Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak tonight on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. This scheme began in 1948 in a limited form, mainly for pensioners, with a list of 139 'life-saving and disease' medicines, which were provided at no charge. I am proud to be a member of the coalition, which, when last in government, listed almost 3,000 new or amended medicines on the PBS. This represents an average of around 30 listings per month, or one per day, which amounted to an investment of just shy of $15 billion. That sounds like a lot of money and is a lot of money. But, when I speak to taxpaying Australians, I know the vast majority are happy to see a portion of their tax dollars go to subsidising medicines to ensure that they are affordable for those in our communities who depend on these life-saving medicines and so that those people can continue to enjoy a more comfortable life, and sometimes just stay alive. After all, what can be more Australian than helping out a mate?

I was pleased to see that, prior to the election, Labor matched the coalition's promise of committing to even cheaper medicines on the PBS. But, sadly, like so many Labor promises, that promise has been broken. The promise of cheaper medicines has been broken. Of course, there was the appearance of cheaper medicines with the announcement of the reduction from $42.50 to $30. What they didn't announce was that, at the same time, the decision was made to remove some medicines from the PBS, including a life-saving diabetes drug, Fiasp, which 15,000 Australians rely on. This life-saving medicine will now cost those who depend on it over $200 per script as opposed to $42.50 per script when it was listed on the PBS under the previous coalition government. It is concerning that this is happening so early in the term, as last time those opposite were in government it was towards the end of their last term that they ran out of ideas and ways of saving money, and that's when they stopped listing items on the PBS. For them to be doing it so early in the term shows how out of their depth they are economically. They have also made the decision to not list the drug Trikafta, which is used to treat children between six and 11 years old with cystic fibrosis. This is despite the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee recommending that Trikafta be placed on the PBS. This drug can cost families up to $250,000 per year. We'll just add this to the ever-growing list of broken promises made by this government and this Prime Minister.

We've seen them break the promise of cheap electricity, namely that there would be a reduction of $275 in household power bills. There's the broken promise that mortgages would be lower under Labor. There is the 'no changes to super' promise—broken. We have the 'we're not touching franking credits' promise—broken. 'There will be no industry-wide bargaining' promise—broken. 'We'll get real wages moving' promise—broken. 'We won't raise taxes' promise—broken. 'We'll cut the costs of contractors and consultants' promise—broken.

Mr Albanese also promised that every nursing home would have a 24-hour nurse by July this year, which we said wouldn't happen, as there simply was not the workforce there to meet that kind of obligation. Well, guess what? Mr Albanese has now conceded that they will break that promise as well. Why? Because there isn't a workforce to meet this commitment. Who'd have thought?

The greatest summary of all these promises made and broken is by the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister Albanese himself: 'Australians will be better off under a Labor government'—broken, broken, broken. More shallow promises that sound good just to win a vote, regardless of the facts. This is typical of a party that continually misleads Australians, because they do everything on emotion. They hear of a problem and give some instant fix with no planning and no costing. But what would you expect from a prime minister and a party who, in the main, are career politicians, political and union staffers? What can you expect from a prime minister who has been in this place for over 25 years and who before that had jobs in political offices since he graduated from university? Most Australians expect their Prime Minister to have some experience in the real world so they can relate to the issues that they face.

There's nothing more valuable than keeping your word, but on this front this government and this Prime Minister are simply dismal failures. They continuously blame outside factors and the previous government instead of just getting on with the job of governing, finding solutions of the day and leading. So the question really is: why do Australians always pay more under Labor?

See this speech in context