Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before those opposite were elected to the government benches, they promised us that if elected they would be a government of no surprises. I must not have been paying attention during the last election, because I missed the section of the Real Solutions policy pamphlet where those opposite promised that they would be jacking up prices of prescription medicines for pensioners in our community and jacking up prices of life-saving drugs for the most vulnerable in our community. I must have missed that promise because I was distracted by their promise that under a coalition government we would get lower taxes and no new taxes. I must have missed the promise for the $7 tax every time you go to the GP and for the hike in prescription medicine costs. I must have missed the promise when I heard the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, on the Today show saying that his very reason for being in politics was to reduce taxes in Australia. Since then, I have lost count of the number of bills I have spoken on in this parliament in which those opposite are doing exactly that: increasing taxes for the deficit repair levy, increasing taxes for the GP tax and increasing taxes for prescription medications.

These broken promises show what the priorities of those opposite are. It is not deemed good enough by those opposite to put a price signal in place for polluters in our society. They do not want to deter carbon pollution in response to climate change. I note that the member for Wentworth is in the chamber. On this point, he correctly identifies a price on carbon is a way to respond to this issue. However, the government deems it good enough to put in place a price signal for pensioners wanting to use prescription medication. That is what this is about. When the Minister for Health talks about the sustainability of the PBS, he is not talking about investing more money in the PBS. The $1.3 billion slugged on Australians under these changes is not being reinvested into the PBS. The only way that this bill goes to the sustainability of the PBS is if it deters the use of prescription medications in our community. Those who will be most deterred are the most vulnerable in our community—pensioners, low income earners, families and those who use the most prescriptions in their day-to-day life.

I recently visited Williamstown Emergency Relief, a great organisation in my community run by Carol Willis, the wife of former member for Gellibrand the Hon. Ralph Willis. The volunteers in this emergency relief community group deal with some of the most vulnerable in our community. During my recent visit, I heard directly the stories of the pensioners, the unemployed and the vulnerable in our community. They, to a tee, told me that the thing that worries them the most about the government's changes in the recent budget is the $7 GP charge and the increase to PBS payments.

Those in this chamber should understand that these are not trivial amounts to these people. These are people who are barely keeping their head above water as it is. These are people on the cusp of homelessness, moving in and out of stable accommodation. Whether they are being treated for mental health issues, chronic diseases, vulnerability factors or social determinants for homelessness, these people wear more of the costs of prescription medicine and wear more of the costs of GP co-payments than those of us in this chamber, who are lucky enough to live in economic security. These are the people who are going to stop using prescription medications in response to this bill. When the Minister for Health is talking about the sustainability of the PBS, he is talking about the most vulnerable in our community using less of the medications that they need to live a civilised and healthy life.

I visit the retirement homes in my electorate, and I can tell you that pensioners are ropeable. They hear the Prime Minister come in here and say that pensions are not going to be reduced, even though it seems to be a magical savings item in the budget where pensions increase yet the government saves money. I can tell you that pensioners are not mugs. They know exactly what the implications of the budget are for them, and they know what the GP co-payment and these changes to the PBS are going to mean for their budgets. The Prime Minister likes playing dress up and he likes having pictures taken of him with working Australians in all kinds of workplace costumes. He better pack a hard-hat the next time he visits a retirement home in my electorate, because pensioners are coming after him. They know that he is coming after them, and they are angry.

That brings us to what the last budget is about. It is about the kind of nation that we live in. Do we live in a nation of universal health care, a nation where it is not means that determine whether you get access to affordable, high-quality health care, but your citizenship and your status as a member of our community and as an equal? Australian people did not vote at the last election to tear up this compact. They did not vote at the last election for this bill. They do not want it and I will be voting against it in this parliament.

See this speech in context