PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Ms ROBERTS (Pearce) (17:31): The incorporated speech read as follows— I would like to speak against this motion because it misrepresents the policy and undermines a reform that is fair, necessary and long overdue. This House is being asked to condemn a $3 billion change to the private health insurance rebate. But let us be clear: this is not the abolition of the rebate.
The rebate remains. From April 2027, the higher age based rebate for people aged 65 and over will end, and the rebate will instead be determined by income. Under the current system, two people on the same income can receive different rebates simply because one is older.
A person aged 70 or over in the base tier currently receives a 32.158 per cent rebate, while someone under 65 in the same tier receives 24.118 per cent. From April 2027, both will be treated the same. That is not removing support; it is removing an inequity.
The Albanese Labor government expects the measure to save around $3 billion over four years, with those savings to be reinvested in aged care. In my electorate of Pearce, and across Western Australia, we know what it means when families struggle to find aged care places or wait for Support at Home. Investment in residential care and home support matters directly to older Australians and their families.
The motion argues that pensioners will bear a significant share of the cost. Yes, age pension recipients with private health insurance who currently benefit from the age based uplift will be affected. But they will not lose the private health insurance rebate altogether.
The rebate remains income tested; what changes is the additional age based component. Many of those same older Australians also stand to benefit from greater investment in aged care. That broader context cannot simply be ignored.
The motion also warns that people will drop or downgrade their private cover, placing pressure on public hospitals. The government's modelling estimates around 44,000 fewer people aged 65 and over will hold private health insurance by 2028-29 than would otherwise have been expected. That is around 0.4 per cent fewer insured people than under the existing arrangements.
That deserves scrutiny, but it does not justify claims of a mass exodus from private health insurance. The motion further accuses the government of failing to assess the impact of the change and of hiding its modelling. Yet the legislation is accompanied by an impact analysis, and the Parliamentary Budget Office has separately examined the distribution of the savings.
The figures are available for scrutiny. They should be debated in full context, not selectively presented as evidence of catastrophe. At its heart, this reform raises a question of intergenerational equity.
For more than two decades, the system has provided a higher rebate to older Australians, even where people are in the same income tier. At the same time, Australia faces growing pressure on aged care, including demand for residential places and support that allows older people to remain in their homes. It is reasonable to ask whether age alone should determine a higher private health insurance rebate or whether support should be based on income and scarce public funds directed towards services of greatest need.
The Albanese Labor government has chosen the latter approach. If this House wants to protect older Australians, then we should focus on reducing aged-care waiting times, expanding access to home support, supporting carers and ensuring public hospitals are not being used because appropriate aged care is unavailable. This reform removes the decades-old age based uplift, leaves the rebate to be determined by income rather than age and, under the government's commitment, redirects substantial savings into aged care.
I cannot support a motion that condemns that approach. I am speaking against this motion. I do so because this debate should be based on the full evidence and on a fair assessment of where public funding can deliver the greatest benefit.
The rebate remains. Support remains. But the age based top-up will end, and the savings will help fund services older Australians rely upon now and in the future.