Health Insurance Amendment (Incentive Payments and Other Measures) Bill 2026

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:18): Thank you, Minister, for your response to what I believe is a very sound amendment. In your contribution, you made the statement that the minister can set up advisory groups and engage in consultation with stakeholders and that he has the powers to do all manner of things to engage the sector when it comes to legislation.

He may well have the powers, but he does not use them. You say you want to hear from stakeholders. Well, you can't hear from stakeholders unless you actually tell them what you're seeking to get their advice on prior to making a decision, because consultation following a decision is really nothing more than an information-giving exercise.

It is not consultation. I raise this in the context of another piece of health legislation that is before this parliament, and no piece of legislation could be a clearer example of this government's absolute refusal to consult with the sector before moving substantial changes that will have an impact on millions and millions of Australians. That is the decision of the government to change the arrangements in relation to the private health insurance rebate for people over the age of 65.

We've just travelled around the country, and we have met with many, many stakeholders. We have had many submissions. Whether they be from individuals or from members of the health community who will be impacted, whether that be doctor groups, the private health insurers themselves, the private hospital sector and the specialists that work there or older Australians who are impacted by this, their families and the communities that support them—every single one of those stakeholders had no knowledge whatsoever of this policy change and this legislation until after they were put on the table by the minister.

So you will excuse the coalition's and the opposition's inability to take you at your word when you talk about the fact that you will be consulting in relation to any changes that are enabled as a part of this particular legislation. You'll excuse our cynicism about your genuine preparedness to actually undertake consultation, because of your track record as a government when it comes to consultation and transparency, your track record when it comes to burying things in the rules that we don't get to see until after the legislation is passed and your inability to even tell the truth about what has actually been provided in terms of advice to the government.

I draw the chamber's attention to the fact that the minister went out and told every single Australian that 44,000 people were estimated to drop their private health insurance cover as a result of the changes for the over-65s PHI rebate. We now find out through freedom of information—not through any other process but because of a freedom-of-information request—that that number is actually 78,000.

That is 78,000 older Australians who are going to drop their private health cover. And that doesn't include anybody who's going to downgrade their cover. So you will excuse me, as I said, for being incredibly cynical about taking in anything that this government says in relation to an assurance that they are actually going to consult.

The government has a track record of not only not consulting but actually providing false information into the public domain and only backtracks on that public information's inaccuracy when it's called out by something like a freedom-of-information request, an order for the production of documents or a Parliamentary Budget Office paper that contradicts what the government said.

So I would say to the chamber and particularly those other than the government in this place: we need greater scrutiny of what the government's doing, and we need stakeholders to have greater capacity to be involved in decision-making. The habitual failure of this government to do the homework before they put a policy into the public domain is why we are seeing problem after problem after problem, and it's why we're having to see the government backflip, backflip, backflip on so many things that they put into this parliament.

So I think it would be very wise for the government to actually say: 'We are prepared to be consultative in this process. We are prepared to engage with stakeholders.' And one way in which you could get the confidence of stakeholder groups back is to support this amendment.