My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. For months, Minister Butler has told Australians that only 44,000 people will drop their private health insurance under Labor's plans to cut the additional rebate for those over the age of 65—44,000 people. He has repeated that number again and again. But a secret briefing released under freedom of information shows that 44,000 is only the initial effect of the policy and that, by 2029-30, the number of people dropping private health insurance will reach 78,000, almost double the number the minister has repeatedly quoted. Minister, a simple question—does the government concede that its own department found 78,000 older Australians will drop their cover under this policy?

The estimate of around 44,000 in 2028-29 is the most accurate reflection of the effect of the proposed change. The modelling does extend beyond that, but the reliability of that modelling decreases over time, and that is because assumptions about behaviour, economic conditions and policy settings become less certain over time.

Order!

Despite the change, the overall number of people with private health insurance is expected to continue to increase, including people aged over 65, as it has consistently for the last five years. I would make this point—that the government is determined to invest in aged care in particular and the requirements of older Australians, and it is—

Minister Wong?

Could you ask Senator Ruston to desist on the interjections?

I have. Senator Ruston, you've asked your question. I think the chamber, including me, would like to hear the answer. So, if you could just desist, that would assist me. Minister McAllister, please continue.

The government has decided to make changes to the way that we offer the private-health insurance rebate and to return the savings derived from that to aged care. It is a very different approach to the approach taken by those opposite, who never generated savings and who were unable to find the savings that were necessary to meet the pressures on the budget, including the pressures associated with aged care.

It is a curious thing, I think, for those opposite to start to answer, because there is a lot of discussion about the need to reduce expenditure, say, from Senator Hume or from Mr Wilson, who says that home aged-care packages need to be controlled, but Angus Taylor didn't back him in. Mr Taylor didn't back him in when he was asked about that. He won't say, in fact, where he will make cuts. All we hear— (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, first supplementary.

The same briefing to which I refer admits that the department 'was not aware of reliable and complete data on pensioners at the time this policy was announced'. Your government simply assumed only a limited number of full-rate pensioners would hold gold or silver cover. It was only after Senate scrutiny that your government admitted that around 700,000 full-rate pensioners will be hit by this change. Why did you announce this cut before doing the work to find out who would be hit by it, which seems to be a hallmark of the Albanese Labor government. (Time expired)

Senator Ruston refers to hallmarks. I think we understand very clearly what the hallmarks were of the previous government when it came to health, because it was the coalition, of course, that froze the private-health insurance rebate, increasing out-of-pocket costs for Australians. It was the coalition that attempted to introduce—

Senator Ruston?

On a point of order on relevance, I don't believe that the answer of the minister goes anywhere near to being relevant to the question that I have asked.

I will draw the minister to your question.

The senator asks about the hallmarks of health, and what I will say is that this government is determined to invest in public health, an $8½ billion investment in Medicare, so that public health is available for Australians when they need it.

Senator Ruston, a point of order?

Once again on relevance. I really cannot understand how anything the minister saying is relevant to my question.

I drew the minister to your question in the first instance because she was referring to the previous government's policy. The minister is now being directly relevant to your question.

The government is determined to make the investments that are necessary for care for Australians, including older Australians, and it includes directing an additional $3 billion from the savings made by this initiative, a responsible— (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, second supplementary.

The minister keeps talking about fairness. We're talking about Australians who've paid private health insurance for decades. They did the right thing on the basis that they'd have a little extra help to keep their insurance in retirement. Now, by the department's own figures, a 70-year-old on gold cover will need to find an extra $643 a year. Pensioners live on fixed incomes. They cannot ask for a pay rise. They cannot pick up extra shifts. Minister, how is that fair?

We will continue to make investments in aged care. We understand that this will not be a welcome decision for many older Australians, but it is the right one, because it allows an additional $3 billion to be invested in delivering more aged-care beds, more packages and better care for older Australians. It reflects the increased investment that has been made to aged care in our time in office. The per-bed rate that we pay residential aged-care providers has increased for the care they provide by 65 per cent per bed in just four years. Last year we increased the number of home-care places by 25 per cent. Assessment wait times are down very substantially, and people who need an aged-care package at home urgently are getting it within a month. We continue to make the investments that are necessary to support older Australians.