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

Mr PASIN (Barker) (19:08): This is probably one of the most mean-spirited approaches to public policy that I've seen in my time in this House. Let's be clear. We heard from the member for Wannon.

We're talking about 1.5 million older Australians, with a measure which will ultimately 'save', if we accept what the Minister for Health and Ageing says repeatedly during question time—be rediverted to other services but 'saved'—or, as I would like to say, cost those 1.5 million older Australians $3 billion. Mr Tehan: $3 billion overall! Mr PASIN: $3 billion.

Mr Tehan: That's what they're ripping off pensioners. Mr PASIN: Correct—off the 1.5 million pensioners that this is slated to impact. So I'm not surprised that those opposite aren't clamouring to make contributions.

Those opposite have a hypermajority. They could spend a lot of time in this place extolling the virtues of this particular provision and this Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026, but, instead, they're hunkered down in their suites, very keen for this debate to be over and over quickly. The bad news for those opposite, particularly those who are perhaps standing on the green carpet of the House of Representatives for the first time, in this their first term, is that, whilst this debate might soon end in this place, I can assure those opposite that we will spend a good part of the next 12 to 16 months telling older Australians about this change.

What's worse for those opposite is that at some point over the next 12 months these pensioners will be introduced to this change—because it doesn't come into effect, of course, until next year. Not only will they find themselves out of pocket an additional $800 for a single and $1,600 for a couple should they wish to continue their private health insurance, which we'll talk about in a minute; they'll also be dealing with another round of cost increases from the private health insurers.

And, courtesy of those opposite and their inability to manage the economy and hold on to the levers of expenditure, that, of course, will go up by a factor that's not insignificant because, as you'd be well aware, Deputy Speaker Scrymgour, inflation is out of control. The member for Wannon put it well, because this would be mean spirited enough if all it was was an exercise in cost shifting from the private individual to the state, in the sense that, if pensioners are forced into the public health system, then that bill is picked up by state governments.

But the problem here is it's not just a simple transfer, because these public health systems are under incredible pressure. The truth is that, in electorates like the one the member for Wannon so well represents and the one I represent as the member for Barker, our constituents disproportionately, unfortunately, do not have the survivability rates from serious illness that are enjoyed by people who live in metropolitan settings.

Let me paint you a picture. In my electorate, one takes out private health insurance not because one will get access to private hospital services in my regional electorate, because there aren't any, but simply so that when you make the decision, or are required or forced, to travel to Adelaide, you might be able to be in a private hospital—get there a little earlier, be serviced more quickly—not be on public health waiting lists.

For many people in my electorate, the choice between private health insurance and no private health insurance is the choice between life and death. You might say, 'The member for Barker is catastrophising,' but I'm not, because, unlike many, when individuals in my electorate are forced to travel to metropolitan settings for health treatment, they need to meet their own costs associated with these things, and, too many times, whether it comes to radiation therapy or other forms of treatment, they decide, in effect, that they're not going to have that treatment.

That's why people who are diagnosed with cancer in my electorate die much sooner than those metropolitan people, sadly. It's a shocking statistic in a First World country like ours, but it is real. Rather than wax lyrical about the pressures that are on the public health system or perhaps refer to the South Australian Minister for Health and Wellbeing, Blair Boyer, who called on this government, and indeed his colleagues in the left of the Labor Party from South Australia, to reverse this decision—rather than talk about those things, I thought I might, as the radio jocks refer to it, open the lines up.

So what I've done, unfiltered, and perhaps unlike those opposite, is I have written to everyone in my electorate above the age of 65, all 23,800 people, to tell them about this situation—this impending challenge to the maintenance of their private health insurance. What did they say in response? I thought I might share that with the House.

It might be of interest. Grant responds: 'Hi there, Tony. Stay with it.

My wife and myself will be hit if it goes through. Several of our elderly neighbours are thinking of ditching health cover and going on the public system. We've had private cover for as long as I've been married, and we got married in 1983.' This is no small thing—1983.

They maintained private health insurance during that period and, I expect, enjoyed reasonably good health. But now, when Grant and his good wife need it the most, those opposite have decided to make it unattainable. Valma writes: 'My only income is the age pension.

I'm almost 88 and pretty fit, but I think I'm going to have to drop my private health cover.' The member for Wannon talks about who around the Expenditure Review Committee, who around cabinet, made these decisions. I'm not as generous as the member for Wannon. I think the member for Wannon is too kind when he says that people sitting around that table, perhaps in an act of negligence or oversight, didn't think of the pensioners of Australia.

I think individuals opposite, sitting around those important committee tables, are a bit more deliberate about how they go about these things. Mr Tehan: Do you think they deliberately targeted the pensioners? Mr PASIN: I think what those opposite do is participate in the politics of punishment.

That means they sit around and consider which cohort of Australians don't vote for them. How else could you explain why they would seek to recover $750 million from Australian veterans other than perhaps the suggestion that people who have served this nation in uniform disproportionately vote for centre-right candidates, the Liberal and National parties? Why else would you look to save $3 billion—billion with a 'b'—from the 1.5 million pensioners other than if perhaps you had coldly calculated that, disproportionately, those 1.5 million Australians vote for centre-right political parties?

You can see it in the polling. You don't have to take my word for it. Over a long period of time, older Australians have tended to lean Right.

Mr Tehan: But I thought the Prime Minister wanted to govern for all Australians! Mr PASIN: I said in my maiden speech, Dan, that, between the saying and the doing, there's the ocean between. Often, I think, the Prime Minister says one thing but does the other.

Mr Tehan: No! Mr PASIN: That's true. But let us get back to these responses.

Julie says: 'Absolutely disgusting, and most people don't even know about it. I've lost my husband, so, for one, will not be able to afford private health insurance. We've had private health insurance for nearly 40 years, and it's been a real struggle financially to continue over the last couple of years.

This kind of legislation will force a whole lot more people into the public health system, which is clearly way overstretched. It doesn't make much sense.' Julie, I wish you had been elected to a seat in this place, perhaps over on the other side, or had been a member of the ERC or cabinet, because that kind of insight might have been helpful. I'll continue.

Ian says: 'This is madness. A lot of people over 65 will struggle to pay the extra premiums if it takes effect and put even more pressure on the public hospital system, which in the end will mean more money will have to be spent on the health outcomes for people that really need care. It'll be diminished, and there'll be less resources to go around again.' Ian gets it.

Chris says: 'Thank you for this info. Life under federal Labor is Albo-not-so-easy! This guy'—presumably he means the Prime Minister; I'll use his correct title—'surely will go down in history as Australia's worst prime minister.

He's so far out of touch. Old-school Labor pollies must be turning in their graves.' I think what Chris is trying to say is the once-proud Labor Party has turned on older Australians. 'Hi Tony. Thank you so much for trying to help pensioners.

It means so much to us. Keep up the fight.' Wayne's contribution—'Hi Tony. Signing a petition, which I've just done, I feel is a waste.

The socialists control the system and don't like those of us who have operated outside their control for many years to accumulate funds to pay for private health cover, which the socialists want to abolish so that they can control us when we need health care. This won't change until socialist supporters realise the error of their ways and return the government that the voters lost big time.' Glenda said, 'Thank you for your concern about the unbelievable issue confronting us as pensioners who just survive fortnight to fortnight.' I don't think Glenda is someone who's well heeled.

She's talking about living fortnight to fortnight. 'How would the Prime Minister manage for 14 days on what we get and the bills we have to pay? No idea, I guess.' I'm reading some of these to make the point that Australians get this. Australians understand how mean-spirited this approach is.

Australians understand this is a product of the politics of punishment. I just wonder whether those opposite get it. Unlike the member for Wannon, I'm encouraged by the fact that the Labor Party and members of the backbench are either embarrassed or unwilling to make contributions to this bill.

That tells me that not the current alumni, the current leadership cohort that luxuriate on the frontbench during question time and occupy the ministerial suites, but perhaps those that sit behind them are still devotees of a Labor Party that cares about older Australians. Perhaps today, on world democracy day, those people who are too embarrassed to come in here and defend the position that's been determined by others, the exalted few that sit on that frontbench, understand that their responsibility in being in government is not just to govern for those Australians that voted for them but rather to govern for all Australians, including those that perhaps the pollsters tell us disproportionately don't vote for them.

I might end with this, a final contribution from Malcolm, living in the Riverland. 'I often wonder about the intelligence of those that voted for those opposite. Not many of the federal Labor politicians that I can see have ever held a real job in their lives. In my instance, I've wanted to be completely independent of government, and I've had private health insurance for 60 years.' Those opposite are driving Malcolm and others like him out of private health insurance.

(Time expired)