aimed at women's health care, but there's also the benefit that women have received from cheaper medicines, the opening of 137 urgent care clinics—including one I've been to in the member for Capricornia's electorate that I went to very early on; it was one of the first ones we did—and $25 billion of additional funding that we've provided to states and territories for the health and hospitals agreement. I'll refer further detail to the minister.

If I can add to the Prime Minister's remarks, we deal, obviously, with this college, as we do all other colleges, very regularly, and they've been an important partner as we've rolled out the women's health package to which the member referred. Most recently, I think, we've announced the centres of excellence to improve access and affordability for long-acting contraception, which has been an important piece of work we've done with that particular college.

Like a number of stakeholders in the health sector, submissions have been made by colleges around the changes that we're proposing to the private health insurance rebate to the Senate inquiry that is still underway, as the member probably knows, and that is due to report in October. We're tracking those submissions and the evidence that is being given.

But let me briefly, in the time I have left, reiterate why we are doing this, which is to find necessary savings to fund more beds in aged care, more packages at home and better care, particularly changing the co-contribution arrangements—which I think have been advocated by the opposition, among others—around showering and other hygiene activities. The changes that we make will restore the private health insurance rebate arrangements to their original design, which did not differentiate between members or private health insurance holders based on their age. They will treat households living next to each other based on their income equally.

Also, a lot of the commentary, including by some of the medical colleges, about the impact of these changes on private health insurance membership is, frankly, we think, just wrong. It doesn't reflect our modelling. It doesn't reflect independent modelling from the University of Melbourne. It tends simply to channel the pretty self-serving modelling we see from the insurance industry.