Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ensuring Australians have access to affordable medicines is absolutely essential. I'd like to start off by thanking the minister for health, Mark Butler, for ensuring mechanisms such as the PBS are maintained and improved, and we have seen a lot of improvement in the last 10 months. The PBS is an essential element to Australia, providing a system for the government to subsidise the cost of medications for the treatment of Australian patients. It is a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that truly does benefit all Australians. Just in my electorate of Adelaide over $300,000 was saved on PBS medications by constituents in January and February this year alone by the new prices that came out. The PBS was put in place to not only enhance the quality of life but also provide access to important life-saving medication. Unfortunately, not all medication is listed on the PBS. The decision for example, by Novo Nordisk to withdraw Fiasp from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is deeply distressing for Australians living with type 1 diabetes and their families, and this is a prime example of how lack of access to medication can be so detrimental. Many people come to see me seeking assistance and help, as I'm sure all members of this place see people wanting assistance and help. These people need life-saving medication and cannot get access, due to significant cost.

I've recently been assisting a constituent of mine who came to our office with no viable option to have access to necessary treatment. She's been fighting breast cancer for seven years. The medication Tukysa was recommended by an oncologist to my constituent as her last option. The medication is registered by the TGA. This medication has been proven and recognised to help, so we wrote to the ministers for health, both the state minister and the federal minister, and we're grateful for the advice they gave us and that we received. Through that advice we wrote to the pharmaceutical company to request the medication be provided to this constituent on compassionate grounds, and I must say they did provide it on compassionate grounds. We assisted the constituent with her personal letters to the company, as well as support letters from my office. After a lot of correspondence to and from and a lot of concern, this constituent has been offered six months access to the medication, with a potential cost-sharing scheme at the end—an offer that is still not ideal, due to the unknown financial liability. She has informed my office she'll be taking the offer up, and rightly so. We've made sure she knows we'll continue for fight for her. We'll continue to do whatever we can, and we are continuing to liaise with the ministers for health both state and federal.

Another constituent had mantle cell lymphoma. He needed CAR T-cell therapy, which was available only in Melbourne, not in South Australia. My constituent was not medically able to travel, and his window of opportunity was very limited. Like many, the medication was registered by the TGA and received highly positive recommendations by the Medical Services Advisory Committee. He was an eligible candidate for the treatment, yet he was not able to access it. This was the last hope to fight for survival, and we spent weeks corresponding trying to get answers and results. Whilst we were eventually successful in assisting this constituent with access to the treatment, by the time this happened he sadly passed away. This was another long fight for a life-saving medication.

These patients simply do not have time to waste. As we know, there is unfortunately much uncertainty in the life of a patient with cancer—or any life-threatening disease, for that matter. We know these patients already fight hard enough as it is. Having to also fight to access a life-saving medication is a huge additional and unknown burden to bear for these people. There needs to be a mechanism to ensure these people are protected and looked after. It is so sad for these patients when perhaps there are medicines that can help—and, in this case, in both circumstances there were medicines and are medicines that can help—or, for example, when a medication has been directly recommended to them but the patient cannot have access to the medication, as it is not seen to be cost effective. We're putting cost effectiveness in front of people's lives. These medications, all of the ones I've dealt with, are backed by scientific trials and registered by the TGA. (Time expired)

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to 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?