Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

About 18 months ago the current Minister for Health, when he was the shadow minister for health, popped into Bendigo. He had a press conference out the front of Bendigo Health and he was talking not about this increase in the PBS that he would introduce as health minister, not about the new GP tax that he would introduce as health minister and not about the funding cuts that he would make to Bendigo Health—he was talking about the carbon tax, out the front of a hospital. He had an opportunity, when he was in my electorate, to be truthful, to come clean and tell the truth and let people know what his plan would be when he became the health minister. That is what upsets people the most about this issue. Yes it will make it hard for people, yes it is going to attack the most vulnerable in our community who already have tight budgets, but it is even more worthy of note that the health minister when he was the shadow minister went around the country and stood next to the CEOs of health facilities and organisations but not once did he mention that in government he would be the minister that increased the PBS co-payment.

The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill will tax the most vulnerable. It will particularly attack people in regional areas. In my electorate of Bendigo, roughly 30 per cent of the electorate survive on a household income of less than $600 a week. Every single attack on their budget, like we will see with the GP co-payment and the increase in PBS costs, will hit these families hard. We need to ensure that we are investing in preventative health. One of the best ways to do that is to make sure that people take their medicines; to make sure that they are staying out of emergency rooms and hospital emergency departments by taking their medicines. Some people I have met who are upset about this change are taking three or four medicines a day. They are saying to me 'Which one won't I take?' because of the cost that is now being imposed upon them. We need these people to be taking all of their medicines—not one or two but all of them—to ensure that they do not end up in our emergency wards. If the government were serious about ensuring that we had a healthy Australia and healthy regional communities they would not be increasing the PBS co-payment—they would be looking at ways to reduce the cost of medicine. It is so important that people take the medication they have been prescribed by their doctors so they do not end up in our emergency rooms. That is the opposite of what will happen because of this bill.

My question to the minister is what economic modelling has he done on that issue? Do we have any evidence to show whether people not taking the medicines they need will increase the number of people presenting at emergency? My other question to the minister is about life expectancy. We have already heard publicly from the member for Mallee that life expectancy in the country, in the bush, is 4.7 years less than it is for our city counterparts. We already know that people in the country are less likely to go to a doctor and are less likely to have their prescriptions filled, not just because of cost but because they just put it off—'We'll be right, mate.' Because they make those decisions, their life expectancy is less. Will life expectancy in the bush be decreased even further because people cannot afford to have their prescriptions filled and take the medicine they need?

I wish to raise the examples of two people who have spoken to me about this very issue—about how this will hurt their families. Ian is a healthcare professional himself. His son has diabetes and his wife has a chronic heart condition. Both of them require ongoing medication to ensure that they can live a good life. He expects the cost to his family alone will be about $1,000 a year because of the increases he will face. This money will go straight from their budget into the government's coffers. The other person is a chef who lives in Woodend and works at the country club bakery. His wife had a heart transplant 12 months ago and he is worried about the increase in the cost of the medication she takes just to ensure she continues to live a good life. This is a bad tax, a nasty tax, and it is going to hit people in the country the hardest.

See this speech in context