Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026

Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:38): From the outset, I want to say that I oppose the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 because there is nothing modern about making health care more expensive for older Australians. This bill strips away the additional private health insurance rebate for Australians aged 65 and over and imposes an $11 billion hit on people who have spent decades working, saving and paying their own way.

Labor calls it modernisation. Older Australians call this for what it is. This is nothing other than a tax grab.

For Australians aged between 65 and 69, the additional rebate will be cut by four percentage points. For those aged 70 and over, it will be cut by eight percentage points. From April next year, some couples aged over 65 with gold hospital cover could pay up to $1,614 more on their private health insurance every year, simply to keep the same policy.

For an individual, that increase could be as much as $807 a year. For some couples, that's a 21.3 per cent increase. That is not modernisation.

That is a health tax on seniors. What makes this policy even worse is what we've learned since the government announced it. The Department of Health, Disability and Ageing admitted that Labor announced this $11 billion measure without first working out how many pensioners would be impacted.

Can you believe that? They announced an $11 billion tax on pensioners without even working out how many people this would impact. Only after pressure from stakeholders and the coalition did the department go back and do its maths, and the result was around 1.2 million pensioners potentially affected.

Many are living on fixed incomes with very little ability to simply earn more money to cover yet another rising household cost. Yet the government did not even count them before they announced this policy. That is not careful health policy.

It is a cash grab designed first, and, 'We'll think about the consequences later.' The people Labor is targeting have done exactly what governments have asked them to do for decades. They worked hard. They saved.

They budgeted. They maintained private health insurance because they wanted certainty over their health care and they wanted to take responsibility for themselves. They paid their own way where they could and, in doing so, helped reduce pressure on the public health system.

Many maintained that cover through decades of rising premiums because they believed that it was the responsible thing for them to do. These Australians should be thanked. They shouldn't reach retirement and discover that Canberra, this government, has suddenly decided that their health cover is just another source of revenue.

That $807, or $1,614 if you're a couple, may not sound like much money to people in this room. It may not sound like much money to people around the cabinet table, but speak to any pensioner on the Sunshine Coast or around the country and ask them what $800 means. Ask a retired couple what $1,600 means.

I've done it; I've asked them. For them, it's groceries, it's electricity, it's insurance, it's fuel, it's medication and it's the ability to pay their rates. That's the reality of living on a fixed income—'fixed' being the operative word.

You can't simply work another Saturday or ask the boss for some overtime. When Canberra adds another major household cost, something else has to give. Patricia from Dicky Beach, in my electorate, is a retired widow.

She lives on the age pension. She and her late husband sacrificed over many years to maintain private health insurance because they valued continuity of care and the security it provided. They made the responsible choice, like millions of others before them.

Labor now wants her to pay more for making that choice. John from Golden Beach is 68. He receives a part age pension and he rents.

He has to rent his home. His rent has gone up. His everyday costs have gone up.

His household budget is already under significant pressure. Now Labor wants to add another private health insurance cost increase on top of those cost-of-living costs that they're wearing already. These are not wealthy Australians sitting on limitless savings.

They know exactly what comes in every fortnight and exactly what goes out. One of the most foolish aspects of this policy is that it may ultimately cost the health system more than it saves. Independent modelling from Finity Consulting estimates that for every dollar the Commonwealth saves, the public health system could face around $1.20 in additional costs.

Save a dollar; create $1.20 problem for the states. This is a false economy designed to make the federal budget look better while shifting the real cost onto the states. Canberra takes the saving; the state government inherits the problems.

Public hospitals inherit the waiting lists, and taxpayers pay through the nose. Older Australians do not stop needing health care because they can no longer afford private cover. Their knees still need replacing.

Their cataracts still need surgery. Cardiac conditions still need treatment. Mental health conditions still need care.

Australians aged 65 and over accounted for more than 2½ million private hospital admissions in 2024-25. If large numbers are pushed out of private cover, they do not disappear from the health system. They move back into the public system.

That means longer elective surgery queues, greater pressure on emergency departments and fewer resources for everybody else waiting to see a doctor. The government itself concedes around 44,000 Australians could abandon private health insurance because of these changes. External modelling by Medibank suggests that number could be as high as 91,000 people.

Labor has also failed to properly model how many people will remain insured but downgrade their cover. Previous industry research suggests more than 250,000 older Australians could drop or downgrade altogether. That matters because older Australians disproportionately hold gold and silver policies covering procedures they are more likely to need, including joint replacements, cataract surgery and cardiac services.

Someone may technically remain insured after downgrading, but, if the treatment they need is no longer covered, they're still pushed back towards the public system. Labor says that this policy is about addressing so-called generational inequity. I totally and utterly reject that argument.

Age is not some arbitrary characteristic in health care. It affects the level of health care people require, the type of cover they need and their ability to absorb premium increases. A 72-year-old pensioner is not in the same financial or healthcare position as someone aged 35 working full-time.

There was a clear reason the Howard government introduced additional support for older Australians. Older Australians are more likely to be on fixed incomes, are higher users of hospital services and have less capacity to absorb major premium shocks. Keeping them in private health insurance also reduces pressure on the public system.

That is sound public health policy. This is not simply a coalition argument. Queensland, Tasmania, New South Wales and South Australia have all raised opposition or serious concerns about this measure.

In Labor and coalition states alike, the governments that actually operate our public hospitals are warning Canberra about the pressure this policy will create. Medibank, HCF and Bupa have warned the changes will fall hardest on poorer retirees and older Australians in regional communities. The AMA has questioned whether there will be any genuine net savings once pressure on hospitals is discounted.

Doctors are concerned, insurers are concerned, state governments are concerned and pensioners are sure as hell concerned. How many warnings does this government need? This matters enormously to my electorate of Fisher, where more than 22 per cent of the population is aged over 65.

We're proud to be one of the places in Australia to live, work and retire. But regional communities already face challenges accessing timely health care. The coalition's position is clear we oppose these cuts, and we will fight them in this parliament and in the Senate.

Australians who have spent decades maintaining private health insurance should be supported to keep it. Following the budget in May, I launched a petition calling on the Albanese government to reverse these cuts. The response has been extraordinary; 10,340 Australians have signed this petition. 10,340 Australians have told the Prime Minister and health minister to keep their hands off the health cover older Australians have worked, saved and budgeted for throughout their lives.

These are pensioners, self-funded retirees and families worried about their parents and grandparents. They understand this means real money coming out of household budgets. They understand it may mean deciding whether they can keep the health cover they've paid for over decades.

This is more than a petition. It's a warning. 10,340 Australians have put their names on paper to say, 'Enough.' This parliament should listen. On that note, I seek leave to table a petition containing 10,340 signatures from Australians opposed to the government's changes to the private health insurance rebate.

Leave not granted. Mr WALLACE: That says it all. More than 10,340 Australians have put their names to this petition, opposing this policy, and this gutless government won't even let these 10,340 Australians have their position tabled in this parliament.

What a disgrace. This government is a disgrace. It is prepared to make some older couples pay more than $1,600 a year simply to maintain the same gold hospital cover, but, apparently, hearing directly from the Australians who will pay that bill is a step too far.

Those signatures may not be sitting on the table of this House, but the Australians behind them are not going away. They are pensioners and retirees who have worked, saved and maintained private health insurance because they wanted certainty over their care, because they knew they were helping reduce pressure on the public health system. They did the very thing that this government, and the previous government, and the government before that, and governments for years have encouraged Australians to do—to look after themselves.

Now the Albanese government is ripping those rebates away and is going to drive up the cost of living even further for elderly pensioners. What a disgrace. State governments have raised concerns.

Doctors, insurers, private hospitals and senior groups have raised concerns. Now 10,340 Australians have raised their voices in protest. Refusing leave does not make these signatures disappear.

It does not make the extra $807 disappear for individuals. It doesn't make the $1,614 disappear for couples. It does not make the patients who could be pushed into public hospitals disappear.

Labor can shift the costs on a spreadsheet, but they can't shift the costs for these pensioners. They are coming for you at the next election. The coalition will be reminding them every single day that you have driven up their costs.

Shame on this government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Garland ): Before we proceed to the next speaker, I'd like to remind the member for Fisher, and indeed all members, that the standing orders and Practice are quite clear about opportunities to table petitions in the parliament. Mr Wallace: The government could have given leave.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do not have the call, Member for Fisher.