Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, what action is the government taking to minimise the cost of drugs to the taxpayer and how have such plans been received?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Shortland. New members may not know that she has campaigned long and hard on making sure that drugs are affordable for the many pensioners and low-income earners in her electorate. So I am sure that she is amongst many on this side of the House who were interested when the government earlier this year was able to reach an agreement with Medicines Australia that was good for business, was good for taxpayers and, all importantly, was good for patients. But unfortunately, despite the fact that this agreement reached by the government with Medicines Australia meets all of those tests, it does not meet the tests that the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party apply in deciding whether or not they will vote for measures in the House or in the Senate. This is a measure which will deliver $1.9 billion of savings, and this comes in the context of a PBS which funds thousands of drugs every year to millions of Australians at a cost of billions of dollars, which both sides of the House have supported for many, many years. But unfortunately, when an agreement is reached to try to keep that extraordinarily beneficial scheme sustainable into the future—to allow us room to put new drugs onto the PBS, to make sure that it is affordable so that low-income earners can get the assistance of concession payments and, when they reach their threshold for the PBS of 52 prescriptions, they can get their drugs at a lower price—the Liberal Party puts all of that at risk by opposing this agreement reached between Medicines Australia and the government.

It is based on a theory of improving competition, making sure that the taxpayer pays the price for a drug which is currently being paid through a discounting arrangement so that the taxpayer does not have to pay an extra amount to pharmacists or others that are somehow in the supply chain. We want to improve that competition, but the new Liberal Party does not seem to even believe in competition anymore. They certainly do not believe in fiscal responsibility, because if they vote against this measure in the Senate they are shooting a $1.9 billion hole in the budget, on top of a $10 billion mistake to their costings during the election campaign. I might just also add, for people who remember this dispute during the campaign, the Liberal Party supported these measures at that time. Not only did they support them; they thought an extra $1 billion of savings could somehow be eked out of this arrangement. Now they do a backflip. They come into the parliament, they oppose our sensible measure that has been agreed with Medicines Australia and they run away from their extra $1 billion worth of savings. It is a shame to have the opposition in this House oppose a measure that is agreed to by business, oppose a measure that benefits taxpayers and, most importantly, oppose a measure which is of benefit to patients.