Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think in the first instance I need to respond to Senator Cormann’s offensive diatribe, aimed at the minister for health, in his opening remarks in taking note of answers today. It was completely unnecessary if he had valid points to make about the handling of this chemotherapy issue. Had he listened carefully to the minister he would have realised that most of the things that he complained about in his presentation to the Senate today were specifically addressed. I think we have all noted now that the measure, which was to commence on 1 July 2009, was delayed until 1 September, and you have now been advised, as have stakeholders, that there will be further information provided by the government. This is obviously information known to you, Senator Cormann, yet you insist on coming into the Senate and implying that nothing is being addressed, nothing is being done, when every effort appears to have been made to keep you in the loop.

Senator Cormann would probably also know, had he listened to the minister’s response, that the Rudd Labor government is committed to a sustainable and strong PBS, and this means we need to always try—as previous governments have tried, not without controversy—to manage the costs of the PBS as those costs rise and rise and rise. We remain absolutely committed to implementing our chemotherapy measure that reduces wastage of expensive chemotherapy medicines by funding the actual quantities of medicines that are delivered to cancer patients. By any test this is a reasonable approach and a responsible approach when expending taxpayers’ money.

There is no doubt that there are currently no incentives to promote efficient use of these very expensive medicines—and Senator Cormann himself went to some lengths to point out one of the reasons they are so expensive: they are very difficult medicines to manage. We believe that the only way we can improve the use of these medicines is to continue to ensure that they are both accessible and affordable for all Australians.

Now, we do need to be careful—and I have to make this point—that we distinguish between legitimate concerns that are being expressed about this issue and misinformation that is being provided, including in the chamber today by Senator Cormann from the opposition. Despite claims to the contrary, patient safety—and this is a good example—will not be adversely affected by this measure, as it does not promote any change from current pharmacy practices in relation to the multiple use of chemotherapy phials. As Senator Cormann also knows, the government is reviewing the measure to ensure that patient treatment is not compromised and that public and private oncology pharmacy services remain viable so that there will be no influx of patients from the private to the public sector.

Labor have also invested, as a result of our 2009-10 budget, some $600 million to ensure that Australians are able to receive much-needed medicines. As I said at the beginning of my comments, we have a commitment to making sure that the quality of service received by cancer sufferers in Australia’s health system improves.

I would like to remind colleagues in the Senate that the Rudd Labor government did release a substantive statement on future health reforms just recently. I cannot help but think that, in light of that and in the absence of any constructive contribution from the opposition in relation to much-needed and long-awaited major national health reforms, there is a bit of discomfort on the other side of the chamber about the poor performance of the former Howard government in the area of health. For years we watched from the opposition benches the mismanagement of the health portfolio. We watched the costs rise but saw no structural reform of or impact on the health system by the former Howard government. It was, as usual, left to federal Labor to step in with a visionary plan of substantive reform, and that has been placed on the agenda with the statement put forward by the Prime Minister just the other day.

So I think what we are seeing here is a very narrow question and a very narrow taking note of answers trying to attack an embedded budget measure to reduce waste, increase efficiency and therefore enhance the sustainability of our health system, rather than any issue of substance. (Time expired)