Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Pharmacy Location Arrangements) Bill 2006 and also to support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister for health. This bill is a result of negotiations that have taken place with a number of parties. In May 2005, parliament voted, with our support, to extend the current provisions with respect to the pharmacy location rules to 31 December last year through a provision in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Then, in October last year, these provisions were further extended until 30 June this year through passage of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. On both occasions the government stated the reason for the extension was to allow time for the government to consider the findings and recommendations of the joint review of pharmacy location rules received in June last year. However, at the same time, protracted negotiations were under way with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia over the fourth pharmacy agreement. It was clear, certainly to us, that the pharmacy location issues, linked to the ability of pharmacies in supermarkets to dispense PBS medicines, were being used by the government as a heavy handed negotiating tool.

Labor has always opposed the location of pharmacies within supermarkets. People and the pharmacies themselves are concerned about the threat to pharmacies and to the quality of drug dispensation if laws are enacted to enable supermarkets to effectively take over the core business of pharmacies. For that reason, we do support the bill. I am mindful of the fact that the second reading amendment goes to Labor’s grave concern about the way in which the PBS has been handled by this government. The member for Hotham has already articulated most of those concerns that we have expressed ever since the government hacked at the PBS.

In my own electorate, many people who are in need of prescription drugs felt the effects of the increases to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, increases which of course have added a particular burden to the household budget. The increases were quite significant and, for those people reliant upon drugs registered under the PBS, there is no doubt that there has been a considerable strain not only on their budget but on choices that they may have to make as to whether they can continue using such medication. I am not sure whether the government realises how difficult it is for people in households with low incomes seeking to look after their health under a system which is becoming increasingly more expensive for them, but I can assure the government that people are aware and sensitive to the impost placed upon them by decisions made to hike the prices up on the PBS copayments.

Since the introduction of the 21 per cent increase in PBS copayments last January and the 12.5 per cent cuts in generics in the middle of the year, the PBS growth rate has now fallen to 2.5 per cent and is expected to drop even further. Based on the most recent Medicare Australia data, savings to the PBS for the next financial year could amount to $1.38 billion, with 11.4 million fewer prescriptions. That is only good news if you put budget savings ahead of health outcomes. The Minister for Health and Ageing and the Treasurer consistently confuse PBS sustainability with cost cutting and never look at the impact on the overall health system and the ability of patients to afford their needed medicines.

The government’s own figures show clearly that fewer prescriptions are being filled in some crucial categories: anaemia and blood-clotting problems, hormone replacement therapy needed because of thyroid or pancreatic problems, mental illness, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. It is obvious to at least those of us on this side that the rising out-of-pocket expenses caused by the hike in the copayments, special payment copayments and therapeutic and brand premiums are hitting the sickest and neediest Australians, meaning that too often they must choose between buying their medicines or other necessities of life. The impact of changes to the PBS safety net and the new 20-day rule is yet to start.

There are more problems ahead for people who are already doing it tough in providing the health benefits they need. A consistent approach by the government is its attempts to save money by attacking the most vulnerable. We see it in its so-called Welfare to Work legislation, where it is attacking people with disabilities—the most vulnerable in our community. We see it in the Work Choices act where it is looking to expose ordinary Australian working families to very uneven, unfair, extreme and pernicious laws that will allow an employer to dismiss at will any employee in this land if they are in a company of fewer than 100 employees. We see that approach in each and every significant piece of legislation introduced in this House by this out-of-touch and arrogant government. We also see it in its decision to increase the PBS copayment and other provisions which have certainly caused people in the electorate of Gorton much pain—as, indeed, I am sure it has caused people pain in all electorates of this country.

We are happy to see this bill go through. I think the government should take heed of the amendment moved by the shadow minister for health. She has quite rightly raised concerns that the opposition have in the area of health—the assault upon ordinary working families and upon people in need of particular health benefits, indeed prescriptive drugs, such that they are now choosing on occasion not to use the drugs at all. When you define a wealthy and healthy country, you certainly would not define it as one that would have its citizens choose between whether to use drugs that will save or extend their lives or whether to eat and pay the rent. I am very proud to be a member in this place representing so many Australian citizens—people who, I would think, see themselves as being in relative wellbeing—but when you see legislation that attacks people’s household budgets by raising the PBS you wonder sometimes what the government is thinking and whether it is sensitive to the needs of ordinary Australians. I am not sure that it is. The opposition supports this bill, but we ask the government to take seriously the comments made in the second reading amendment and to attend to those concerns as soon as possible.

See this speech in context