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

Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (18:41): I rise today to speak against the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. Behind the government's modelling, talking points and proposed budget savings are real people. They are older Australians who have worked hard, paid taxes, contributed to their communities and done exactly what governments have encouraged them to do for decades—taken responsibility for their own health care.

Instead of rewarding that responsibility, the Albanese government is proposing to reduce the private health insurance rebate for older Australians. Australians aged 65 to 69, and those aged 70 and over, currently receive a higher rebate because the government has long recognised a simple fact: as people age, healthcare needs increase and the cost of maintaining private health insurance on a restricted income becomes harder and harder.

This bill takes that support away. Independent analysis suggests around three million Australians aged 65 and over will be affected, and the government is booking savings of around $3 billion. Many will face an effective premium increase of hundreds of dollars a year, and in some cases increases exceeding over $1,000 annually.

Importantly, around 70 per cent of those impacted are on incomes below $55,000. These are not wealthy Australians; these are pensioners, self-funded retirees and seniors on fixed incomes. The government argues this is a sensible reform.

But I ask: sensible for whom? Certainly not the 23,000 seniors of my electorate who have private health insurance. The health insurance cover has delivered almost $50 million per annum in health rebates for hospitalisations that would otherwise be the remit of the state.

I'm in the process of collating the results of my O'Connor Seniors Survey, designed to give a voice to the older constituents of one of Australia's most vast and varied electorates. We've had an overwhelming response, with nearly a thousand people responding to the survey. Nearly nine out of 10 said they either could not afford the proposed increase to their private health cover or were uncertain whether they could afford it.

Almost three-quarters indicated they would either cancel their cover or downgrade it, or were unsure if they could keep it up. These are not just statistics; these are real people. These are the voices of O'Connor's senior citizens, and they deserve to be heard.

One respondent, Irene, from Southern Forests, told me: I feel I will have to drop my private health cover that I have had for the last 60 years … this additional proposed cost is mean-spirited and very short sighted. Sixty years! Imagine paying into a system for six decades, only to be told at the stage of life when health care becomes more important that government support is being withdrawn.

Elizabeth, from Albany, wrote: We have been in HBF for 58 years and have just cancelled it as we cannot afford to stay in it, plus cost of living. That should alarm every member of this House. Once people like Elizabeth leave private health insurance, they do not simply disappear from the healthcare system.

They enter the public system, and they join already lengthy waiting lists. They place additional pressure on public hospitals, like the Albany Health Campus, and nowhere is that pressure felt more acutely than in regional Australia. Roslyn from Collie put it perfectly: What happens if all the elderly cancel their private health insurance?

Our hospitals are on the brink of collapse now. That is the question the federal government has failed to answer. State government leaders of all political persuasions have raised concerns about this policy because they understand where these patients will go.

Even Labor state governments have questioned the wisdom of shifting costs from the Commonwealth to the already strained public hospital systems. The irony is breathtaking. The government claims this policy will save money, but, if tens of thousands of older Australians leave private cover, the burden simply shifts to taxpayers through the state funded public hospitals.

That's not reform; that's just cost shifting. Regional Australians know what happens when the public health system comes under further pressure: longer waiting lists, more travel, more delays and more uncertainty. Jennifer, another respondent to my survey, captured the main concern many seniors feel: Changes to the Private Health Care rebates will make Private Health Care too expensive for retirees, who will then be forced to use the public health care system, which is already overloaded.

In Perth, additional pressure on an already overloaded public hospital system is a serious prospect. In O'Connor, this will become a crisis of epic proportions. Regional Western Australians already travel hundreds of kilometres for treatment.

They already face higher costs simply because of where they live. David from Albany told me: If we want to use our private cover we need to go to Perth which means accommodation and travel costs. Why are the regions missing out?

Philip from remote WA, who is battling cancer, said: I have nearly exhausted my superannuation just to get treatment in Perth. The senior citizens of O'Connor are already paying for fuel, accommodation and specialist appointments simply to access care. Now the government wants to increase the cost of maintaining private cover as well.

It's impossible to understand how anybody could view that as fair. This survey also highlighted the growing burden of out-of-pocket medical costs. Pamela told me: Daily healthcare fees are more than I can afford.

Her solution is, 'I just don't see a doctor.' Think about that. When seniors like Pamela choose cost savings over care, that should horrify every member in this chamber. Robyn described her life under the current cost-of-living crisis as 'treading water just to keep my head above water'.

This is the unfortunate reality for many retirees on fixed incomes. Power bills are higher. Insurance premiums are higher.

Groceries are higher. Fuel is higher. And now this government wants to increase healthcare costs as well.

The seniors responding to my survey repeatedly made the same point. They're not asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness.

Kaye from Esperance said: I have paid Private Health Insurance since 1983 … why am I being penalised for acting in a responsible way? That sentiment was repeated over and over by people who saved, by people who brought private health insurance precisely because successive governments encouraged them to do so. And now those same Australians feel betrayed.

Beyond health care, there is another element that should concern us all: home support and ultimately aged care. I back the older Australians in my electorate who want to remain in their homes and the communities they have contributed to all their lives. My survey found that only 19 per cent of respondents were currently receiving or eligible for Support at Home packages, while hundreds provided feedback about service shortages and waiting lists.

Back to the challenges of health care in the regions, Judith from the south coast said: Living in the country 5 hours from the city and my age makes travelling more and more difficult. Kathy summed up many concerns regarding the public system by saying: The wait for treatment is long and you would probably die before getting well. Whether members agree with that statement or not, it reflects a genuine fear many seniors have about their access to care.

When seniors lose confidence in the system, that in itself becomes a problem. The federal government should be reassuring older Australians. Instead, it's creating anxiety.

The coalition believes in choice. We believe that Australians who have spent decades paying for private health insurance should be encouraged, not punished. We believe that people who have worked hard to provide for themselves should not be treated as a convenient source of additional revenue.

We believe regional Australians should not be forced into even longer public hospital queues in the regions and in Perth because of decisions made in Canberra. More importantly, we believe older Australians deserve respect—respect for their contribution, respect for the taxes they've paid, respect for the sacrifices they have made and respect for the choices they have made to reduce the pressure on our public health system.

This bill fails that test. My survey demonstrated clearly that seniors across O'Connor are worried. They're worried about affordability.

They are worried about access to health care. They are worried about hospital waiting times. They are worried about the future.

The Albanese government should listen to them. Listen to Irene in Manjimup. Listen to Elizabeth in Albany.

Listen to Roslyn in Collie. Listen to Kaye in Esperance. Listen to the hundreds of regional Western Australians who have said overwhelmingly that this policy will hurt them.

Ultimately it will hurt the public health system as well. I urge the government to withdraw this misguided measure and abandon their attack on older Australians. Older Australians deserve better, and it's not just me who feels this way.

You have heard the impassioned pleas from my colleagues and now me. But, if the parliament won't listen to us, perhaps Labor should look at their own modelling—modelling that revealed this cut to the private health insurance rebate for older Australians will place financial pressure on around 1.2 million pensioners. By its own admission, the department still does not have a reliable figure despite health minister Butler's announcing this $11 billion tax grab in April.

Medibank, Australia's biggest private health insurer, has also disputed the government's modelling. Where the government projects around 44,000 seniors will drop their cover, Medibank points to external modelling which suggests the figure could be more than double that at up to 91,000. Medibank HCF and Bupa have jointly warned that any change will fall hardest on poorer retirees and older Australians in the region and that a resulting shrinking pool of privately insured people will push higher premiums for everyone who remains.

The Australian Medical Association says it's unconvinced that the measure will deliver genuine net savings once the flow and pressure to public hospitals are accounted for. Finally, maybe the Prime Minister should listen to his state government counterparts, the majority of whom are lined up against this measure. Even South Australia's Labor government in health minister Butler's own state has joined the Labor governments of New South Wales and Victoria and the coalition governments of Queensland and Tasmania in opposing this change.

When the very state governments that actually run our public hospitals are all telling the Commonwealth that this policy shifts costs and they don't listen, the federal government has run out of people to blame. There has been a recurring pattern of the Albanese government not doing their homework, and every single time it is older and more vulnerable Australians who are left to pay for the government's mistakes.

So, while I stand here stating irrefutable facts that defy logic, I close by re-emphasising my defence of the seniors of O'Connor, on whom there will rain all manner of pain should this ill conceived private health insurance amendment pass this House. I vehemently oppose this bill.