Private Health Insurance

Roberts argued that the motion misrepresented the policy, which removes an age-based inequity rather than abolishing the rebate. Roberts explained that from April 2027, rebates would be determined by income, ensuring equal treatment for individuals on the same income regardless of age. Roberts stated that the $3 billion in savings would be reinvested in aged care, including residential places and home support, addressing critical needs for older Australians. Roberts dismissed claims of a mass exodus from private insurance, noting the government's modelling predicted only a 0.4 per cent reduction in membership.

Penfold supported the motion, describing the policy as unjust and citing widespread outrage from constituents in her electorate. Penfold referenced a parliamentary e-petition with over 3,300 signatures and argued that the government was deliberately misleading the public about the number of people dropping cover, which she claimed was closer to 78,000 or higher. Penfold warned that the cuts would shift costs to state health budgets and public hospitals, with independent modelling suggesting up to 200,000 people might downgrade their cover. Penfold called for the government to release detailed modelling and abandon the policy.

Ambihaipahar defended the reforms as a measure to ensure fairness, stating that rebates would be based on income rather than age from April 2027. Ambihaipahar noted that people aged 65 and over would still receive subsidies of up to 24 per cent if their income was below specified thresholds. Ambihaipahar argued that the average impact would be around $250 per person annually, with savings directed towards expanding aged care services such as residential beds and home support. Ambihaipahar emphasised that the changes did not abolish the rebate or undermine Medicare, but rather targeted support to those with the greatest need.

Chaffey supported the motion, arguing that the cuts targeted vulnerable older Australians who had followed government advice to maintain private health insurance. Chaffey cited figures indicating that single people over 70 on gold cover would face an additional cost of $408 per year, which could force them to reduce other essential spending. Chaffey warned that approximately 44,000 Australians were expected to drop cover, with hundreds of thousands more downgrading, thereby increasing pressure on the public health system. Chaffey described the policy as cost-shifting rather than saving, noting that no state or territory government supported the bill.

McCormack agreed with the previous speaker that the policy represented cost-shifting onto the public hospital system. McCormack highlighted concerns from constituents who felt betrayed after decades of contributing to private health insurance, noting that many were struggling with rising living costs. McCormack cited Department of Health analysis predicting that 78,000 older Australians would drop their cover by 2030. McCormack shared anecdotes from residents in his electorate who feared becoming public patients and criticised the government for ignoring the needs of older Australians.

Belyea addressed concerns raised by constituents, clarifying that individuals over 65 earning less than $101,000 would still receive a 24 per cent rebate. Belyea argued that the legislation levelled the playing field by ensuring everyone received benefits based on income rather than age. Belyea emphasised that the savings from the rebate changes would be invested in increasing home-care and aged-care packages to support an ageing population. Belyea maintained that the policy was equitable and just, aiming to keep older people in their homes for longer.