Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I agreed with the member for North Sydney when he said that parliamentarians in this place have to be prepared to provide support for those need it. I recognise the bipartisanship in relation to this issue. This sort of legislation indicates that there are people of goodwill and compassion on both sides of the House, people who genuinely care for those in need. It is quite extraordinary, when you look at the history of the Medicare system and the PBS, what rancour, contention and division there was in our community over such a long period of time. There was constitutional not just legal wrangling about the PBS. I pay tribute to the Curtin and Chifley Labor governments, the architects and originators of this particular scheme. I also recognise and acknowledge the Menzies government’s contribution. This was a bipartisan approach. It is quite amazing that there were self-interested groups who opposed this.

I have to disagree with the member for North Sydney saying that this scheme is one of the best systems in the world. I think it is the best system. I have not heard of a better system. I think it is a fantastic system. There would not be a person in this House who has not benefited or had friends or relatives benefit from this scheme.

I support the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2008. It has a number of purposes. It expands the criteria for deciding which brands of pharmaceuticals are comarketed and further, it affords the minister power to determine which comarketed brands cease to be comarketed. When the minister explained to me what this was all about, I thought it was quite amazing. For example, if two drug companies currently manufacture, say, a 250-milligram drug, one called ‘Brand A’ and the other called ‘Brand B’, and if they want to comarket another drug, say ‘Brand X’ in 500 milligrams, they cannot comarket. It is quite extraordinary that this has happened. It is certainly not desirable. We want to make sure that the PBS is efficient and that it works in a streamlined way. Anything that reduces costs or can deliver drugs more affordably to the Australian community would be better.

The amendments in schedule 1 eliminate the necessity that there be no pharmaceutical items containing the same drug. ‘Pharmaceutical items’ was the offensive term. It means that drug companies could comarket at both dosages. That is a practical measure. It also allows the minister to decide when comarketed brands no longer meet the criteria. This may seem esoteric, but it is a good thing. The idea that somehow you can do this by legislative instrument power of the minister means there is no need to amend government regulations and overall the administration of the PBS is more efficient. That is good for all Australians.

Secondly, the supply of pharmaceutical benefits to government officers working outside Australia is very important. Australians do not serve overseas only with the military; they serve overseas in embassies and for aid organisations. We live in a world where other countries are a lot closer than in the past. My grandparents would have thought getting on a plane and going overseas was like going to the moon. It is the case that Australians travel regularly. There would not be too many Australians who do not have passports and travel overseas. Many of them live there. This amendment provides for eligible Australian government officers who are working overseas, public servants serving our country in all manner of places and in all manner of roles, to have access to affordable medicine, just as they would were they living in Australia. Any parent working overseas who has sick children would know that that is a challenge. It would be a challenge for any of us. We suffered that problem when we were overseas—finding a doctor and where the hospital is and getting affordable medicine. It is not just the public servants; it is their spouses and their dependent children, all of whom need access to affordable medicine. This bill solves that problem.

I am aware that Commonwealth government departments have been lobbying for this change for quite some time. I am also fascinated by the fact that it is not just Commonwealth officers who will benefit; state and territory officers will also benefit from these entitlements. Do not ever let states and territories say that we do not do things for them.

Thirdly, there are the amendments relating to couples being apart. Schedule 3 provides that, for the purpose of the PBS safety net, legally married and de facto couples living apart permanently due to illness or infirmity are taken not to be living apart. That is a great reform. It is really quite sad that a lot of elderly people are forced by illness or infirmity to live apart in circumstances where they do not want that to happen. One might be at home while the other needs full-time care in a nursing home or even in a hostel. They are forced to live apart. This bill overcomes the PBS safety net issues so that they are treated jointly.

It was wrong that these unfortunate couples living separately through no fault of their own—often elderly, frail and pensioners—were not treated the same. Certainly they did not believe they were separated but, for the purpose of the PBS safety net, they were. That is simply wrong, and this overcomes that problem. I am sure that the people in my constituency of Blair will appreciate this.

Prior to coming to this House, six months ago I served on the board of Queensland Baptist Care. We had three aged-care facilities in my electorate and I visited all of them, and I have visited a number of other ones since I have been elected. You see couples living separately and apart. The aged-care sector tries to construct facilities so that people can live together, but it is simply not possible by reason of the need for full-time care. So this brings comfort and help, and anything to aid those people who are suffering from this difficulty is to be commended. The cost is only $1.l million annually, and I think it is a small price to pay for treating our fellow Australians with compassion, care and kindness in the circumstances.

The fourth amendment is really very basic. It is simply changing definitions concerning combination items for a drug and pharmaceutical items as a drug. It is quite esoteric—I went through it and had a look. The bill provides that henceforth by legislative instrument these things can be changed and certain pharmaceutical benefits can be specified. These pharmaceutical benefits thereafter can be prescribed by dental practitioners and optometrists. The schedule means that wording concerning gazettal of determinations is otiose and therefore can be removed.

To finalise, and I want to speak only briefly about this, this bill will help public servants—state, territory and Commonwealth—to gain access to pharmaceutical benefits, just as their fellow Australians do living at home, when they are serving our country overseas. It will not just help them; it will help their spouses and partners and their children, which is a great thing. It will also mean that we treat our elderly and frail and those who unfortunately have to live apart with dignity and respect. I thank the opposition for their agreement to this bill. I think that it is important we adopt a bipartisan approach not just to Medicare but also to the PBS. I thank the opposition for their willingness to support this bill. I know that my constituents, particularly the elderly, the frail and those who are suffering illness and infirmity, will appreciate very much this initiative, and I thank the minister for bringing this to the House.

See this speech in context