TV interview with Minister Butler, Sunrise – 16 October 2026

NATALIE BARR, HOST: The Government’s failed legislation to scrap private health rebates for over-65s may soon force them to compromise with the Greens, demanding pensioners be exempt from the insurance changes, voting with the Coalition to block Labor’s bill from becoming law. If the Gcaves to the Greens, the projected $3 billion in savings would be cut to less than half. Those funds would be redirected to the aged care system.
 
Let’s bring in Health Minister Mark Butler and Deputy Opposition Leader Jane Hume. Good morning to both of you. So Mark, you tried reintroducing these same failed legislation into Parliament. As I understand, the Greens say it’s the same Senate today as it was yesterday. So Either you compromise or it won’t get through. Will you bring in a carve out for pensioners?
 
MARK BUTLER, MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND AGEING, MINISTER FOR DISABILITY AND THE NDIS: Good morning, Nat. First of all, can I say in response to your introduction, there’s no proposal to scrap any rebates. The vast bulk of Australians on 50, 70, $90,000 would continue to have about a quarter of their private health insurance bill paid for by the Government under our proposal. What would change is that a small top up that was introduced by John Howard which only applies to over-65s would be removed, so that two households next door to each other would receive exactly the same support for their private health insurance, no matter what their age, if they're on the same income. What we’ve -
 
BARR: So how much would they lose? So if this goes through and you're over 65 and you’re getting the rebate, how much would you lose under your plan?
 
BUTLER: It depends on your policy, but the average policy would result in a change of about $250 a year, or about 70 cents per day. And I really want to sort of dispel this idea that the rebate's being scrapped. We'll continue to pay about $8 billion every single year to support people's private health insurance. We just remove that age discrimination that was introduced by John Howard. And the reason to do this is we are so desperate to expand aged care services at a time of unprecedented demand for good aged care. And the vast bulk of that investment that we announced in the Budget would go to support aged care beds for pensioners in particular, people who don't have the ability to pay the big aged care bonds that providers often demand.
 
Now, the reason we reintroduced the bill is I want to have a debate in the Senate. What Jane and her other Coalition colleagues and the Greens party did this week was to discharge the bill from the notice paper, which means we had no ability to have a debate and no ability to consider amendments that Coalition or Greens senators might want to put, and no ability to hear their alternatives. I mean, do they oppose the aged care investments we announced in the budget, or do they have alternative ways of funding it? Because I take my responsibility to find responsible savings to fund the new services I need to put in place.
 
BARR: Okay, Jane, we need to fund the aged care system. Is this a good way to do it? So what, about, let's say roughly $250 a year. If you're over 65, you will no longer be getting that portion of the rebate. What would you do to help fund the aged care system?
 
SENATOR JANE HUME: Well, that means around 77,000 older Australians, some of whom are pensioners, simply will move from the private health system to the public health system. So you're essentially shifting the costs from people that are funding themselves for their health to the public system, so the taxpayer is going to pay some way or another. There are other ways that you can fund this, Mark. You don't have to go around attacking old people.
 
BARR:  Like what, Jane?
 
HUME: Well, you could cut corporate welfare, Nat, and you could cut the National Reconstruction Fund or subsidies to green hydrogen. You could cut the net zero authority agency and all the climate bureaucracy that goes around subsidising EVs, something the market is already doing on its own. Or you could cut the National Housing Future Fund, which is, let’s face it, not building the houses we need. It’s simply giving subsidies to big international corporations. There are so many places you can find money, you can find savings. Why would you rip it away from pensioners? Why would you rip it away from old people that have funded their own private health insurance all of their lives, and now when they need it the most you’re making it more expensive for them.
 
BARR: Okay, Mark, the single pension, as I understand, it's about $32,180 a year. So you're taking $250 from those people. Are you robbing Peter to pay Peter?
 
BUTLER: I'm not doing it lightly, Nat, but budgets are about hard choices. And as I said earlier, I take my responsibility to find savings necessary to fund the huge demand in services, particularly in aged care, but also in health and the NDIS as well, I take that responsibility seriously. I wish I didn't have to come to the Cabinet with savings decisions like these, but there's not a magic money tree that's able to fund this huge demand for additional aged care services that I think everyone understands out there as the baby boomer generation starts to enter their 80s.
 
Now, I know this is hard, but I think returning the private health insurance subsidies to their original design, where people on the same income got the same subsidy, no matter whether they're in their 40s or 50s or 60s or 70s, is a good thing to do. It's the right thing to do. I understand it's a hard thing to do, but we simply have to put money into aged care services. We're having to do it every single budget. The year I came to this job, we were spending $24 billion on aged care. This year, we're spending $44 billion. And that number's just going to continue to climb.
 
BARR: Yeah, because we've got an ageing population.
 
BUTLER: As we see the ageing of the baby boomer generation.
 
BARR: Can you, does it have to be from your department, so maybe it, not cut from health? Is there some other department, like Jane says, that's maybe, you know, they're flying around the country more or they're flying internationally more, or they're spending money on more conferences or something that you think, hey, maybe in this cost of living crisis, we can cut there rather than taking $250 of someone who's getting $32,180 a year?
 
BUTLER: Look, I've had a very good response from government when I've gone to the Cabinet and asked for additional investment, for example, to build Urgent Care Clinics, to put extra money into public hospitals, $25 billion extra to increase bulk billing incentives. I do recognise, though, that I have a responsibility, I think I’m responsible for about 30 per cent of government spending, to come up with some of my own ideas for good savings. We’ve done that in relation to the NDIS. That’s going to be a hard job, but an important job. And this one as well, I think, simply returns the private health insurance subsidy arrangements to their original design, which did not discriminate between two households living next door to each other on exactly the same income, simply because of their age.
 
BARR: Yeah, so Jane, do you think maybe we should not cut any more of health and look at other departments? Is that what you're saying?
 
HUME: It's simply moving money from one part of the health system to another part of the health system. And it means we're going to see more ambulance ramping, longer elective surgery waiting lists. The states will end up picking up the tab for Mark Butler's savings in his portfolio. And it's Australians eventually that are going to pay the price, not just those pensioners that are going to have to lose their private health insurance, but all taxpayers who are going to end up funding more for public hospitals.
 
BARR: Yeah, so Mark, you can't go to the Prime Minister and say, look, health is out, I cannot find any more savings, I'm doing the best I can with cutting NDIS, can someone else have a go?
 
BUTLER: I just don't think that's how the world works now.
 
BARR: Can it, though?
 
BUTLER: Budgets are under pressure.
 
BARR: Can we make it work like that?
 
BUTLER: Budgets are under pressure. Everyone's got to do some heavy lifting. It's not like it was when John Howard introduced this subsidy back in 2004 -
 
BARR: Yeah, we know that. But can we now go, hey -
 
BUTLER: When there were rivers of gold flowing through. We've got to make hard choices.
 
HUME: Savings. We made savings. That's why there was money to be spent. We made savings.
 
BARR: Okay, we're not talking about John Howard. That was a long time ago. We're talking about now. Can we sort of go and find another department, or is that just impossible?
 
BUTLER: And other departments have put their shoulder to the wheel to help fund the extra health investment, the huge extra health investment we've made over the last four years. But I don't think it's responsible to continue to say that we can't find responsible savings in our portfolio to fund the huge increase in spending. I've talked about $20 billion every year additional in aged care, and that's before we get to the additional hospitals funding, Medicare funding, medicines funding and the NDIS.
 
BARR: Okay. Before we go, Mark, today is Loud Shirt Day in support of deaf children. The Bolte Bridge in Melbourne and WestConnex Tunnel in Sydney will be lit up later. Can you tell us how people can support this?
 
BUTLER: This is such a terrific event. I'm not sure whether Jane managed to find some time to see people from Victoria.
 
HUME: Come on.
 
BUTLER: You've got a slightly loud shirt there, Jane.
 
BARR: It's pretty slightly loud.
 
BUTLER: It's impolite of me to comment on women's fashion, I know.
 
HUME: It’s a whispering loud shirt.
 
BUTLER: But this is my favourite event in the Parliamentary calendar, where these terrific young people aged between seven and 13 come from every state and territory and talk about their life journey as children with profound deafness. And they get support from these amazing organisations like the Shepherd Centre and CanDo, and so many of them around the country, to ensure they can live fantastic contributing lives.
 
BARR: Yeah, look, it’s easy. It’s easy to get involved, and it is such a good one to be involved with, thank you.
 
HUME: Terrific cause.
 
BARR: And Jane, I reckon that’s pretty loud.
 
HUME: It’ll do.
 
BARR: And we saw the photos of you, yeah. Mark, thank you very much for explaining it to people who may not know. And you can help out, we’ll put the link on our website. Thank you both, we’ll see you next week.