I move:

That this House:

(1) congratulates the Senate on yesterday discharging the Government's bill to tax seniors for accessing basic health care;

(2) notes that despite broad community and bipartisan opposition to the Government's cruel cuts, the Government has reintroduced yet another attack on senior Australians in the House of Representatives today;

(3) further notes that on 14 September 2026, the Government bizarrely voted to prevent its own members from speaking on its health tax bill; and

(4) calls again on the Government to not proceed with its plan to pick the pockets of older Australians to pay for its wasteful spending.

To translate for those listening to the debate today, what happened in the Senate—

Leave is not granted to move this motion.

I didn't ask for leave. What happened yesterday in the Senate was that the Senate said to the Labor Party, 'Stop your attack on senior Australians and asking them to pay for your wasteful spending.' What the Senate said was, 'Minister for health, older Australians and pensioners shouldn't pay the price for your government's failure to pull in your purse strings.' The Treasurer, who you want to replace so that you can take over and then take over from the Prime Minister, has created a spending problem in this country which sees us spending at a rate the like of which we haven't seen for 40 years. To try and make up for that, what are you doing? You're going to place a fee on older Australians—and not only on older Australians; on 1.2 million pensioners. What are you going to be asking those pensioners to pay? If they are a single, it will be an additional $800 or more a year. If they're a pensioner couple, it will be $1,600. Minister for Health and Ageing and Prime Minister, there is a cost-of-living crisis going on at the moment, and you want to do this to pensioners? But it's not only pensioners; it's self-funded retirees. They're dealing with the cost-of-living crisis, with electricity bills up 40 per cent and more tax, and yet what you want to do is hit them and hit them hard—$800, or $1,600 if you're a couple.

Once again, so people can understand what happened, the minister was saying, 'There was a Senate committee hearing and the Senate committee said, "Yes, this should go ahead."' Well, there was a Labor majority on the committee and there was a dissenting report. What happened was that the dissenters, when it came to a final vote last night, said to the minister for health, 'Go back to the drawing board.' We didn't hear anything about that from the minister for health. All we heard was this very cool, calm and collected 'There's nothing to see here.' Well, I can tell you—and I say it to the Labor Party backbench—you're out in your communities, listening to your constituencies, and they aren't liking what's going on. You're picking the pockets of everyday Australians, in any which way you can, to make up for your wasteful spending. They know that, and you know it, because we're starting to hear it through the backgrounding against the Treasurer and others. The Treasurer has been referred to as a used car salesman by someone on that backbench there, because they know it's the government's spending that is the issue, and they're failing to address it. The minister for health knows it. He's positioning to take over from the Treasurer so he can parachute straight up to the top job when the Prime Minister decides to sail into the sunset—and, given the way the Prime Minister's approval rating is falling through the floor, don't be surprised if he sails into the sunset sooner rather than later.

That's why all this Machiavellian manoeuvring is taking place within the Labor Party. It's going to be fascinating to see, with the Treasurer away, who's going to be up there today, trying to make sure—'Look at me! Look at me! I might be the one who should replace the Treasurer!' Well, I can tell you, older Australians shouldn't pay the price for your manipulating and for the Treasurer's failures. They should not. What I don't understand is how you haven't listened. The Senate last night said that this is a stupid idea, a dumb idea. Why go after older Australians? Why go after 1.2 million pensioners? These people have worked their backsides off, and they've gone into retirement after planning for that retirement and want to know that they can do so while affording private health insurance. You have just taken that away from them—absolutely taken that away from them. Why? It's not their fault. They've planned. They've saved. They've wanted to prepare for their futures. It's not their fault. It's your fault, because you can't control your spending, so you're making them pay for it.

I ask anyone from this backbench to stand up—and it's funny: when this bill was debated they didn't speak; I wonder why—and say, 'Yes, we want 1.2 million pensioners in this country to pay $800 more for their private health insurance,' which is what the bill does. I would love for you to stand up and say that. So let's hear you stand up and say—

Manager of Opposition Business, direct your comments through the chair, please.

Thanks, Deputy Speaker, I will. This is a complete and utter dog's breakfast. The government is turning into a complete and utter dog's breakfast. This is completely and utterly humiliating. The Senate has said no, but this government is so out of touch that, the morning after the bill was voted on and rejected, they're back here putting it bill straight back in—I mean, arrogance; out of touch; not listening. Our backbench has done surveys, spoken to people, done a lot of work—listening, and petitions—and it's been made been made very clear: 'We don't want this.' They don't want this. That's what they say. And they've got a message for the minister for health: you can spend your time doing puff pieces for magazines and trying to position, but there are people out there doing it hard, doing it tough. There's a cost-of-living crisis on. So while you're doing all that, get out instead and listen to your communities. If you did that, you would know that this is a stupid idea.

The last point I'll make on this is that the states are awake to it as well. They know in the end what you're doing is cost shifting. You're cost shifting onto the public health systems at the state and territory levels, and what does that mean? They are already in serious pain. The wait times are blowing out. Ambulance ramping is still occurring, and you want to put more costs on them to make up for your wasteful spending. It is an absolute disgrace. We won't stand for it and, on behalf of all older Australians, we will oppose this bill. We will keep opposing this bill. It is terrible legislation, and we will go to the next election opposing it because, older Australians, we are on your side. The Minister for Health and Ageing mightn't be on your side, but we are and we will fight this to the death.

Is there a seconder for the motion?

There sure is. I second this motion. Nobody likes a double dipper, and the minister has come in here and double dipped in the most atrocious way on a bad bill that no Australian likes. I don't know if the government gets out in their electorates, but there's not a single older person in my community that supports this bill, and there's a distinct feeling of deja vu. Yesterday the government was embarrassed in the Senate, with the coalition and the entire crossbench voting to strike Labor's private health insurance tax grab on older Australians from the parliamentary agenda. Whilst we haven't yet had time to digest the detail, we pretty much think that the minister has just reintroduced—as I said, double dipping—a bad bill. It feels a bit like Marty McFly from Back to the Future, when he shouts at the TV, 'Hey, I've seen this one,' to which the minister replies: 'What do you mean you've seen this? There's nothing to see here. It's brand new.' But, sadly, for every single older Australian and this parliament, this is not a classic.

After yesterday's embarrassing but righteous defeat you would think the government would see sense and abandon this absolutely cruel—it's not only cruel; it's dumb—policy, but no. Today the Minister for Health and Ageing spat the dummy and reintroduced his bill. He said that it's going to be introduced on 1 April 2027—an April Fool's joke for older Australians. The date says it all. It is not a joke; it is absolutely serious. He labelled the decision to strike down this proposal a travesty. What is a travesty is that the government is once again trying to impose an $11 billion hit on older Australians, with half that money coming off the back of the pensioners and older people in our community that come to you, Minister, and ask for help. And you say: 'We're not going to help you. We're going to impose more fees on you.' With the government going back to the future, the coalition will follow suit. The coalition still opposes this absolutely horrible bill. It will continue to oppose any cuts to the private health insurance rebate for older Australians.

On the government's own numbers, this was the biggest rise in private health costs for older Australians on record. Older Australians were going to be forced to pay more, wait longer and get less. But the minister came in here and said: 'It's not too much. It's only 3.2 million older Australians and 1.2 million pensioners. They're only paying, I don't know, $250 more a year. That's nothing for an older Australian.' But it's $800 more a year and $1,600 if you're a couple. He's saying: 'It's only 70c a day. Older Australians can afford that 70c. It's fine. Not many people are impacted at all. There's nothing to see here.' That is rubbish. That is an atrocious way to treat older Australians who have worked so hard for this country, and, in their older age, the minister is saying: 'You can afford that 70c a day. You can afford $800 more in this cost-of-living crisis. Don't worry about putting the heating on this year. You can put up with the cold. Don't worry about putting the air conditioning on. You can put up with the heat. Just pay more.'

Older Australians have given us so much. It is an absolutely disgusting way to treat older Australians. The government didn't even bother to work out how many of them are pensioners until stakeholders forced them to. Now we know that 1.2 million older Australians—that is not a number to be flicked away or to be dismissed. The government keeps claiming this is about fairness. They claim to be fixing generational inequity. The rebate is already based on income though. Higher earners already receive less. Keeping older Australians in private cover is exactly what takes the pressure off the system.

In Western Sydney, our public hospitals are bursting at the seams. Private health insurance helps our public hospitals. Now we're going to put more pressure them, and the health minister is absolutely happy to do that—happy to charge older Australians more, happy to put more pressure on our public hospitals, happy to extend the waitlist for surgeries, happy to put this pressure on older Australians. Right now, our system recognises something simple and fair: older Australians use more health care, and, as a country, we want to keep them under private cover, not push them into an overstretched public system. But under this government we'll pay more. Premiums are going to be jacked up simply because they're over 65—punishing them for living longer, punishing great older Australians for achieving so much in their lives. We're going to punish them for living longer.

Let's be 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. The coalition will not stand for this proposed change. We will stand up for older Australians. We reject this government's false choice between funding aged care and supporting older Australians with private health cover, because we care about older Australians.

We don't support this motion. It's another political stunt from the opposition, echoing the political stunt we saw in the other place yesterday afternoon which essentially signalled the return of the 'no-alition'—

Political stunt!

Order! Member for Fisher, it is highly disorderly to interject, even from your own seat, and, as a former speaker, you should know that.

It's the return under the new leader of the Greens, Senator Shoebridge, of a determination by the opposition and the Greens party to team up and thwart every sensible measure this government seeks to bring before this parliament at such difficult times. The Manager of Opposition Business talks about arrogance. There wasn't even a debate in this parliament. There wasn't even a debate in the other place about the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. No attempt was made by senators to make the argument that at least the Manager of Opposition Business and the member for Lindsay have made this morning about some very serious issues presented by this proposition: issues of intergenerational equity, cost of living and aged-care services, which the Manager of Opposition Business describes in his motion as 'wasteful spending'.

No argument has been made about the equity issues that are rightly raised by this question. As I said in my introduction to this bill, the Howard government, extraordinarily, had to amend the Age Discrimination Act to protect itself against legal action by Australians under the age of 65 over around what was clearly a discriminatory application of government policy—

Every consecutive government has supported it!

The member for Fisher, would you like to leave the room? I am asking you to behave and listen to advice. Sorry, Minister. Member for Fisher, I've asked you so many times to not interject, and you have completely disregarded me. Are you going to continue to do that, or can you sit there and participate in the debate as everybody else? Are you going to continue defy my asking of you to stop interjecting? Is that your intention?

It was my intention.

Well, then, under 94(a) I'll ask you to leave the chamber.

The member for Fisher then left the chamber.

No reasoned argument about equity. The member for Lindsay just said, 'Oh, it does apply equitably because it's means tested.' Yes, but a 64-year-old living next door to a 65-year-old receives an entirely different private health insurance subsidy, even if they're on exactly the same income.

And the 64-year-old has to turn 65 to get the benefit of it!

Well, make the argument! You didn't make that argument, Manager of Opposition Business!

Manager of Opposition Business, you had 10 minutes.

The opposition get up and use industry talking points time and time again about the implications of this measure, just as they did 13 years ago, when the industry said that 1.6 million people would leave private health insurance if it was means tested, and 850,000 additional people would present to hospitals if the rebate was means-tested. None of it happened. None of it happened, just as 880 pharmacies didn't close when we introduced 60-day dispensing. The opposition is addicted to parroting industry talking points instead of using its own brain and analysing measures on their merits.

What we also haven't heard from the opposition is an alternative fiscal management strategy. What I still haven't heard from the opposition is: are you proposing that we not introduce the additional beds and the additional packages, which are described by the Manager of Opposition Business as 'wasteful spending' in his motion? Or is the opposition proposing an alternative funding stream to find another $3 billion, or $11 billion over the medium term? If so, what is it? Over the months of this debate, the opposition has refused to confirm whether it intends to cut aged-care services back or to find some alternative funding mechanism.

Importantly, what this parliament needs to understand is that we should never listen to the opposition about aged care, because we all remember what that government did over nine years to aged-care services. We remember the cuts to aged care in 2015, 2016 and 2017—cuts that were returned to consolidated revenue and, unsurprisingly, pushed the aged-care sector into crisis. It was a crisis writ large in the Four Corners report that we all remember and then, over months and months of the royal commission, it was titled with one word: neglect. The stories we heard from that royal commission about the implications of that government's inability to manage aged-care services and its cruel cuts to the aged-care budget are I think exactly why the Manager of Opposition Business stands up and moves the motion that describes our additional investment in aged-care services as 'wasteful spending'. We're not going to take any lectures from the opposition about how to manage an aged-care sector that they drove into crisis through budget cuts and a total inability—

Order! Manager of Opposition Business, you have 10 minutes of your own. Just quieten it down.

to come to grips with the very serious reform challenges facing a sector confronted with an unprecedented boom in demand caused by the ageing of the baby boomer population. They did worse than nothing.

What we've had to do over the last five years is to clean up their mess, to implement the royal commission recommendations, which they failed to do, and then to find a way to expand aged-care services at an unprecedented rate. We have tripled the number of Support at Home packages. I've acknowledged publicly, and in this place, that we are still struggling to keep up with demand, at a time when the oldest baby boomers, who were born in 1946, 1947 and 1948, are hitting their 80s and reaching that period of their life where they need more aged-care services. Instead of having a reasoned debate either here or in the Senate about how we can do that and how we find the funds to do that in a responsible, fiscal way, they team up with the Greens again, just like they did in the last term. They resurrect the no-alition. How they convinced the Greens party to do that after what it meant for the Greens' House of Representatives members at the election in 2025 is still a marvel to me. But congratulations to the Manager of Opposition Business and his equivalents in the Senate for leading the Greens off the plank again to decide to team up and do the political bidding of a coalition that is determined to take an irresponsible approach to aged-care services and to fiscal management.

They stand up here, question time after question time, and pretend to be the guardians of strong fiscal management, a government that delivered its last budget with not a single dollar in savings—not a single dollar in savings in the 2022 budget—by the prodigal son, Josh Frydenberg, who has now admitted he spent too much money, a position echoed by the Leader of the Opposition. If only he were in a position to do something about it. He was not willing to stand at this dispatch box and take hard decisions and make hard choices in a budget to recognise the need for the expansion of aged-care services. No, instead he was willing to put it all on the credit card. That was the approach of Josh Frydenberg, and at the time I didn't hear a whisper from the Manager of Opposition Business to say, 'Maybe we should be a little bit more careful about the government's budget.' No, they haven't learned.

The Greens party in the other place haven't learned. They're determined to thwart every serious policy measure we bring to this parliament at a time when the country has some serious challenges. There is no more serious challenge, I don't think, than the challenge of supporting the needs of a growing group of Australians aged over 80. They have built this country. They have worked so hard to build this country, and they deserve aged-care services that are high quality, that are staffed well and that are expanding at a rate that reflects that demographic expansion. And the opposition has had nothing to say about that, absolutely nothing. They are too focused on the politics. They are not focused on serious policy. They're paying lip service to sound fiscal management. We see this yet again in the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business.

I'd like to ask the health minister if, given his position that older Australians shouldn't receive different health cover than younger Australians and that everyone should receive the same access to the same supports, his position is that older Australians aged over 65 should get access to the NDIS. (Time expired).

The question is that the motion be agreed to.