My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the Albanese Labor government managing the budget responsibly, and how will this lead to better services for older Australians? What is standing in the way?

I thank the member for his question. We have a very responsible measure now back before the budget, after it was opposed in the Senate—the 'noalition' is back: the Liberal Party, the National Party, One Nation and the Greens political party. Now, whether someone is 64 or 65, they will receive the same private health rebate. What could be fairer than that?

The Leader of the Nationals is now warned.

Under our legislation, which is back before the House of Representatives, the system will be based on a person's income, not their age, and that is a reasonable thing. Savings of $3 billion is a part of this, with every single dollar going straight back into funding aged care. But you can't come before—

The member for Bowman is warned.

You can't come before the parliament and say that we need tighter fiscal policy and less spending and then oppose every single saving that is before the parliament. The argument put forward by the Leader of the Liberal Party across the chamber that you need more health care as you get older is the reason why the rebate should be the same whether you are 64 or 65 or 70 or 75. It is not a higher rebate if you are older; it is the same rebate. The logic is simply not there.

The member for Casey is warned.

And the Liberal Party, of course, over there in the Senate—some of them—got a shock that the Greens political party, who say they oppose private health insurance, voted with them in the Senate. So this saving has gone down, and it builds on our record of responsible economic management. Every budget has contained savings, unlike those opposite. The over $230 billion improvement to the budget bottom line and almost $180 billion in savings adds to the $110 billion in unfunded promises that they've committed to since the current leader of the opposition filled that position.

I ask the member for Forrest to leave the chamber under 94(a) for continual and disrespectful interjections.

The member for Forrest then left the chamber.