Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill is one of many bills that are part of a budget that is built on broken promises, part of a budget that is targeted at some of the most vulnerable in our community: families, low-income earners, pensioners, the sick and the elderly. Shame on this government for coming in here and introducing this bill, this attack on vulnerable people in our community who can least afford it.

This government said one thing before the election and a different thing after the election. People did not know that this increase in pharmaceutical costs was coming. They were not warned of it before the election. Indeed, we had the Prime Minister stand up and say 'no cuts to health'. Then what did we see in the budget? We saw not only this measure, which is an increase in the cost of prescriptions, but $50 billion over 10 years ripped out of health in this country. The GP tax comes on top of it. All of these things will be targeted at the vulnerable, the sick, the elderly and families that can least afford it in our community.

This comes on top of a whole range of other measures that will affect families, things like the increase in the petrol tax and the pension changes. One of the worst things in this budget is the changes to Newstart, which could see people under the age of 30 on no income at all for six months of the year if they are unable to find employment. Indeed, the department admitted that that could be for up to 11 months when penalties apply. As well, changes have been announced to the disability support pension and to higher education, which will also affect low-income families. There are $30 billion worth of cuts to education. There are so many broken promises in this budget, of which this measure is just one.

Why have we got all of these broken promises? It is because of the government's confected budget emergency that they pretend exists, but of course it does not exist and it never did. Yes, there are challenges with the budget, but budgets are about making choices. This government made a choice that will hurt vulnerable families and elderly and sick Australians. That was the choice they made whilst at the same time introducing a $22 billion Paid Parental Leave scheme. I think it shows us what this government's priorities are, and they are not the sick and the elderly and they are not improving our health system.

Every state leader across the country reacted to this budget in the same way. They are very concerned about the federal government's cost-shifting onto the state health and education systems. That is what this budget measure will do. People will put off getting their prescriptions because of this increase. According to figures from the COAG Reform Council report released in early June, people are already putting off getting the medicines they need. Indeed, 8.5 per cent of people in 2012-13 delayed or did not fill their prescriptions due to the cost. They simply could not afford it at the time they needed their medication. In disadvantaged areas this figure is 12.4 per cent. As we heard from the member for Lingiari, it is 36.4 per cent when we are talking about Indigenous Australians, who have some of the worst health outcomes in this country.

This measure is going to hurt those people who can least afford it. What will they do? They will not fill their prescriptions, they will get sicker, their health outcomes will be worse and they will end up in emergency departments, in state health systems. This is going to cost the states more. On top of the $50 billion cut to health over a decade, no wonder state leaders are angry and concerned about this federal budget. But they are not the only ones who are concerned. This budget and the other measures in it hurt families. We know that a family on $55,000 with two kids will be around $6,000 worse off under this budget, and that is without the GP tax or these increased prescription costs. We know that people on low and fixed incomes will be hurt by this budget and we know that the elderly, particularly pensioners, will be hurt by this budget because of pension cuts.

This measure, together with the GP tax, particularly concerns pensioners in my electorate, many of whom have written to me. I have visited the Tasmanian Pensioners Association. They are all raising very serious concerns with me. People in the Pensioners Union have told me about the phone calls they have taken from other pensioners. They have told me how distressed pensioners are about how they are going to cope with the outcome of this budget. They are in tears. Elderly people on their own have said they will have to give up their pet—their dog—because they cannot afford to feed it anymore. This budget will make matters so much worse for them. We all know that elderly Australians who have a pet have better health outcomes. The person who was telling me this story was very distressed. The Pensioners Association have collected signatures against the measures in this budget, which have been tabled in the Senate by my colleague Senator Carol Brown. These pensioners are so distressed by these budget measures, particularly this one.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is supposed to be about universal health care. It is supposed to be about medicines being available for Australians when they need them. In this country that has been the case for decades. We are putting about $9 billion a year into the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This measure is estimated to raise about $1.3 billion over four years. But this money is not going back into the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or even into health generally; it is going into a medical research fund. Even if you believe the confected budget emergency, which is not real, this money is not going towards that. It is coming out of the pockets of the sick in Australia and it is not going back into pharmaceuticals.

We have vulnerable people in our community who are going to be paying this additional tax when they can least afford it, on top of all of these other measures, and the government says, 'That's okay. We have got this budget emergency, but we are not going to use the money for that. We are going to put it into a medical research fund.' All of this pain, all of this distress and all of this confected budget emergency is not achieving anything much in the short term at all, other than causing people distress and other than making people sicker. I am not quite sure why they are doing that.

See this speech in context