Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

If there has ever been legislation that should be supported in this House, it is the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2010. This legislation will deliver cheaper medicines to Australians and at the same time save $1.9 billion over five years. This legislation should be voted on and passed by this House tonight. It is my understanding that the opposition is seeking to defer a decision on this legislation and refer it to a Senate committee, and if that is the case I would say that the opposition is abrogating its responsibility to support the government in this very sensible cost-saving measure and deliver cheaper medicines to the Australian people. I will first go through the legislation and then come back and touch on my disappointment and anger with the opposition in the action it is proposing to take: to have the House abrogate its responsibility to make decisions on important legislation such as this and defer the bill to a Senate committee for consideration. I do not believe that the Australian people would like to see that. I think that, if we did that, we would be failing in our responsibility to the people whose votes put us into this parliament.

The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2010 will amend the National Health Act 1953 to achieve a more efficient and sustainable Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme through moderating growth in expenditure and delivering better value for money to taxpayers and greater certainty to the pharmaceutical industry. An enormous amount of consultation has taken place on this legislation. I see that the shadow health minister, Mr Dutton, has returned to the chamber, and I say to him what I have already stated here in the House: the opposition will be abrogating its responsibility if it does not support the passing of this legislation through the parliament tonight. It is currently estimated that the PBS will cost $13 billion in 2018 compared to about $9 billion in 2010-11, and that is a significant increase. PBS expenditure needs to be managed. If it is not, the scheme will not be sustainable or affordable, and that will mean that Australians will not have access to the many essential medicines they need.

This legislation is about delivering medicines to the Australian people at an affordable price and ensuring the future of the PBS, a scheme that has delivered to Australians for a very long time. The bill gives effect to further PBS price reforms that were announced in the 2010-11 budget and the subject of a memorandum of understanding with Medicines Australia, which is the peak body in the pharmaceutical sector. As I have already stated, this will result in $1.9 billion in savings over five years. The bill focuses on medicines that are the subject of competition in the market. That means that PBS prices will closely match the prices at which the medicines are actually sold, and I think that is a very important point. Medicines will be affordable, they will be provided at a competitive price and Australians will benefit from lower prices and timely access to innovative treatments. For the PBS to continue to be the successful scheme that it has been, it needs to be able to include new and cutting-edge medicines—innovative treatments—but if it does not remain an affordable scheme this will not happen. Every member of this parliament would have constituents coming to see them on a regular basis and raising medicines that they would like to see listed on the PBS. There is a process that medication must go through before it can be listed on the PBS. As members we all wish to deliver the best medicines and see that our constituents can access the best medicines and the latest treatments, but unless we maintain an affordable PBS this will not happen.

Price disclosure will be accelerated and expanded through the implementation of this legislation. It requires pharmaceutical companies to advise the Commonwealth of prices at which PBS medicines are sold to pharmacies. That is very important, because people buying that medication will then know the exact mark-up on the price of the medication, and the government will be able to better monitor the process.

This legislation will benefit the whole Australian community. From October this year price disclosure will be mandatory for all multiple brand medicines, increasing the coverage from 162 brands to about 1,600 brands, which is a significant increase. That will lead to an average price reduction of about 23 per cent, which will be required across all medicines in this cycle. The duration of the price disclosure cycle will be reduced from two years to 18 months. This will be of significant benefit to Australians and it will also make medication and the PBS much more affordable.

As I mentioned earlier, this has been discussed at length. There has been adequate time for community consultation. I see this legislation as being a win-win. It is a win to government because it decreases the cost of the PBS, it is a win to the Australian people because they will be paying less for their prescription medicines and it is a win to the generic medicine companies, who will be able to continue in the marketplace and who will be able to deliver medications at a cheaper price when they come off patent.

Given the fact that there are so many benefits associated with this legislation, I do not understand why it needs to be referred to a Senate committee. I do not understand why we in this House are abrogating our responsibility and saying that there should be no decision at this stage, that a Senate committee should be able to decide whether or not legislation that delivers cost savings to the Australian people and cost savings to the Australian government of $1.9 billion over five years should be passed by this parliament. I commend this legislation to the parliament and I urge each and every member to support it because the benefits that it will deliver to the Australian people are extremely important.

See this speech in context