I rise to speak on the Government’s proposed amendments to the private health insurance rebate for people over 65. Essentially, the Government is making private health insurance more expensive for the elderly Australians who need it the most. They say they’re doing this to save money that they’ll spend on aged care instead. The problem is, this change will push more people into the public health system, raising taxpayer costs. And it’ll fall disproportionately on pensioners – the older Australians least able to weather the costs. What’s going on here?

Currently, under rules that were introduced in 2005 by the Howard Government, older Australians receive a higher rebate than younger Australians. The rebate is approximately 4% higher for people aged 65–69, and 8% higher for people aged 70 and over.

But under the proposed changes in this Bill, from 1 April 2027, eligible private health insurance policyholders would receive the same rebate as everyone else in their income bracket, regardless of how old they are.

The Government is presenting this change as based on fairness and financial sustainability. By scrapping the higher rebates, the Government can save an estimated $3 billion.

I went back 21 years and looked at the reasons the Government gave when it introduced these higher rebates back in 2005. Ironically, those changes – to increase the rebate for older Australians – were also presented as a fairness and sustainability reform, on the basis that older Australians have greater healthcare needs and should be encouraged to have private health insurance to take the pressure off the public health system, most retirees are on fixed incomes, including many on the age pension, and in many cases these people had contributed to private health insurance for most of their adult lives and should be assisted with lower premiums to maintain affordability.

These reasons remain as valid in 2026 as they were in 2005.

Fairness, it seems, is a fickle and subjective business in this place. The Senate is currently holding an inquiry into this Bill, which is due to report on 7 October. It would have been good for the Government to have afforded us the outcome of the inquiry before debating this bill in the House. But we see time and again with this Government that following good, sequential, transparent process is optional at best.

It’s also clear from my community in Bradfield that they feel the proposed cut is absolutely unfair. Bradfield has higher than the national average residents 75 years and above. My constituents tell me that private health insurance is often what makes the difference between accessing the timely, appropriate care that ensures they maintain quality of life, mobility and independence. These are central goals of the Government’s aged care policy.

Without private health insurance, many will delay seeking treatment until their need is greater, and the cost higher. One constituent told me about their mother, who’s 85 years old, lives in aged care, suffers from dementia, and survives on a fixed pension.

She already pays substantial means-tested aged care fees to the Government approximately $80,000 over the course of her remaining years while also trying to maintain private health insurance with HCF to reduce reliance on the public health system.

Under these proposed changes, the increased cost of maintaining private health insurance will likely force her to cancel her cover entirely. What’s more, the removal of the higher rebate will come after another round of eye-watering premium increases. In fact, the 2026 increase was the largest since 2017. In this context, the Government’s choice to reduce the rebate, while the general cost of living outpaces wages and pensions, is going to hurt.

For older people, private health insurance is not a nice-to-have, but an important means of accessing timely, planned healthcare and managing health needs in later life.

As COTA – Council on the Ageing – notes in its submission to the inquiry:

“Procedures that are most commonly needed by older Australians, including joint replacements, cataract surgery, and cardiac interventions, are routinely classified as elective. These procedures are often deprioritised in public hospital triage processes. While this reflects clinical necessity, the practical effect is that the health conditions most associated with ageing are least likely to receive timely treatment through the public system.”

By scrapping the rebate, the Government estimates it will save $3 billion, which, we are to take on trust, will be directed toward residential aged care to fund more residential aged care beds, more Support at Home Packages, and shorter wait times for aged care.

I don’t want to get sidetracked by the problems in the funding of aged care – suffice to say greater funding for aged care is urgently needed. However, it should not come at the expense of equity in health costs for older Australians and pressure on the public health system.

We should not be risking increasing admissions of older people to public hospitals at the very same time the Government is working to reduce this. While the Government has argued scrapping the rebate altogether is the optimal solution, and unlikely to impact private health insurance participation, this is directly contradicted by reputable seniors organisations and peak bodies including the AMA who raised concerns that ‘the claimed fiscal savings reflect reductions in federal rebate expenditure, and do not adequately account for the broader costs that may arise elsewhere in the health system’

In addition, the Government didn’t undertake modelling of the impact on low-income groups, and it was up to the Member for Kooyong to undertake Parliamentary Budget Office costings which show people on the aged pension will be disproportionately impacted by the changes.

Over half of the $3 billion forecast savings – $1.6 billion –will be clawed back from age pensioners. This is the cohort least able to afford the changes. That number could be even greater when you count other types of pensioners, such as people on a Disability Support Pension, who typically have high health needs.

The Member for Kooyong will be moving an amendment to carve out pensioners from the changes, and I will be supporting that amendment. The problem here, as always, is that the Government is crying poor, when actually it’s just choosing to prioritise some Australians over others. It could, if it chose to, keep the rebate and fund improved aged care. It could, if it chose to, increase the pie by generating new tax revenue – on gas exports, for instance – so that we could fund even more services for those in need.

It’s all about priorities. And here, the burdens are falling on older Australians. Certainly, those in Bradfield who have contacted my office have indicated that if they do not give up private health insurance altogether, they will be downgrading their cover.

Older Australians across the country have worked hard, planned responsibly, and maintained private health cover in good faith.

On behalf of Bradfield, I cannot support this Bill.