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

Current status

This bill is currently before Parliament.

Policy area

Health, care & disability

What does this bill do?

People aged 65 and over will no longer receive a larger private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. because of their age.

Why was it introduced?

The government says the rebate should encourage people to take out and keep private health insurance, but giving older people a larger rebate is poorly targeted because they are more likely to keep their cover and receive higher average benefits. About 15.4 million Australians use private health insurance, and the rebate was expected to cost the government $7.9 billion in 2025-26. The government says using income alone will make the system simpler and fairer between generations. It estimates the change will reduce Commonwealth spending by $2,994.7 million over the four years to 2029-30, with the savings supporting aged-care services.

Broader context

Since 2004, people aged 65 and over have received a larger private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. than younger people on the same income, while the 2019 aged-care royal commission interim report exposed serious failures and sharpened debate over funding aged care. The government introduced the bill to remove the age loading and redirect an estimated $3 billion over four years to aged care; after the House passed it on 16 September 2026, the change was scheduled for 1 April 2027, with affected older policyholders expected to pay about $250 more a year.

Key criticism

Melissa McIntosh (Liberal) argued that higher premiums could cause older people to drop or reduce their cover, adding patients and costs to already stretched public hospitals. She said a couple aged 70 or over with gold cover could face a combined increase of up to $1,614 a year when the rebate reduction and the expected April 2027 premiumThe price paid for an insurance policy. rise are counted together. Helen Haines (Independent) argued that about half of the projected savings would come from age pensioners and that lower-income people would bear the cost while the highest earners, who already receive no rebate, would be unaffected. She also warned that rural and regional hospitals might not be able to absorb extra demand.

Who supported it?

The government introduced this bill. Support so far has come from Labor; opposition has come from Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, Centre Alliance, some crossbench members.

Introduced in House 25 June 2026
Passed House 16 Sept 2026 Aye 88 No 48
At second reading in Senate 17 Sept 2026
Not yet law —

Did it become law?

Not yet

Final passage

Recorded vote so far

1 counted final-passage vote was recorded.

Days since introduction

103 days

Updated 06 Oct 2026.

Official record

View on APH

Parliament of Australia bill page

What does this bill do?

  1. People aged 65 and over will no longer receive a larger private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. because of their age. Their rebate will instead be calculated on the same income-based scale as for people under 65. At the base income level, the current rebate is about 28% for people aged 65 to 69 and 32% for people aged 70 and over, compared with 24% for people under 65.

  2. The existing income levels and their annual adjustment will remain. Lower-income policyholders can continue to receive a larger rebate, while people in the highest income group receive no rebate.

  3. The change starts on 1 April 2027. It applies when a premiumThe price paid for an insurance policy. is paid on or after that date for insurance covering that date or later, whether the rebate is taken off the premiumThe price paid for an insurance policy. immediately or claimed later through a tax return.

  4. The government estimates about 3.2 million people aged 65 and over who have taxable income below the rebate cut-off will be affected. It expects their premiums to rise by about $250 a year on average, although the increase may be higher for more expensive policies.

  5. The government estimates that by 2028-29 about 44,000 fewer people aged 65 and over will have private health insurance than if the rebate remained unchanged. That is 0.4% fewer than otherwise expected, while the number of older people with insurance is still expected to grow.

  6. A related reference in the Age Discrimination Act will be removed because the private health insurance provision it refers to is being repealed.

Show source excerpts
  1. 1 Paragraphs 22‑15(1)(b) and (c) Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (b) in respect of any days in the premium period to which paragraph (a) does not apply—the percentage of the amount of the premium, or of the amount in respect of a premium, paid or payable in respect of those days worked out as if they were days to which paragraph (a) applied. Note: Paragraph (b) means that the age of a person insured under the policy does not affect the percentage that applies in working out the PHIIB’s share of the PHII benefit.
    Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) introduced text
  2. 2 Subsections 22‑15(2), (3) and (4) Omit “each percentage specified in subsection (1)”, substitute “the percentage specified in paragraph (1)(a)”. 3 Subsection 22‑15(5A) Omit “subsection (1),”, substitute “paragraph (1)(a) or subsection”. 4 Subsection 22‑15(6) Omit “paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c)”, substitute “subsection (1)”.
    Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) introduced text
  3. 7 Application provision The amendments of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 made by this Part apply in relation to amounts of premium, and amounts in respect of premium, that are paid on or after 1 April 2027 in respect of days that are on or after that date.
    Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) introduced text
  4. The change will impact approximately 3.2 million people aged 65 and over who have a taxable income below the rebate cut-off. It's expected the average increased premium for those impacted older Australians will be around $250 per year—or less than $1 per day. For some older Australians who choose more expensive policies, that increase may be higher.
    Second reading speech
  5. It's expected that the number of older Australians with health insurance will continue to increase, including people aged 65 and above. It's estimated there will be about 44,000 fewer people aged 65 and over insured by 2028-29 than if the rebate had remained unchanged. That is 0.4 per cent fewer insured people than otherwise expected, in a sector that is growing on average by two per cent per year, or five times that amount. This is a relatively low change in participation compared with the volume of services in hospitals, which means the impact on hospital admissions is expected to be margin
    Second reading speech
  6. Age Discrimination Act 2004 8 Schedule 2 (table item 9A, column headed “Provision(s)”) Omit “, 22‑25”.
    Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) introduced text

Broader context for this bill

Since 2004, people aged 65 and over have received a larger private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. than younger people on the same income, while the 2019 aged-care royal commission interim report exposed serious failures and sharpened debate over funding aged care. The government introduced the bill to remove the age loading and redirect an estimated $3 billion over four years to aged care; after the House passed it on 16 September 2026, the change was scheduled for 1 April 2027, with affected older policyholders expected to pay about $250 more a year.

  1. 2004

    The age-based rebate loading is introduced

    The Howard government increased the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. only for people aged 65 and over, creating the age-based loading that the bill would later remove.

    Hansard ↗
  2. 2019

    Aged-care royal commission exposes serious failures

    The royal commission's interim report described serious failures in aged care, providing context for later arguments to direct rebate savings to the sector.

    Hansard ↗
  3. 22 Apr 2026

    The government announces the rebate change

    The government announced the proposal, and ABC reported that older Australians could face average private health insurance premiumThe price paid for an insurance policy. increases of about $240 a year.

    ABC News ↗
  4. 18 May 2026

    Older Australians raise concerns about higher premiums

    ABC reported concerns from older policyholders, including people who had held private cover for decades, about losing part of their rebate.

    ABC News ↗
  5. 25 June 2026

    The government introduces the bill

    The government introduced the bill in the House to make the rebate depend on income rather than age and use projected savings to support aged care.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗
  6. 16 Sept 2026

    House passes the bill

    The House completed its consideration of the bill, which would affect about 3.2 million older policyholders and save the Commonwealth an estimated $2,994.7 million over four years.

    Parliamentary timeline ↗
  7. 01 Apr 2027

    The new rebate rules are due to start

    For premiums paid on or after that date for cover on or after that date, the rebate will be calculated by income alone, with the government estimating about 44,000 fewer older policyholders by 2028-29 than otherwise.

    Australian Parliament House ↗

How did it move through Parliament?

House Senate
Introduced 25 June 2026

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 25 June 2026

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

Community Affairs review 25 June 2026

Referred to Committee (25/06/2026): Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee; Report due 07/10/2026

Report due 07 Oct 2026

APH bill page notes
Second reading debate 10 Sept 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Second reading debate 14 Sept 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Second reading debate 15 Sept 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

Second reading debate 16 Sept 2026

The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.

House second reading agreed Aye 86 No 47 16 Sept 2026

Recorded vote: 86 to 47.

The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.

Second reading agreed to

Consideration in detail 16 Sept 2026

The chamber considered the bill in detail and dealt with amendments before the next stage.

Consideration in detail debate

House third reading agreed Aye 88 No 48 16 Sept 2026

Recorded vote: 88 to 48.

The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.

Third reading agreed to

Introduced 17 Sept 2026

The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.

Introduced and read a first time

Second reading opened 17 Sept 2026

A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.

Second reading moved

The main case against this bill

Melissa McIntosh (Liberal) argued that higher premiums could cause older people to drop or reduce their cover, adding patients and costs to already stretched public hospitals. She said a couple aged 70 or over with gold cover could face a combined increase of up to $1,614 a year when the rebate reduction and the expected April 2027 premiumThe price paid for an insurance policy. rise are counted together. Helen Haines (Independent) argued that about half of the projected savings would come from age pensioners and that lower-income people would bear the cost while the highest earners, who already receive no rebate, would be unaffected. She also warned that rural and regional hospitals might not be able to absorb extra demand.

The government says affected policyholders will still be eligible for an income-based rebate of up to 24%. It estimates about 44,000 fewer older Australians will be insured than otherwise expected by 2028-29, a 0.4% difference, and says the effect on hospital admissions should be small. It also says the estimated $3 billion in savings will fund more aged-care beds, home-support packages and other care for older Australians.

Recorded votes

How the bill itself passed

The chamber-passage votes come first. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.

Carried

House passed the bill

Aye 88 No 48

Passed 88 to 48. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Community Strong Australia had split recorded votes.

16 Sept 2026

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 87 / 0
Liberal 0 / 24
Nationals 0 / 13
Independent 0 / 7
Community Strong Australia 1 / 1
One Nation 0 / 2
Centre Alliance 0 / 1

Earlier bill-stage votes

Carried

House cleared second reading

Aye 86 No 47

Passed 86 to 47. Support came from Labor and Community Strong Australia. Opposition came from Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents.

16 Sept 2026

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 85 / 0
Liberal 0 / 24
Nationals 0 / 13
Independent 0 / 7
One Nation 0 / 2
Centre Alliance 0 / 1
Community Strong Australia 1 / 0
Carried

Remove the age-based rebate without a pensioner exemption

Aye 87 No 48

Passed 87 to 48. Support came from Labor. Opposition came from Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Community Strong Australia had split recorded votes.

16 Sept 2026

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 86 / 0
Liberal 0 / 24
Nationals 0 / 13
Independent 0 / 7
Community Strong Australia 1 / 1
One Nation 0 / 2
Centre Alliance 0 / 1

Amendments at a glance

Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.

House

Defeated

Call for the age-based rebate change to be abandoned

Aye 46 No 86

Defeated 46 to 86. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, One Nation, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Community Strong Australia.

16 Sept 2026

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 85
Liberal 23 / 0
Nationals 13 / 0
Independent 7 / 0
One Nation 2 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Community Strong Australia 0 / 1
Defeated

Reject the bill and protect age pensioners from the rebate cut

Aye 45 No 87

Defeated 45 to 87. Support came from Liberal, Nationals, Centre Alliance, and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor and Community Strong Australia.

16 Sept 2026

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 86
Liberal 24 / 0
Nationals 13 / 0
Independent 7 / 0
Centre Alliance 1 / 0
Community Strong Australia 0 / 1
Defeated

Keep the larger rebate for age pension recipients

Aye 9 No 85

Defeated 9 to 85. Support came from Centre Alliance and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor. Community Strong Australia had split recorded votes.

16 Sept 2026

Party Recorded votes Aye / No
Labor 0 / 84
Independent 7 / 0
Community Strong Australia 1 / 1
Centre Alliance 1 / 0

This list includes amendment votes, procedural votes and votes on the bill itself.

Who spoke, and what they said

Start here — lead voices

Lead opposing voice Opposes

Julian Leeser

Liberal Party of Australia • MP 16 Sept 2026

Leeser opposes the bill and says the coalition will vote against it because reducing the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. would make cover less affordable for older Australians and push more patients into the public system.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead supporting voice Supports

Dan Repacholi

Australian Labor Party • MP 14 Sept 2026

Repacholi supports the bill, arguing that making private health insurance rebates income based rather than age based is fair and will redirect nearly $3 billion into aged-care beds, home support and dementia services.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead non-major voice Opposes

Zali Steggall

Community Strong Australia • MP 16 Sept 2026

Zali Steggall opposes the bill because she says cutting rebates for older Australians could make private insurance unaffordable and increase pressure on public hospitals.

Read in Hansard ↗
Lead voice Opposes

Alex Hawke

Liberal Party of Australia • MP 16 Sept 2026

Hawke opposes the bill, arguing that cutting the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. will make coverage unaffordable for many pensioners, drive patients into an already strained public system and ultimately cost governments more than it saves.

Read in Hansard ↗

All speeches by bloc

Labor

13 speakers · 14 contributions · 12 support · 1 oppose

  1. Mike Freelander Freelander supports the bill because he says ending the higher private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. for people aged 65 and over is fairer and will redirect substantial savings to aged care.
    “We also believe strongly in the equitable access to care. At present, Australians aged 65 and over receive a higher private health insurance rebate than younger Australians, and I don't think that's fair. I don't think it's fair that my private health insurance is cheaper than my kids' private health insurance with their young families. I just don't think that's fair. As an older Australian, I know that I will need to use more of our health system, particularly our public hospital system, than younger people. I don't think it's fair that I should pay less for that, and that is what this bill is all about. This bill removes the age based uplift which I don't believe is fair. From 1 April 2027, the rebate will be calculated on the same basis for Australians aged 65 and over as it is for people aged under 65, which is only fair, with income remaining the basis for determining the rebate. I think that is fair.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 10 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Madonna Jarrett Madonna Jarrett supports the bill because it replaces age-based private health insurance rebates with income-based assistance, which she argues is fairer and more sustainable, while redirecting about $3 billion to aged care.
    “These are sensible principles, these are responsible principles and they are consistent with Labor's belief that Australia's health system should remain strong, universal and available for Australians today and into the future. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Renee Coffey Coffey supports the bill because she says applying the same income-based rebate rates across age groups is fairer and will redirect about $3 billion to aged care, while acknowledging that affected older Australians will pay more for their premiums.
    “We should explain the change clearly and acknowledge its effect on household budgets. I believe this is a fairer way to allocate public funding and provide more care in older age. The savings will go directly into aged care, helping fund the support people need and new residential places to meet rising demand. It is also important to be clear about the support that will remain. Eligible older Australians will continue to receive the income based rebate, and modelling shows that private health insurance membership is expected to be only around 0.4 per cent lower than it would be without this change. Overall membership is still expected to grow, including people aged over 65.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Alice Jordan-Baird Alice Jordan-Baird supports the bill, arguing that basing private health insurance rebates on income rather than age will make the system fairer and release funding for better aged-care services.
    “At the heart of this bill is a really simple principle: we need a healthcare system that is there for Australians when they need it and a healthcare system that is fair, accessible and sustainable for generations to come. That means making the difficult decisions that see our funding do the most good—making sure that our ageing population can access the care they deserve, investing in our public hospital system, strengthening Medicare and giving people with private health insurance the information and protections they deserve so that they can make informed choices about their own health. We have a responsibility to make sure that, when Aussies need access to health care, that access isn't determined by their age or their income but by their needs. We are working towards a fairer and stronger healthcare system. I commend this bill to the House.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  5. Sarah Witty Witty supports the bill because it would base the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. on income rather than age and redirect savings into aged-care beds, home support and dementia care.
    “The responsible choice is to act, the responsible choice is to invest and the responsible choice is to build an aged-care system that future generations of Australians can rely on. This is what this bill helps achieve: a fairer system, a stronger aged-care sector, a stronger health system and better support for the Australians who built this country and deserve nothing less than dignity, respect and quality care as they grow older. I commend this bill to the House.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  6. David Moncrieff Moncrieff supports the bill, arguing that basing private health insurance rebates on income rather than age is fairer, will strengthen the insurance risk pool and will free funding for improved aged care.
    “Over the last four years, we have committed ourselves to restoring trust in the aged-care sector and restoring trust in our healthcare sector. It's why we've invested so much in bulk-billing, and it's why bulk-billing is slowly becoming the norm again across Australia. It's why we've got 23 bulk-billing clinics in Hughes. It's why we are restoring the trust of Australians in the aged-care sector. But these decisions don't come without consequence, and we are taking the tough political decisions to make the necessary reforms to make our system sustainable. We're restoring fairness to the rebate system and directing much-needed funding to provide more dignity and care to older Australians and responding to the neglect that was identified by the royal commissions. It is for this reason that I commend this bill to the House.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  7. Trish Cook Cook opposes the bill, arguing that cutting age-based rebates will make private health insurance unaffordable for many older Australians and place greater pressure on already overstretched public hospitals.
    “I want to salute the nurses and doctors and medical staff who work extremely hard in regional communities like mine. They do their very, very best with dedication and with limited resources. They bring expertise, compassion and deep care to patients every single day under the most trying of situations and circumstances. I will not stand by while that happens to people in Monash. I will keep fighting this cut in the parliament, alongside my coalition colleagues, and alongside peak bodies and consumer groups—Private Healthcare Australia and National Seniors Australia among them—who are standing up for older Australians on this issue.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 10 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  8. Tracey Roberts Roberts supports the bill, arguing that replacing the age based private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. with a means testedThe amount of help depends on income., age neutral rebate is fairer and will redirect about $3 billion into aged care while having only a modest effect on insurance participation.
    “For the people of Pearce—for young families, retirees, workers and small businesses—these principles matter every day. They want fairness, they want a strong health system, and they want responsible decisions from government. That is what this bill delivers. It modernises an outdated policy. It improves intergenerational equity, it maintains support for private health insurance through a fair, means tested rebate, and it strengthens aged care through a $3 billion reinvestment. It demonstrates that responsible economic management and compassionate policy go hand in hand. For the people of Pearce, for older Australians who deserve better care and for the long-term sustainability of our health system, I commend the bill to the House.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 10 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  9. Jo Briskey Jo Briskey supports the bill, arguing that ending the higher age-based rebate makes the system fairer while redirecting $3 billion to aged-care beds, home-care packages and dementia services.
    “The easy thing is available to all of us here today. I could stand here and say nothing, let it pass and hope that the letters land in somebody else's office, and I would probably get away with it. But my community has 26,100 people over the age of 65 and over 7,500 over the age of 80, and the number of older Australians in my community is going up, not down. What they will need is not a slightly better rebate on a hospital policy; it's a bed in a good home near their family, without having to wait; a package that arrives while they can still use it; or someone to help them shower who is paid properly and has the time to do it kindly. That is what the $3 billion can be better spent on, and it is why this difficult decision is the right one. That is why this government has made the decision those opposite spent 22 years avoiding, because, when it comes to building a dignified aged-care system that values older Australians and cares for them, it is only those on this side of the House who are committed to improving the systems of inequality in order to ensure better and fairer outcomes. I commend the bill to the House.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 10 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  10. Mark Butler Butler supports the bill, arguing that ending the higher rebate for people aged 65 and over will make support more equitable and better targeted while freeing $3 billion for aged-care services.
    “Therefore, to re-establish intergenerational equity, and to better target and simplify the rebate, this bill will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, removing the higher rebates paid for people aged 65 and over. The rebate will remain means tested—a change Labor made in 2012 and those opposite opposed—paid at a higher rate for those on lower incomes.”

    Australian Labor Party • MP • 25 June 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  11. Steve Georganas 2 contributions Steve Georganas supports the bill as a modest fairness reform that bases the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. on income rather than age while retaining substantial assistance.

    Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Steve Georganas on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Second reading speech Australian Labor Party • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Steve Georganas supports the bill as a modest fairness reform that bases the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. on income rather than age while retaining substantial assistance. He argues that the resulting savings will fund better aged-care services, although affected people will pay about $250 more per year on average.

    “Under current private health insurance rebate arrangements, Australians aged 65 and over receive a rebate. Where they have exactly the same income as everyone else, they receive a slightly higher rebate. What this bill is doing is making it fair for all Australians to receive the same amount of rebate. In other words, two Australians with identical incomes can receive different levels of government support simply because one is older than the other. That's where we currently stand, and this bill addresses that. It ensures that all Australians receive the same private health insurance rebate based on their income rather than their age. It is a very modest reform but an important one because government assistance should be targeted according to the need and capacity to pay, not determined solely by age.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech Australian Labor Party • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Steve Georganas supports the bill, arguing that it retains the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. while redirecting savings into aged-care and home-care services for older Australians.

    “This is an important bill. As I said, it's not about cuts, it's about ensuring that we put the money that's saved directly into older Australians—aged-care packages and home-care packages—to ensure they have the services that they will require, perhaps at a later time. What this bill does is it ensures that support is distributed fairly and that savings generated are reinvested directly into savings that older Australians rely upon every day. This is a reasonable and responsible choice by this government, because, if we're serious about improving aged care, we must also be serious about funding it. The true measure of a society is how it cares for its older Australians. I commend the bill to the House.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
  12. Nita Green Green supports the bill, arguing that removing higher rebates for people aged 65 and over will make assistance more equitable and allow $3 billion in savings to be redirected to aged care.
    “Therefore, to re-establish intergenerational equity, better target and simplify the rebate, this Bill will amend the Private Health Insurance Act 2007, removing the higher rebates paid for people aged 65 and over. The rebate will remain means tested—a change Labor made in 2012 and those opposite opposed—paid at a higher rate for those on lower incomes.”

    Australian Labor Party • Senator • 17 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Coalition

33 speakers · 35 contributions · 33 oppose

  1. Phillip Thompson Thompson opposes the bill and calls for it to be abandoned, arguing that higher private health insurance costs will hurt pensioners and retirees, drive people into the public system and worsen pressure on hospitals.
    “(2) calling on the Government to immediately abandon this Bill and scrap this damaging policy in its entirety".”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Henry Pike Pike opposes the bill, arguing that reducing the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. will unfairly raise costs for older Australians, drive people out of private cover and increase pressure and costs in the public hospital system.
    “The coalition supports choice. The coalition believes that, if people work hard to pay for private health insurance their entire working life, this should be encouraged and not punished. That's why we are going to fight to stop Labor's cuts to the private health insurance rebate. We are going to fight this every step of the way. The government should scrap this proposed cut. They need to scrap it and stop treating older Australians who've done the right thing for decades as its next revenue source.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Tim Wilson Wilson opposes the bill, arguing that reducing the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. will raise costs for older Australians, force some to downgrade or abandon cover, and shift greater pressure onto public hospitals.
    “The government is stripping back the private health insurance rebate that older Australians have relied on to make sure that they can make decisions and control their own health care. They're taking it away, and the government's own minister admits the change will hit about 3.2 million Australians aged 65 and over. On the government's own numbers, the average hit is at least 250 bucks a year, but for many people it could be substantially higher. The government has a word for all of this. It calls it 'modernising'. It talks about it in the context of the budget and the rubbish narrative that it's pushing out there, which is doing nothing to improve the welfare of the Australian people and in fact is destroying the wealth and wages of the Australian people—particularly young Australians.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 15 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Alison Penfold Penfold opposes the bill, arguing that cutting the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. will make health care less affordable for older Australians, drive people out of private insurance and place greater pressure on already strained public hospitals.
    “The coalition will fight this measure. We'll fight for choice. We'll fight for a strong and sustainable private health system. We'll fight against further pressure being placed on our public hospitals. Most importantly, we will fight for older Australians who worked, saved, contributed, fought, did the right thing and deserve much better than this from the Albanese Labor government.”

    The Nationals • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  5. Darren Chester Chester says the coalition opposes the bill because cutting the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. will increase costs for older Australians, push people out of private cover, strain public hospitals and threaten regional private hospitals.
    “The coalition opposes these measures for all the reasons I've just described. They're an attack on aspiration. They're an attack on older Australians. They're sneaky; they were never taken to an election. And the long-term consequences of this decision will flow through the entire health system. You don't have to take my word for it. On our side of the House, we have been inundated by people who've been impacted and also by other jurisdictions.”

    The Nationals • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  6. Kevin Hogan Hogan opposes the bill, arguing that reducing the rebate will make private health insurance unaffordable for many older Australians and push more patients into an already strained public hospital system.
    “We've had many cases—and I will go through a few—in the sense that a lot of these senior Australians who have paid for their private health insurance over many years or many decades now won't be able to afford it at a time in their life they're going to need it. There's another ramification of this. The federal government has looked at this as a zero-sum game. When the Minister for Health and Ageing was asked to justify this, he said, 'Well, we have difficult decisions to make here, so we've taken it from people's private health rebate, and we're putting it into aged care—zero sum, all square.' It's not all square. We've had every state Labor premier, every state premier, say this is bad policy. We all understand this. I know you understand this, Deputy Speaker Buchholz. When these senior Australians can no longer afford their private health insurance, they are going to be completely dependent on the public health system.”

    The Nationals • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  7. Colin Boyce Boyce opposes the bill, arguing that removing the higher rebate will increase costs for older Australians, push some to abandon or downgrade private cover, and place greater pressure on public hospitals, particularly in regional areas.
    “The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee is examining this legislation, and its report is due on 7 October. There is still time to get this right. There's still time to look properly at the evidence. And there is still time to consider what this means for pensioners, for self-funded retirees, for regional Australians and for the broader health system. There is still time for the Albanese government to reconsider this measure, because behind all of these numbers are people—pensioners who have paid for private health insurance for decades, couples who have gone without elsewhere so they could maintain their cover, the retiree who wants peace of mind knowing that they have another option if they need surgery and regional Australians who already have to travel to access health care. These Australians have worked hard. They've paid their way. They've contributed to this country. And many have spent a lifetime making responsible decisions about their health and their finances. They deserve to have those decisions respected. This is really quite simple: if Australians have worked hard and maintained private health insurance throughout their working lives, we should not punish them for having done so when they retire. They paid their premiums, they made their choice, they did their part, and now the government needs to do its part and reconsider this cut.”

    The Nationals • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  8. Simon Kennedy Kennedy opposes the bill because he says reducing rebates for older Australians will make private health insurance unaffordable, drive patients into the public system and merely shift costs to the states.
    “It's actually not going to have the savings or effect we hope for. It's just going to shift costs from the feds to the states, and I'll tell you why. Let me read two emails I've had from my electorate. The first reads:”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 10 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  9. Leon Rebello Leon Rebello opposes the bill, arguing that reducing private health insurance rebates will make cover unaffordable for many older Australians and push more people into an already strained public health system.
    “This is something the government should be ashamed of. This bill should not be supported, because of the effect that it's going to have on older Australians in my electorate and across the country.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 15 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  10. Ben Small Small opposes the bill, calling the rebate reduction an unfair tax grab on older Australians that could force many to abandon private health insurance and put more pressure on public hospitals.
    “I return to that stat that I mentioned at the start: 45 per cent of them over the age of 65 are actually on the pension. These aren't Australians who are minted. These aren't Australians who are millionaires. They are Australians who want to do the right thing and expect only that their government will back them in that. I don't think that's unreasonable. In fact, that's the sort of compact that I would expect any decent Australian government would have with its older citizens. That is why this decision to strip back the private health insurance rebate for over 65s is a disgrace, and that is why we will oppose it tooth and nail.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  11. David Batt Batt says the coalition opposes the bill because cutting older Australians' private health insurance rebates would make cover less affordable, push patients into already strained public hospitals and threaten regional health services.
    “The government's impact analysis acknowledges the risk but does not bother modelling what it means for patients or the hospital system. If you're over 65 and you downgrade, will the removal of cataracts still be covered? What about joint replacements? Mental health care? The work hasn't been done. The scrapping of the private health insurance rebate for Australians aged 65 and over is built on zero consultation, untested assumptions, incomplete modelling and an impact analysis that overlooks the policy's most significant consequences. That's why the coalition are opposing the bill before us today.”

    The Nationals • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  12. Angie Bell Angie Bell opposes the bill, arguing that reducing the rebate will make private health insurance less affordable for older Australians, push many into the public system and increase pressure on public hospitals.
    “The changes in this bill really are a blatant attack on my community on the Gold Coast because stripping back this rebate means that people who have private health insurance have to find that extra money every year that the government is now pocketing because it is not paying that rebate. Now, that is tantamount in my mind to theft from over-65s, who have an understanding of what the health operations are—what the settings are in health. The government has moved the goalposts on their plans for retirement, and what it means to those over-65s is they have to cut down their spending on other essentials. That means they have to go without because the government has stolen that money that they have banked on since their retirement. They have to downgrade their cover or drop it all together.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  13. Aaron Violi Violi opposes the bill, arguing that removing the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. from people over 65 will make cover unaffordable for older Australians and shift more patients into already strained public hospitals.
    “We talk about the younger generation and this intergenerational warfare that this government is stoking. The reality is that these changes won't save someone who's 35 or 40 any money, but it will hurt them, and it'll hurt all Australians. If you were thinking that you would not be impacted by these changes, you would be wrong. What this government are doing is something that they like to do so often, and it's called cost-shifting. They are moving the health cost from the federal government, through providing the rebate, to the public system, which is conveniently paid for by state governments. That's what is going to happen. There's lots of modelling out there. Lots of people are saying that they're going to drop their private health insurance, and they will have to rely on the public system, which will put more pressure on the public system than it can afford.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  14. David Littleproud Littleproud opposes the bill, arguing that withdrawing private health insurance rebates from older Australians and pensioners punishes people who have contributed to the country, limits healthcare choice in remote communities and will put more pressure on the public system.
    “That's the Australia and that's the parliament that we should have in this country. That's the parliament the Australian people deserve—members of parliament that, in that moment that a government is prepared to do the wrong thing, are prepared to stand up against it and to be counted against it. I doubt that it'll happen with the other 84 or 83 that haven't had the courage to come in here. I challenge them. They're probably watching. Come out of your office if you so believe in this. If you so believe that you want to take that little bit off that generation, well, come in here and put your voice to it. But the fact that only 13 out of 94 have been prepared to do it speaks volumes about a government that's out of touch and its members that have lost touch. I oppose the bill in every sense and form.”

    The Nationals • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  15. Andrew Wallace Wallace opposes the bill, arguing that cutting rebates will raise private health insurance costs for older Australians and push more patients into an already pressured public hospital system.
    “This matters enormously to my electorate of Fisher, where more than 22 per cent of the population is aged over 65. We're proud to be one of the places in Australia to live, work and retire. But regional communities already face challenges accessing timely health care. The coalition's position is clear we oppose these cuts, and we will fight them in this parliament and in the Senate. Australians who have spent decades maintaining private health insurance should be supported to keep it.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 10 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  16. Rick Wilson Wilson vehemently opposes the bill, arguing that cutting rebates will make private health insurance unaffordable for many older Australians, force some into already strained public hospitals and disproportionately harm pensioners and regional communities.
    “Finally, maybe the Prime Minister should listen to his state government counterparts, the majority of whom are lined up against this measure. Even South Australia's Labor government in health minister Butler's own state has joined the Labor governments of New South Wales and Victoria and the coalition governments of Queensland and Tasmania in opposing this change. When the very state governments that actually run our public hospitals are all telling the Commonwealth that this policy shifts costs and they don't listen, the federal government has run out of people to blame. There has been a recurring pattern of the Albanese government not doing their homework, and every single time it is older and more vulnerable Australians who are left to pay for the government's mistakes. So, while I stand here stating irrefutable facts that defy logic, I close by re-emphasising my defence of the seniors of O'Connor, on whom there will rain all manner of pain should this ill conceived private health insurance amendment pass this House. I vehemently oppose this bill.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 15 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  17. Anne Webster Webster opposes the bill, arguing that reducing age based private health insurance rebates will make cover unaffordable for many older Australians and shift more patients into already strained public hospitals.
    “A brief trigger warning for the member for Barton and those opposite: I am again going to acknowledge the struggles public hospitals face. Somehow, when I talked about this on 18 August, the member for Barton thought that this was an attack on public health workers by me. Quite the opposite. It was a bizarre attack she made about my statements, as though somehow a member on this side of the House talking about public health was implicitly an attack. My point is very clear and I will say it again slowly: cutting private health rebates will put more pressure on public hospitals. This is not difficult. Labor are not helping public health with this bill. They are doing the opposite. I support our healthcare workers, regardless of where they work, and I will not wear unhinged rants from those opposite merely because we're speaking the truth about ramping and bed block in public hospitals.”

    The Nationals • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  18. Zoe McKenzie McKenzie opposes the bill, arguing that cutting rebates for people over 65 will make private health insurance unaffordable for many older Australians and push them into an already strained public hospital system.
    “After a lifetime of doing the right thing, older Australians should not receive a bill from Canberra for the privilege. The government needs to scrap this cut. It needs to keep the over 65-year-old cohort in private health insurance. Respect their hard work. Respect their sacrifice and their deferral of other costs, other choices and other opportunities to maintain their health insurance and lessen their dependence on the public system at a time when their health needs start to grow. Respect older Australians. Respect my electorate.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 15 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  19. Mary Aldred Aldred opposes the bill, arguing that ending the higher age-based rebate will make private health insurance unaffordable for many older Australians and push more patients into already overstretched public hospitals.
    “I want to salute the nurses and doctors and medical staff who work extremely hard in regional communities like mine. They do their very, very best with dedication and with limited resources. They bring expertise, compassion and deep care to patients every single day under the most trying of situations and circumstances. I will not stand by while that happens to people in Monash. I will keep fighting this cut in the parliament, alongside my coalition colleagues, and alongside peak bodies and consumer groups—Private Healthcare Australia and National Seniors Australia among them—who are standing up for older Australians on this issue.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 10 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  20. Sam Birrell Sam Birrell says the coalition will oppose the bill because cutting age-based private health insurance rebates would make cover less affordable for older Australians, shift demand onto strained public hospitals and threaten regional health services.
    “In conclusion, regional Australians do not ask for special treatment. They ask the government to understand the conditions in which services are actually being delivered, and this bill makes private insurance less affordable for older Australians at the stage of life when they are most likely to need hospital care. This change risks shifting patients into public hospitals that are already under significant pressure, weakening regional private services and therefore creating flow-on costs for aged care and younger families. The coalition will oppose this bill, and it should be abandoned. It's poor policy to try and achieve budget savings by taking health choices from older Australians and hospital capacity from regional Australians.”

    The Nationals • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  21. Dan Tehan Tehan opposes the bill, arguing that its rebate changes will sharply increase private health insurance costs for 1.5 million pensioners, force some to abandon their cover and further strain public hospitals.
    “Silence. And yet this is modernising private health insurance. The great modern Labor Party—1.5 million pensioners. They're unbelievable! The funny thing about this was that they didn't even know what their policy had changed or what their modernising of Australia was going to do. Not only is this bad public policy, but no-one did the work. No-one actually thought about what this was going to do. The sad thing for the 1.5 million pensioners of Australia is that, not only are they going to be hit with this extra cost to their private health insurance; sadly, if they have to give their private health insurance up—which some of them will be forced to do, and the modelling says that—guess where they have to go, then, to get the treatment they need? They have to go to the public hospital system. And guess what every leader in the state and territory has said is going to happen? That's going to be stretched even further, and those poor pensioners won't be able to get the treatment that they need when they need it.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 15 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  22. Tony Pasin Pasin opposes the bill, arguing that its rebate changes will make private health insurance unaffordable for many pensioners, push them into an already strained public system and particularly harm regional Australians who rely on timely metropolitan treatment.
    “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.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 15 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  23. Andrew Willcox Willcox opposes the bill because reducing the rebate would make private health insurance less affordable for older Australians and could push more patients into already overstretched public hospitals.
    “It is not too late. The government can still change course if it wants to. It can listen to older Australians and scrap this cut. It can recognise that private health insurance is not the enemy of Medicare. It is one of the things that helps make the whole system work. This rebate reduction is fundamentally wrong, and it's wrong on so many levels. It is wrong to make health care harder to afford for older Australians. It is wrong to put more pressure on the public health system. The public health system is already overstretched. And it is wrong to treat the people who carry almost half of this saving as simply another line in the budget.”

    The Nationals • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  24. Melissa McIntosh McIntosh says the coalition opposes the bill because it would cut rebates and substantially increase private health insurance costs for older Australians, potentially driving many into an already strained public hospital system.
    “Let me be very clear about where the coalition stands. We believe in a strong private health system working alongside a strong public one. We support genuine reform. We support real transparency so patients know what they will pay before they walk through the door. But this is not reform; this is a cut dressed up in the language of reform. Calling it 'modernising' does not change one dollar of what it does to an older Australian's premium. This bill is part of a pattern. This is a government that keeps deciding which Australians are worth helping, and older Australians keep finding themselves at the back of the line, told to pay more for their private cover, left waiting for their aged care and at every turn left behind. The coalition will not stand for it. We are opposing this bill in this place, we are fighting it through the Senate inquiry, which reports in October, and we are calling on this government to do the right thing and scrap this damaging policy altogether. We stand with older Australians who have worked and saved and done the right thing and who are now being asked to pay more for less.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 10 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  25. Michelle Landry Landry opposes the bill, arguing that its rebate cuts will make private health insurance unaffordable for many older Australians and shift patients and costs onto already strained public hospitals, particularly in regional areas.
    “Older Australians have spent their lives contributing to this country, building businesses, working on farms and in mines, teaching children, caring for patients, raising families and volunteering in their communities. The government should scrap this proposed cut and recognise what Central Queenslanders understand instinctively: shifting a patient from a private hospital to a public hospital does not make the illness disappear or the operation unnecessary. It simply moves the demand and the cost into a regional system already working hard across enormous distances. Labor should abandon this cut before older Australians and our public hospitals are left paying the price.”

    The Nationals • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  26. Scott Buchholz Buchholz opposes the bill, condemning it as a cruel cut to private health insurance rebates that will leave many pensioners worse off and push people into state health systems.
    “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.'”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  27. Llew O'Brien O'Brien opposes the bill because he says cutting the age based rebate will make private health insurance unaffordable for many older Australians and increase pressure on public hospitals, particularly in regional areas.
    “Now, just when they are most likely to need procedures such as cataract surgeries, hip replacements or knee replacements, Labor's asking them to pay more and receive less. For many, the alternative will be joining already lengthy public waiting lists. This bill uses smoke and mirrors to improve the Commonwealth's bottom line, but it does so at the expense of older Australians and at the risk of placing ever-greater pressure on our public health system. This is why I cannot support this legislation, and I urge the House to reject it.”

    The Nationals • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  28. Michael McCormack 2 contributions McCormack opposes the bill, arguing that reducing the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. for people over 65 would unfairly burden older Australians and threaten the viability of regional private hospitals.

    Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Michael McCormack on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Second reading speech The Nationals • MP • 10 Sept 2026

    McCormack opposes the bill, arguing that reducing the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. for people over 65 would unfairly burden older Australians and threaten the viability of regional private hospitals.

    “By taking away the private health insurance rebate, what we hear and what we see out in regional Australia is that private hospitals are really worried about their modus operandi and really worried about their bottom lines. We've heard from many experts in the field that they are worried about whether they'll be able to keep the doors of their hospitals open because of this stupid, senseless policy.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech The Nationals • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    McCormack opposes the bill and calls for the proposed rebate cut to be scrapped, arguing it would put financial pressure on 1.2 million older Australians who have worked to maintain private health insurance.

    “The coalition has the team and the plan to fix these sorts of situations. We support choice. We believe that, if people work hard to pay for private health insurance their entire working life, then this should be encouraged. What you'll find them call it on the other side is intergenerational equity. That's what they'll say. That'll be the argument that they put forward in this debate. We're going to fight Labor's cut to the private health insurance rebate every step of the way. We're going to fight the $5,000 cap on allied health for our veterans every step of the way. Every time that Labor comes into this place and brings down, brings through and brings up a policy that they didn't discuss before the election and that they didn't put forward before the budget, and is wrong and is not seen to be fair by Australians, we will fight it every step of the way, as the Australian public deserves. The government should scrap the proposed cut in the Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
  29. Andrew Hastie Hastie opposes the bill, arguing that reducing private health insurance rebates will make cover unaffordable for many pensioners, drive patients into an already strained public system and unfairly penalise older Australians who planned and paid for their own care.
    “The coalition will fight these cuts. We're going to fight them very hard. They should be abandoned because Adrian and his wife have spent their lives working, paying taxes, saving and taking responsibility for themselves—as have Grant and Margaret and so many more Australian seniors and pensioners across our great country who've made their contribution over a lifetime and are now going to be hit by this change. They've held up their end of the bargain, and it's about time this Albanese Labor government did the same.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  30. Melissa Price Price opposes the bill, arguing that reducing the rebate would unfairly raise costs for older Australians on fixed incomes, cause many to drop private health insurance and place greater pressure on public hospitals.
    “Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 and state my absolute opposition to the changes from the outset. These changes will have very real consequences for senior Australians, particularly for those living on fixed incomes. At the centre of this is a debate about choice, and it is a debate about fairness for 1.5 million Australians. The issue is whether Australians who have worked hard throughout their lives, paid their taxes, planned for retirement, done what they were told to do and taken out private health insurance should be punished now for doing so. It is also a test of whether the government understands the pressure that senior regional Western Australians are already facing with the rising cost of living.”

    Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 15 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  31. Cameron Caldwell 2 contributions Caldwell opposes the bill, arguing that reducing the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. will make coverage unaffordable for many older Australians and increase pressure on the public health system.

    Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Cameron Caldwell on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Second reading speech Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Caldwell opposes the bill, arguing that reducing the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. will make coverage unaffordable for many older Australians and increase pressure on the public health system.

    “National Seniors Australia has found that as many as 45 per cent of people whose sole income source is the age pension hold private health insurance. That's an extraordinary amount and one which is probably counterintuitive to many of those opposite. But this is exactly what the government is doing in this bill: they are going to make it even harder for pensioners in our country to be able to afford to continue with their private health insurance. We believe that the government should scrap this proposed cut and stop treating older Australians who have done the right thing for decades as its next revenue source to prop up their failing budget.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech Liberal Party of Australia • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Caldwell opposes the bill, arguing that reducing age-based private health insurance rebates will push older Australians out of private cover, increase pressure on the public health system and break the government's pre-election commitment to affordability.

    “They're not members of parliament. They're not the Treasurer. They're not the health minister. They're everyday Australians who can see very clearly what's going to happen here. Even on the government's own modest modelling, they know that people will leave the private health system and will then go into the public health system. This is going to be a cumulative problem for the government in years to come.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

Minor parties and independents

10 speakers · 11 contributions · 1 support · 9 oppose

  1. Sophie Scamps Sophie Scamps opposes the bill because removing the age-based rebate would make private health insurance less affordable for pensioners and lower-income retirees and could increase pressure on public hospitals.
    “Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026, which I cannot support in good faith. From 1 April 2027 this bill would abolish the additional age based private health insurance rebate for Australians aged 65 and over. Instead, the rebate would be determined by income alone.”

    Independent • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  2. Andrew Wilkie Andrew Wilkie opposes the bill because he says older Australians cannot afford higher private health insurance costs and many would reduce or drop their cover, adding pressure to an already strained public health system.
    “Private Health Insurance Amendment (Modernising the Private Health Insurance Rebate) Bill 2026 is a shocker, and I for one will not be supporting it. We've already heard from honourable members a range of reasons why it's unsupportable—including most recently from the member for Nicholls, who I think laid out the case against very effectively. Let me dwell on a few of the points that have already been well ventilated.”

    Independent • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  3. Rebekha Sharkie Sharkie opposes the bill, calling it a punitive and short-sighted cut that could force older Australians to abandon private health insurance and put greater pressure on public and regional hospitals.
    “This bill is a dreadful bill. It's actually bad policy as well as bad politics. I would urge the government to reconsider.”

    Centre Alliance • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  4. Kate Chaney Chaney says she cannot support the bill in its current form because the government has not adequately modelled its effects on insurance coverage and public hospitals or protected pensioners.
    “I'll support the amendment moved by the member for Kooyong to carve pensioners out of this change. If the government will not model the consequences, the least this parliament can do is protect the people least able to absorb them. If that amendment fails, I cannot support this bill in its current form. I do not disagree with the principle behind it; I disagree with being asked to take its consequences on trust. The people of Curtin, including a great many who've written to my office about this change, expect their representative to read the evidence before voting and to say so plainly when the evidence is not there.”

    Independent • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  5. Monique Ryan 2 contributions Ryan opposes the bill, arguing that it will raise insurance costs for older Australians, push patients into already strained public hospitals and threaten private hospital viability.

    Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Monique Ryan on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.

    Second reading speech Independent • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Ryan opposes the bill, arguing that it will raise insurance costs for older Australians, push patients into already strained public hospitals and threaten private hospital viability. She calls for the government to publish its modelling and exempt age pensioners before the bill proceeds.

    “This bill represents a significant cost impost for more than three million older Australians. It will have a significant impact on our public health system. It is a cash grab from older Australians and a cost shift to our states. I'm not sure how anyone looking at this proposal with a clear mind could in any conscience support it. The cost shift is going to fall disproportionately on state governments, which carry about 55 per cent of additional public hospital activity under the National Health Reform Agreement, but they won't receive any of the savings from the rebates.”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗

    Second reading speech Independent • MP • 15 Sept 2026

    Ryan opposes the bill because she says the government has not shown that making older Australians pay more for private health insurance will benefit the health system. She moves to deny it a second reading and calls for transparent fiscal analysis and an exemption for age pension recipients.

    “I support funding aged care. I support reforming the private health insurance system. But more than three million older Australians are being asked to pay more for their private health insurance without the government demonstrating to anyone's satisfaction and with appropriate transparency that this measure is a net positive for the health system as a whole and that it has a plan if its assumptions prove wrong. The government has not done that, and so I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name:”
    Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
  6. Allegra Spender Allegra Spender supports the bill as a principled move toward means-tested and sustainable health spending, while acknowledging that it will impose significant costs on pensioners and retirees and calling for closer Senate scrutiny of its impacts.
    “Those impacts are real and raise genuine concerns, particularly from elderly Australians in the community, at an already difficult time for household budgets. I want to acknowledge those concerns, particularly as they unexpectedly apply to pensioners and retirees on fixed incomes. Estimates of these costs vary depending on the source from about $250 according to the government's documents to $800 from the sector's own estimates. Those additional costs are not trivial. I acknowledge that. However, I support the government in this move to bring Australia's private health system in line with a more focused principle of means testing. That is a difficult and unpopular decision to make, but I think it is ultimately the right one, not just on health insurance but more broadly.”

    Community Strong Australia • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  7. Dai Le Dai Le urges the government not to proceed with the bill, arguing that cutting the private health insurance rebateGovernment help towards eligible private health insurance premiums. for older Australians would hurt pensioners already struggling with living costs and could place more pressure on public hospitals.
    “I urge the government not to proceed with this bill because it risks doing more harm than good. The minister has stated multiple times in this House that this is a hard choice to make, but a hard choice made in Canberra might have unbearable consequences for pensioners in communities like mine. My closing message to everyone who designs and delivers policy in this country is: see the whole of Australia, not just the average. Check the assumptions, check the bias and build policy for the diversity that lives here. The people of Fowler deserve to be seen.”

    Independent • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  8. Andrew Gee Gee opposes the bill, calling its rebate cuts unfair to older Australians and warning that higher insurance costs will force people out of private cover and place further pressure on already strained regional public hospitals.
    “This policy is short-sighted. It is unfair to our seniors. It's bad for regional health care. It's bad for Australian health care. And this policy needs to be binned immediately. So I'd say to those opposite: you must be getting these letters, emails and phone calls from your constituents. They must be writing in. Heed their words, heed their pain and anger, and reverse course on this ill thought out policy, this cruel policy. And bin it immediately.”

    Independent • MP • 16 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
  9. Helen Haines Haines opposes the bill because removing age-based rebates would make private health insurance more expensive for pensioners and other lower-income Australians, potentially forcing them to reduce or drop their cover.
    “I don't think anyone disagrees that we need to invest more in aged care, but the government should not be going cap in hand to pensioners to fund it. And, while I welcome the intention to direct resources towards ensuring Australians have access to safe and dignified care through the aged-care system, in this case, I simply cannot support this bill.”

    Independent • MP • 14 Sept 2026

    Read the full speech in Hansard ↗

Full record

Full chat