PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (11:59): I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) private health insurance is an important component of Australia's health care system, providing greater choice while reducing demand on the public system; (b) more than 3.1 million Australians aged 65 years and over hold private hospital cover, with many maintaining it over decades to provide greater certainty over their healthcare as they age; (c) the Government's proposed changes to the private health insurance rebate for Australians aged 65 years and over will increase the cost of private health insurance for older Australians; (d) on 12 August 2026, National Seniors Australia (NSA) released the results of a survey examining how older Australians may respond to the proposed rebate changes; (e) of the 2,042 respondents: (i) 8.4 per cent indicated they were considering dropping their hospital cover; and (ii) 12.5 per cent were considering reducing their level of hospital cover; (f) NSA estimates that, if the survey findings were reflected across the wider population, up to 270,000 older Australians could drop their hospital cover and up to 400,000 could reduce their level of cover, significantly exceeding the Government's estimates; (g) NSA reports that the real cost could exceed $1,000 per year for a couple holding gold hospital cover; (h) older Australians, particularly pensioners and those on fixed incomes, should not have to choose between maintaining health insurance and paying for the essentials; and (i) measures that encourage older Australians to downgrade or discontinue private hospital cover risk transferring additional demand to an already stretched public hospital system, with potentially disproportionate consequences for rural and regional patients; and (2) calls on the Government to: (a) release transparent modelling of the expected impact of the changes on: (i) private health insurance premiums and participation; (ii) older Australians, including pensioners and people with gold hospital cover; (iii) the number of full aged pensioners who will be forced to pay more for private health insurance; (iv) demand for elective surgery and other services within the public hospital system; and (v) rural and regional health services; and (b) explain the discrepancy between the Government's estimated financial impact and the potential costs and behavioural responses identified by NSA.

I rise to speak on this motion and present this motion to call out the Albanese Labor government's failure yet again to understand that Australians are not stupid. They treat Australians as though they're stupid. This cut to the private health insurance rebate for those over the age of 65 is a hit on older Australians.

What the government says is that this is actually going to benefit older Australians, because the $3 billion of thought savings will go into aged care, but what we know is that the numbers just don't stack up. The simple question Labor cannot answer is: how many older Australians will be worse off under this change, and what will happen when some of them can no longer afford private health cover?

More than 3.1 million Australians are going to be impacted by this cut to the rebate. Of those, 1.2 million Australians are pensioners. These are people who do not have a wealth of funds behind them to pay increases of up to $1,600 for a couple.

That is a huge difference when you are living on a small amount each week in a cost-of-living crisis where people cannot afford to put food on their table and they cannot afford to turn the heater on. To keep their private health insurance going is a priority for our older Australians because they know that the body breaks down as you age and that you do need surgeries, such as hip replacements, knee replacements and cataract surgeries.

These all cost money. What the Labor government has failed to acknowledge here is that it will simply cause a greater burden on the public health system. The estimation by National Seniors is that 400,000 people will reduce their cover, often taking them out of gold to silver, which will mean that those surgeries will not be able to occur, so they'll go onto the public health surgery waiting list.

National Seniors Australia estimates 270,000 will drop their cover altogether. This is not good for anybody. Even our state premiers are calling this out as a bad decision.

It is not a smart decision for the budget. It is not a smart decision for health care for our older Australians. While the minister, Mark Butler, would like to say that this is about equity and intergenerational fairness, no, it's not.

Australians who are older than 65 have been paying into their private health insurance for decades. That's called investment—investment in their future. It's called being responsible for their future so that they can look after their own health care as they age.

Now what we have, according to the minister, is fairness, where young people who are in their 20s and 30s will actually be paying the same amount as those over 65. We paid that amount when we were 25 and 30 and 35 as well. It is not a fairness issue.

It is about taking money from those who are over 65. It's about reducing that responsibility and rewarding that responsibility of our over-65s. Labor gaslights Australians once again, saying changes will be marginal—read 'nothing to see here'.

If that is so, why won't the minister release the modelling? If older people drop their private cover, they will have no choice but to join the queue in the public system, which matters everywhere but is diabolical in regional and rural areas. Out in the regions, we do not have enough doctors.

We do not have enough hospital beds. We do not have enough allied health. Out in the regions, when people drop their private health cover, it is often the only way they're going to get surgery in under two years, and it means that they will have to travel to other centres in order to get that care that they need.

This is not only not fair but also completely unjust. The New South Wales minister for health stated that this burden is likely to be $100 million on the New South Wales state health budget. That's pretty significant, and that's one state, let alone the other states.

So this is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it is fundamentally unfair. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Fernando ): Is there a seconder for this motion? Dr Ryan: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.