Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, no debate can be had in this place in relation to PBS or health without talking about public hospitals. The prescription of drugs at public hospitals is an integral part of how the public hospital system operates in this country, and it is a very important issue about which we should not be afraid to speak. The member for Solomon does not need to sign up to every prescriptive word provided through the Prime Minister’s office. If he believes that public hospitals are okay in this country and that they are working well in the Northern Territory and that no fixes, changes or improvements could be made to public hospitals in the Northern Territory then he should say that by way of press release.

We would welcome the member’s contribution by way of press release to his constituents to say that public hospitals in this country cannot improve. There are plenty of other examples in the health system—there is no question about that—particularly in the Northern Territory in relation to the provision of super clinic services. That has been a complete and utter failure, not just by the Northern Territory government but, importantly, by this government as well. The reason that I raise that is in part because this really goes to the way in which this government has managed health over the course of the last 18 months.

There clearly have been a series of blunders. We had the minister involved in the alcopops debate, which was a complete humiliation for the Minister for Health and Ageing. It was a complete embarrassment. This same bill that is before the House came before the House last year, but just before the last election this minister was out saying that she was opposed to the position which she now advocates. So it has been quite a telling exercise, over the course of the last 18 months, to see similar management practices by the federal health minister that we have seen by health ministers at a state level over the last 10 or 11 years—which have been completely and utterly disastrous. That is why I raise great caution in relation to this bill.

If drugs which provide life-saving opportunities to Australians are prevented from being listed then that will be a very sad outcome. We take the assurances of the government that that is not going to be the case. We take the assurances of the government that this bill will not impose those impediments which the industry warns of. But we do put the government on notice that, their having given all of these assurances, we will hold them to account at a future time. For that reason I move a number of amendments which I have circulated in my name. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

acknowledges that the bill does not:

(a)

require an independent review after two years of the cost recovery arrangements for listing medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme;

(b)

require any such review to identify any negative impacts that the cost recovery arrangements have had on access to medicines;

(c)

require any such review to be tabled in Parliament; and

(d)

require an annual quality assurance audit of the evaluation of submissions (from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee) conducted by the relevant Department and its evaluators; and

(2)

calls on the Government to make such amendments to the bill as would rectify these flaws”.

I move those amendments because we think that this would go some way toward improving the position that the government is putting forward. We think that it would provide a better outcome for a more transparent process if reviews were able to be conducted—if the advice that was raised as a result of the recent Senate inquiries and the advice of the industry were adhered to. I just flag a word of caution to this government that they may see people on private health or people in the pharmaceutical industry as an easy touch but the reality is that these people have a significant contribution to make. If this minister is just dismissive of views which are contrary to hers, then we will not arrive at a position of delivering better legislation to the Australian people. That is why we move these amendments as circulated.

In conclusion, I am happy to say to the Australian people that the coalition, when we were in government, stood for a sustainable PBS regime. We have not differed from that stance one iota. We still have a very strong commitment to providing a viable, well funded and sustainable industry to this country into the future. We will rectify the difficulties that this government have created in 18 short months. After the coming election, we will wind back as much of the difficulty that they have put in place as we can. What will take time, of course, is to repay the enormous debt that the Labor Party have created.

The Australian people know that it took Paul Keating and Bob Hawke about 13 years to create $96 billion worth of debt; it has taken Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan about 18 months to rack up $188 billion of debt and there is no end in sight. That is going to make future funding decisions very difficult, and not just in relation to the provision of drugs but for the provision of health services in general. That is why we have to recognise as part of this debate that the government is making it more difficult for future decisions to be made when it has an $8 billion a year interest bill on this huge debt that it has incurred in such a short period of time. That will impact on the government’s capacity, and the incoming government’s capacity after the next election, to make decisions which are going to be beneficial to the Australian health community. We want to provide better health outcomes for all Australians. That is what a coalition opposition stands for, it is what coalition governments have always stood for and it is what we will fight for after the next election.

See this speech in context