Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I start my remarks in earnest, I'd like to note the point made by Senator Steele-John, which I thought was very well made, that Australians shouldn't have to resort to the media in order to gain traction with government decision-makers on issues around what medications are listed or not listed on the PBS. In our country, Australians shouldn't have to resort to the media in order to get these matters addressed, and I think that was a point that was very well made.

The National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023 essentially addresses a loophole in relation to the application of penalties and remedial action taken in the case where a pharmacy has engaged in action which has been inappropriate and in breach of the PBS. The issue it addresses in particular is that you can have a situation where a pharmacy maybe has a licence and a corporate name but then has directors; a suspension action could be taken against those directors, but the pharmacy, under the corporate licence, is still operating, notwithstanding the fact that the director has been subject to some sort of penalty. This bill essentially addresses that loophole, which could allow a pharmacy to use the corporate veil to continue operating notwithstanding the fact that a director has done the wrong thing. In the first instance we should note that the vast, vast majority of our pharmacists do the right thing, and that this is an amendment which is seeking to address a small loophole. But it does give the opportunity for issues to be raised more generally in relation to the PBS, as Senator Steele-John and others, including Senator Duniam, have done.

I would like to take this opportunity to make a number of points. The first point is that the PBS and the cost-effective provision of medications to the Australian people is a core function of government. We should reflect on that because in this place, especially since the election, there's all sorts of legislation coming through where the government is looking to spend billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on multifarious sorts of projects. For every single dollar that is spent on those projects, however well intentioned—whether it be the National Reconstruction Fund or whatever else it is—it is a dollar that can't go into our PBS system. There's an opportunity cost. I say it is a core function of government to provide medications and make medications free on a cost-effective, affordable basis to all Australians and especially to Australians who are suffering from diseases and conditions which require medications which are lifesaving. That is core business. So whenever the government comes into this place with one of those spending measures—and one of the next bills on the legislation list is the so-called National Reconstruction Fund, where the government is looking to invest $15 billion of taxpayers' money into various areas of economic activity—we should reflect that that is money that cannot be spent on core functions such as our health system. There is an opportunity cost. There is no magic pudding—there are no money trees around Canberra. It's all taxpayer dollars, and if they haven't got it in tax revenue they've got to borrow it and pay the interest on it. We should all reflect on that fact.

The second point I want to make is that the previous government—and I say this from opposition—can be duly proud of the number of drugs which were added to the PBS system under it. Three thousand drugs were added to the PBS list under the previous government. Thousands of Australians had their lives positively changed because of the medications added to the PBS system under the previous coalition government. Thousands of Australians had their lives changed for the better because of that. How did we do that? Through sound economic management. More than 30 drugs a month were added to the PBS system under the previous government. It changed people's lives for the better. That's what sound economic management does. That's what a government that is focused on the core functions of government can achieve.

In this context I'm obliged to raise an example of a situation which has happened under the existing government in relation to an insulin drug called Fiasp. I received a communication in my office before this last sitting from a resident in the western suburbs of Brisbane in relation to the fact that this drug, Fiasp insulin, was taken off the PBS without any warning. This is a drug that was on the PBS and people were using this drug—15,000 Australians were using this drug—in order to treat their diabetes condition. Then it was taken off the PBS without any warning. None. No warning. No consultation whatsoever. This resident wrote to me and said: 'I'm a type 1 insulin-dependent diabetic and have been for over 52 years now.' This could be your mother or your sister. 'This morning at 8.42 am I received a phone call from my chemist informing me that as of 1 April 2023 my insulin that I use in my pump will be withdrawn from the PBS listing. This being the case, my insulin purchase on script will go from $30 per filling of five boxes to approximately $220 for the same.' From $30 to $220! This lady, who could be your mother, your sister or your wife, got a call from her chemist who said, 'The cost of your medication to manage your condition, which you've been advised you should be on because of its particular characteristics: fast-acting'—