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

Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (17:07): I second the amendment. I want to offer my congratulations and affirmation to the honourable members that have made a contribution to this cruel, cruel piece of legislation, the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. I want to acknowledge the member for Calare and the member for Fowler, who came in and gave passionate commitments.

They cited constituent letters by those who had contacted their offices raising concerns about the extra charge or extra cost that was going to be imposed on people in their electorates. I want to acknowledge the member for Lyne, who gave a very impassioned speech. She spoke about the amount of peak bodies that didn't support this—one after the other after the other condemning this piece of legislation.

I want to acknowledge the member for Fadden, who gave his personal commitment when at the dispatch box that he would continue to fight for those seniors over 65, for those pensioners who were going to be worse off under this government. He put his political reputation on the table and said he would continue to fight. The member for Berowra came in here and, time after time, relived the real-life experience of constituents that had contacted his office sharing their great concerns.

The member for Mitchell came in and simply asked the question: if there's going to be a cost shift away from private health insurance into state medical health systems, were they advised, and do they have a sense of preparation? The answer is no, of course; the states are not about it. The member for Page came in and spoke about how we wouldn't be having this debate if those on the other side weren't reckless with their expenditure, spending $9 billion on the pursuance of green hydrogen.

If only that money could have been spent servicing and looking after our veterans and those people who have got private health insurance over the age of 65. In thanking those members, I wanted to give consideration as to how the Australian Labor Party come up with such cruel ideas—such cruel legislation. I know how we give consideration to ours in our joint party room: combined members of the Liberal Party and the National Party will be discussing legislation.

I conjured up this image of those on the other side in their party room. The Treasurer gets up and makes a statement and says: 'We're out of money. I want to throw to the room.

Can anyone come up with an idea about how we can save some money?' Someone throws their hands up and says: 'We've squeezed the veterans as hard as we can. I'm suggesting that we don't go there again. But I think we can go after pensioners and those with private health insurance.

I modelled it, and I think we can save around $11 billion over the forward estimates.' The party room goes: 'Huzzah! That's a great idea.' The person says, 'We're going to call it the clubbing baby seals bill.' The Treasurer says: 'No, we can't call it clubbing baby seals. That's too obvious.

We're going to call it the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026. That way, people won't really know what's in it.' The party room goes: 'Huzzah! We've got a new name for the bill.' Then someone goes up and says: 'But, Treasurer, if we go after the pensioners, there are 1.2 million of them that are going to be adversely affected by this bill.

I don't think they're going to vote for us after that.' The Treasurer says: 'It doesn't matter. We've already thought of that. Quietly, we've snuck in 1.5 million immigrants.

We've got that vote. It's going to offset the 1.2 million that we lose on this bill.' They go: 'Huzzah! These problems are being solved.' They're going to tell everyone, and then they go: 'How are we going to sell this?

Originally, we were going to call it the clubbing baby seals leg.' And they say, 'We're going to tell the Australian public that the people who are going to be affected by this legislation are rich, and there'll be no sympathy for them because they'll be rich.' Then the Treasurer goes: 'I think most of them are pensioners. I think 45 to 50 per cent of the people who are going to be adversely affected are age pensioners.

I know what we'll do. We'll give them $25 and then take $800 off them.' The party room goes, 'Huzzah!' Then another person gets up in the party room and goes, 'But won't it push those people who leave the private health insurance system into the state health system?' The Treasurer gets up and goes, 'Yes, of course, we all hope so, because that's what we call a cost shift from the federal government to the state government.' 'Huzzah!

But won't our friends, the ALP premiers from the states, be disappointed with us?' 'Well, we hope so. We want them to be upset with us because then we can draw to their attention the inequities in the GST pool and set them on the path of Western Australia to go and seek their remedies from a redistribution of the GST pie.' The party room goes, 'Huzzah!' Then they go, 'How do we sell this policy, then, to the Australian public?' And the answer is: 'I'm glad you asked, because the way we're going to sell it is that, when the bill comes before the House, speaker after speaker after speaker from the Liberal Party and the National Party are going to get up and speak about it.

What we're going to do is stay silent. No-one will speak to it.' 'Huzzah! What an amazing plan.' The next question is: 'How are we going to sell it to the pensioners?

How will we do that? How will we sell such an awful piece of legislation to our pensioners when it is going to reduce their private healthcare rebates?' The Treasurer says: 'Well, there's the brilliance in the plan. We don't tell them before the election.

We don't tell them. Yes! We'll get elected and then we'll tell them.

We won't tell them before the election—just the same as we did with the capital gains taxes. We didn't tell them that. It's a brilliant plan!

We've got it all worked out. Then, we'll bundle all this up and we'll put it into the group of policies that we deny we ever developed. We'll talk about how he never fell off the stage, that his word is his bond and for the fiftieth time he's not going to repeat it.

We'll simply say nothing, and then we'll use our numbers in the House of Representatives to ram it through.' The party room goes: 'Brilliant! Huzzah! We're noting that there are 1.2 million pensioners, and there's nothing they can do about it.

And to put icing on the cake, we're going to call it a productivity reform. Huzzah!' And that is how Labor came up with such a cruel, cruel tax. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Boyce ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time.

To this the honourable member for Kooyong has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Herbert has now moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'reading' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Herbert to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kooyong be agreed to.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Herbert be agreed to.