Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013 and the second reading amendment. The bill seeks to implement changes that Labor announced in August this year to reduce the price disclosure cycle within the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from 18 months to 12 months. This means that the price the government pays for PBS listed medicines will be discounted at least six months sooner than under the current system, and this translates into projected savings of around $835 million over the next three years. This is vital if we are to have a well-funded health system, because every dollar that we can save in this area can be spent on the broader health costs. We know that health costs are increasing and they are increasing faster than other costs in the economy. That is why it is vital that we take this action.

The savings that accrue through this bill are not just limited to the government. The price at the counter for some medicines will also come down, meaning a direct savings for consumers as well. In my electorate of Charlton this is vital because there are a lot of consumers who spend a lot of money on medicine. Labor sought to implement this change to provide better value for money for all Australians by improving the efficiency and sustainability of the PBS. Seniors, people with disability and people living with acute and chronic conditions depend on the responsible management of the PBS to ensure ongoing access to essential and affordable medicines.

Labor support this bill because it makes sense. We support the second reading amendment. It makes sense to seek the best value for taxpayer investment. It makes sense because these savings that will be made will not contribute to a reduction in supply or a reduction in access or a reduction in services. It makes sense because the reduction in the amount that the government pays for a PBS listed medicine will not contribute to an increased co-payment for consumers at the counter. It makes sense because the taxpayer will simply be paying less for exactly the same outcome.

As I have said before, this bill is important because it will save money that can be reinvested in the PBS to increase the number of listed medicines. I note that the Minister for Health's second reading speech to the House on this acknowledged that the projected savings from the bill are already factored into the forward estimates for the PBS and the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I commend the minister's promise that these savings 'will assist the listing of new and innovative high-cost medicines on the PBS'. Labor agrees with the Minister for Health that savings from this bill need to be reinvested in the PBS and not redirected into government coffers. I can assure the minister that Labor will be watching with interest to see exactly what he does with these savings and we will hold him to account for this commitment. Unfortunately, I do not have much faith because already this government's track record on health leaves much to be desired.

Labor, on the other hand, had a proud record in government in investing in health care. It is a legacy that we are very proud of. The Rudd-Gillard Labor government invested more in health care than any other government. Under Labor, bulk-billing rates for GP services reached historic highs and visits to GPs were 82 per cent bulk-billed. When the Prime Minister was health minister, this figure was only 67 per cent. Labor's record on health is in stark contrast to the approach of the coalition. When the Prime Minister was health minister during the Howard government, he cut $1 billion from hospital funding. Just three months into the new government, we are already seeing significant cuts to the health budget, despite the coalition repeatedly promising before the election that the health budget would not be cut.

On 22 August, the Prime Minister, when he was opposition leader, declared: 'What we intend to do is maintain existing levels of health funding.' Unfortunately, this has already been shown to be another broken promise. The coalition's shameful cuts already include: abolishing the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council, which has been providing advice to governments for nearly 50 years—the former Liberal member of parliament Dr Mal Washer, who is held in very high repute on both sides of this chamber, described this decision as 'a devastating blow', and this is despite the fact that the Prime Minister sent a letter to the council acknowledging their fine effort; abolishing the expert panel on infant formula, despite Australia's commitment to the World Health Organization code on this; and backflipping on their commitment that they will not close any Medicare Locals, despite a pledge during the election campaign that they would not go through this important program, but we are already seeing some really disturbing signs.

The chief of the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association, Alison Verhoeven, has said that the government's review of the Medicare Local network 'is leaving patients, families and health service staff in limbo'. This is very concerning. The GP Access After Hours service is also an important part of the healthcare system that I am quite worried about. It is part of the Hunter Medicare Local in my area and provides a really valuable contribution to health care in the Hunter region. It is absolutely shameful that these services are now under threat from the coalition.

As an aside, my mother-in-law had reason to use the GP Access After Hours service only a few days ago at Belmont Hospital, in my good friend the member for Shortland's electorate.

See this speech in context