My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator McKenzie. Under the Abbott-Turnbull government, private health insurance premiums have risen 27 per cent. Can the minister confirm that, on average, families are paying over $1,000 a year more than they were in 2013?

I thank Senator Kitching for her question. I'm incredibly proud of Australia's world-class health system. We've got a great combination of a public health system underpinned, thanks to this government, by a Medicare guarantee, and a world-class PBS system where you can purchase drugs, lifesaving in many cases and worth thousands of dollars, for $38. And we also have a strong private health insurance system, which ensures that those 13 million Australians that choose to go through the private health system can purchase insurance to assist them with that.

But we acknowledge there has been an issue with private health insurance and the affordability and simplification of the insurance system for many, many years. That's why, under our government, there has been the lowest increase to private health insurance premiums in 17 years, at 3.95 per cent—which those opposite know runs below health inflation, which runs at over four per cent. So we are under health inflation.

We've made other changes to the private health insurance system through meaningful reforms. For those living in rural and regional Australia, you can package up insurance packages that include travel and accommodation. We're making young people incentivised to take up private health insurance. In fact, we are committing to ensuring—

Senator Kitching on a point of order?

My question was quite specific. It was: can the minister confirm that, on average, families are paying over $1,000 a year more than they were in 2013? The minister has alluded to the fact that the government understands that there is a problem. What I am asking is that the minister either answer the questions that she's been asked, or she can come back and tell us later if she doesn't know now.

Senator Kitching, your question also included a preamble prior to that. I consider the minister to be directly addressing the terms of the complete question as asked. I can't instruct a minister how to answer a question, but it is relevant to the terms of it.

In terms of Senator Kitching's question, I'm very, very happy to go to rate increase and affordability of private health insurance over the long term. And I'm very happy to go, indeed, Senator Kitching, to when your side of politics held the health portfolio.

If we want to go to affordability of private health insurance for 13 million Australians: in 2008-09, there was an increase of six per cent per annum on insurance premiums; in 2009-10— (Time expired)

Senator Kitching, a supplementary question?

Given that I didn't receive an answer to my first question, I'll give the minister another opportunity. The Prime Minister promised to, 'Make private health insurance more affordable'. Can you explain why the Prime Minister is so out of touch that he considers a $1,000 hit to the family budget to be affordable?

On our side of the chamber, we are very, very proud to be making private health insurance more affordable and simpler through our meaningful reforms. I outlined several of those to the senator in my last answer. I'm very happy to go to the track record. I know you're keen to talk up Mr Shorten's Press Club address and the two per cent cap, but I'm really happy to go to Labor's actual track record, not just their empty words.

In fact, in 2010-11, when you guys held the health portfolio, premiums increased by 5.5 per cent, and in 2011-12, again, five per cent, over health inflation. In 17 years, this is the lowest level of premium increase. No, it's not enough, but it is a start, an incredible start, and we've been making a tranche of reforms to make it simpler and more affordable for a wideranging number of Australians.

Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question.

Last month, Minister Hunt admitted that problems in private health insurance have built up 'on our watch, in our time,' and 'it's our responsibility to fix it.' Can the minister explain to Australian families paying over $1,000 more a year why the Turnbull government has failed to do anything to fix it?

Senator Kitching, thank you for your third try but I'm very, very happy to outline the meaningful reforms we're actually implementing. You're right; there is more to do. Thirteen million Australians choose to hold private health insurance policies, and we want to support them, because if we cut the rebate—which, as we all know, Labor hates, private health insurance. I simply need to go to the comments of the former health minister, Tanya Plibersek, in 2016: 'Every single promise I made, I paid for.' How did she pay for it? 'I paid for it by targeting private health insurance.' That is what the Australian people need—

Order! Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Collins, on a point of order.

The point of order is relevance. The minister was asked about Minister Hunt's statement about these problems having occurred 'on our watch'—in his words—and that 'it's our responsibility to fix it.' This minister is going back well beyond the period of time this question relates to and her own minister's admissions.

Senator Collins, I have got notes of the question. I believe the question could interpret the word 'our' to cover multiple periods of time. Senator McKenzie.

I'm happy to go to something much more relevant.

Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Kitching? Don't restate the question.

No; on a point of order, Mr President.

Yes?

The quote cannot go to other times. It was a quote given by Minister Hunt and it's 'on our watch'. The quote is a direct quote from the Minister for Health.

The quote is a direct quote, but that quote the minister is free to interpret because it could actually refer to multiple periods of time. It could refer to the time beyond a person's time in parliament or as a minister. The minister was being relevant to the question as asked. It had a preamble and it covered a period of time. Senator Wong, on the point of order?

On the point of order, and I've just been nodding—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Collins, I'm trying to listen to Senator Wong.

Thank you, Mr President. I haven't been inclined to engage in the point of order debate but I am concerned by the intervention you just made, because the intervention you just made implies that direct relevance, under you, will now have no temporal limitation—that a quote from today implies a capacity to discuss things from previously. I invite you to consider, Mr President, the wisdom of that assessment.

Senator Cormann.

On the same point of order: I fully support the way you have ruled on the previous point of order, on the basis that any quote out of context can be interpreted by the minister the same way as it was interpreted in a partisan fashion by the questioner. As you say so often, Mr President, you can't direct the minister how to answer the question. Of course, just because an opposition senator asserts that a particular quote is meant a particular way doesn't mean that the government has to accept that.

In my view, the minister is relevant to the terms of the question. It had a preamble and a question at the end. The minister.

I'm really, really comfortable to go to what the AMA president, Mr Gannon, actually said about Labor's approach to addressing private health— (Time expired)