Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

With grave concern about what will be contained in tonight's budget, I rise to speak on the coalition motion. From leaked documents and media reporting, it can only be assumed that Australians are facing yet more broken promises, along with more and higher taxes. One of these is the reckless decision, pre-emptively announced by the Minister for Health and Ageing several weeks ago, that the Albanese Labor government intends to reduce the private health insurance rebate for policyholders aged over 65.

For many older Australians, including many in my home state of Tasmania, holding private health insurance is not a luxury. It is how they access timely and affordable care when they need it most. This change, which those opposite are attempting to frame as an issue of intergenerational equity, ignores the context and reasons the rebate was higher for this cohort in the first place: older Australians access the health system more frequently and generally have lower incomes.

This decision will hit Australians in the hip pocket—Australians who deserve our respect, after spending years and, in many cases, decades paying for private health insurance, in line with government policy at the time, only to now see that support ripped away. Analysis by Private Healthcare Australia has laid bare the damaging consequences of cutting the private health rebate for over-65s. The decision will harm around 3.2 million older Australians, including hundreds of thousands of pensioners living on fixed incomes. That analysis shows couples aged over 65 with gold cover could face additional costs of up to $1,614 a year. This would represent the largest increase in private health insurance costs on record, right in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. It is effectively a new tax on older Australians.

This issue is particularly acute in Tasmania, where the population is older than the national average and many seniors live on low fixed incomes. Tasmanian health insurer St Lukes found that, among affected members, one in four has an income of less than $30,000 and three in four have an income of less than $55,000. This puts into sharp context the claims from those opposite that this is merely about fairness. In reality, it will disproportionately impact older Australians with lower levels of disposable income. The Minister for Health, Mental Health and Wellbeing in Tasmania, Bridget Archer, has stated that this decision was deeply concerning and would force many older Tasmanians to downgrade or to leave private health insurance altogether, forcing them into the Tasmanian public health system. She has also claimed that, much like we're seeing with Tasmanians stranded in our hospitals and GP access, this is yet another cost shift from the Commonwealth government to the states, with Tasmanians to suffer as a result.

Framing this decision is one of intergenerational equity is a slap in the face to older Australians—and their families—who have worked hard throughout their lives and made significant contributions to our economy. Families caring for older parents and grandparents want and need their loved ones to receive timely and affordable care. If private health insurance helps deliver that care, they should be supported, not blamed for this government's failure to properly invest in aged care. Older Australians are not responsible for government's shortfall in aged-care infrastructure. That responsibility rests squarely with the government itself. Knee-jerk bandaid measures such as cutting the rebate, introducing new aged-care co-payments and rolling out AI driven assessments will not deliver the reform the aged-care system needs. Instead, they will further disadvantage older Australians who are already struggling to make ends meet.

Labor's treatment of older Australians could not be clearer. Indeed, Minister Butler attempted to bury this announcement beneath a National Press Club speech on the NDIS, seemingly in the hope that no-one would notice. You do not hide good policy. The reality is that older Australians' health will pay the price for this decision. It is no exaggeration to say that many will be forced onto public waiting lists because they cannot absorb the increased costs of private health insurance. Yet public hospitals across the country are already overstretched and overburdened. This shift will lead to longer elective surgery waitlists, more ambulance ramping and poorer health outcomes.

For older Australians, timely and affordable access to care can quite literally mean the difference between life and death. Medical treatment can be life saving and life extending for many. For Labor to frame this decision solely around intergenerational equity is misleading and fails to recognise its real-world consequences. This is not just about numbers; it's about people's health. This is yet another broken promise from a Labor government that claimed it would ease the pressure on public hospitals. Australians do not deserve a budget of broken promises and high taxes tonight.