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

Mr REBELLO (McPherson) (18:11): This bill that we are asked to debate right now, the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026, goes to the essence of the kind of country that we want to be, because we have a choice. The government has a choice, and it's still not too late for them to make the right choice.

But we need to make sure that we understand exactly what that choice is that we are being asked to make and what this government is putting us through, and it is a choice that is asking the government whether we're going to reward those Australians who have not just done the right thing but done what the government has asked them to do. If we start to unpack what these changes mean and what this bill is actually asking this parliament to consider, many years ago, under the Howard government, John Howard and that government implemented this higher rebate for older Australians—65 plus.

The purpose of this was to incentivise those people who at the time were not older Australians. They were younger Australians who were in the workforce and probably trying to manage their finances quite prudently. He was asking them to save a bit extra and invest that into private health insurance not just for them but for the country.

If they did so, they'd be doing two things. Firstly, they'd be easing the burden or guaranteed easier access to private health insurance when they got to those years, 65 plus, when they would need to rely on Australia's health system and our private health system. But they would also do a second thing: take pressure off the public system.

Those on that side of the House—and I think it's really telling. I know I've listened to some incredible contributions from some of my colleagues, including the member for Flinders just before. It's telling that in this place the government talks about their love of Medicare, their love of what they're doing for the Australian people and fairness in terms of health care but there are very few government speakers on the speaking list for this.

I think that's telling because at the end of the day this motion or this bill goes to the heart of making sure that we have not just a sustainable private health system but a sustainable public health system. When we look at who this is actually going to affect—yes, it's going to affect older Australians. But there is a misconception here that the government is trying to play on.

It's not affecting the top end of town, not at all. It's affecting those who are most vulnerable. Not only are they most vulnerable because they're at the stage of their life where they actually need to rely on these health services—you can look at the facts.

There was some modelling done by the Parliamentary Budget Office as recently as this week. It says that around 1.5 million people received the age pension, and they're the ones who are involved in the private health insurance schemes. It's actually affecting those who are most vulnerable and who are quite frankly in a desperate situation that this government has put them in.

Like I said, it goes to the kind of country that we want to be. In my view—and I said this in my first speech in this place—we want to be a country where we incentivise people who are going to do the right thing to not only secure its own future but also take the pressure off the government to make sure we reward aspiration and reward people who are going to be self-reliant.

All of these people have done that. They've proven themselves. They've done exactly what the government asked them to do.

Now we've got a government that wants to change the rules. I, like many of my colleagues, ran a survey in my electorate on this matter. We run surveys on a whole range of different topics, but the response to the changes to the private health insurance rebate was insane.

We had thousands of people write to me to tell me not only their stories and their experiences but also whether they will be able to deal with the consequences of these changes and afford the cost. We saw a situation where the majority said very clearly that they were not going to be able to afford these changes. I've shared with this place many times in the past some of the contributions of members of the community in McPherson, but I also want to talk about a forum.

We invited a lot of older Australians aged 65-plus to meet with me and with the shadow minister for health and aged care, Anne Ruston. We met at the Currumbin RSL. It was an opportunity to bring people together to understand and unpack what these changes mean for them.

Not only that, but it was the week before a sitting week, so I was able to say to a lot of these older Australians, 'If you'd like me to send a message to the Prime Minister in Canberra about this, please let me know.' So we had a number of those people write down some messages. The forum was quite interesting and quite concerning. We saw a lot of Australians from different backgrounds and with different past professions.

Some of them had done incredible things. They've contributed to society. They've built this country.

And they came to this forum because one vulnerability bound them together. That's the situation that this government has put them in as a result of this bill. We heard people sharing their stories.

We heard people sharing their frustration. We also heard people share their lack of belief that we would have a government that could be so cruel. What was interesting was that it wasn't just about these older Australians.

People shared stories about how they felt that this was yet another example of government pitting them and their generation against the generation of their kids and the generation of their grandkids. We had people contributing to the conversation who were saying that as a result of this the financial situation will be worse for their kids and their grandkids.

I think it's a cultural thing. In Australia, we believe in the importance of the family unit. We stick by each other.

We stick by our mates. We stick by our family. When government is making lives more difficult for older Australians, somebody is going to have to foot the bill.

At the moment, older Australians are not able to do so. These older Australians said to me that, in many cases, it will be their kids and their grandkids who will have that responsibility and will have to cover that cost. This is in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis that this government has perpetuated.

On top of that, they're adding salt to the wound by putting forward this legislation. I said something very clear to the people in the room. I asked them what their message is to the Prime Minister.

Their responses were honestly quite telling. I'll read out a few for you for the benefit of this place. We heard people say, 'Don't be cruel, Prime Minister; respect the seniors of Australia.' Another said, 'I've been in the private health system for over 45 years.

All you're doing is hindering us and causing more people to drop out, thereby putting additional pressure on the public system. It's about time you took responsibility for your government's actions. We don't all want to live in a socialist country.' Somebody else said, 'Never in my wildest dreams or my 76 years would I feel never supported by the Labor government.

Australia has certainly changed since growing up. Older Australians feel deserted and obviously let down only by growing old. Where is the Australia I loved so much—gone.

I know it has gone down the drain.' These are the words of people who attended my forum and who shared their stories. But we're seeing it time and time again. It's coming through in the emails.

It's probably why those opposite don't want to be in this place—because they know that the tide is against this. They know that they're doing the wrong thing by Australians—by the very people that they are supposed to represent. I had someone named Rosalind, from Burleigh, who said, 'I was most interested to receive your survey.

It seems to be the only avenue to express my extreme disappointment regarding this proposal. It is absolutely disgraceful to crush older people, and younger people who will become older one day, in this horrible way. The Labor Party's treating the older sector with absolute contempt and disdain, as would be expected from a ruling class who stamp all over those beneath them—in this case, grinding them to dust.' I'm going to skip to the last part of this contribution, which I think was very revealing. 'Please listen.

Provide a strong opposition. Be our avenue for protection and trust and not some easy target. It's not just me but anyone who has tried to lift themselves out of welfare dependence into a new, unexpected kind of poverty.' This is the situation that people in my community are facing.

They are now finding themselves, at the most vulnerable stage of their life, in that unexpected kind of poverty. I started this contribution speaking about the kind of country we want to be and why this bill is fracturing everything that I and the people that I represent have in our minds when we think of the country that we want to be. We have people who have done the right thing, who have worked hard, who have saved and who have invested.

They've sacrificed, and what this does is it punishes that sacrifice. It doesn't even make sense from an economic perspective, and this is what I don't understand. We're not just taking people out of private health insurance, all of those who can no longer afford it, and saying, 'Some magical creature's going to come and fund your health system.' We're actually pushing them onto the public system, which is already buckling under pressure.

We see it every single day. Every member on this side of the chamber and, I'm sure, every member on that side of the chamber would be receiving complaints and hearing from people about their experiences in accessing health care—and older Australians need it more than anyone else. The fact that this government is being rock solid in its determination to continue with these changes to the private health insurance rebate and with this proposal to crush Australians at the most vulnerable stage of their life is telling in terms of the character of not only the Prime Minister, not only the Minister for Health and Ageing, but all of those opposite who sit idle and support this going through.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Order! I think the speaker has already made aspersions on the character of members, and I think you probably should withdraw that comment. Mr REBELLO: Sorry, what was the comment you'd like me to withdraw?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're reflecting on the character of members. Mr Pasin: I seek the call. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sure, Member for Barker.

Mr Pasin: Earlier today during question time a member opposite said the words 'walking on the graves of those workers'. 'Rejoicing', I think, was the word—'rejoicing in standing on the graves of those workers', talking about the Whyalla workers. If that's permissible during question time, surely my friend's contribution is also. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it's up to your friend.

But I do think that that comment was not appropriate. Mr REBELLO: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. So— Mr Hill: Can't be bothered; nobody listens to you anyway.

Mr REBELLO: I'm going to take that interjection from the minister opposite, who just said that he 'can't be bothered because nobody listens to you anyway'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister? Mr Hill: I wasn't going to contribute, because I was making the point that you can make whatever character smears you want at this time of the night, as you did, on the entire government—attributed improper motives to us.

You know there are other forms of the House to do so. The member should also know that debate in question time has a greater degree of elasticity and robustness, which is also well established by practice. But I'd ask the speaker then not to verbal me and encourage him to reflect further on the Deputy Speaker's polite request that you make a withdrawal for the imputation that you made.

The point was that, at the end of the day, I don't think people are here listening to your antics, but it was an improper set of imputations on the character of the entire government, and you should withdraw. Mr REBELLO: I'm going to continue my contribution, but the interjection that we saw from the minister opposite is indicative not only of the level of contempt that they have for those on this side of the chamber but of their lack of reverence for this issue.

It is an important issue. It's something that affects all older Australians. It's something that so many people have spoken to me about.

If those opposite are going to get touchy when it comes to hearing the truth on these matters then that's not my problem. This is something the government should be ashamed of. This bill should not be supported, because of the effect that it's going to have on older Australians in my electorate and across the country.