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

I'll just recap some of the more general points I was making yesterday, particularly for those listening to this debate for the first time. It should be noted that the opposition, the Liberal and National parties, are supporting the National Health Amendment (Effect of Prosecution—Approved Pharmacist Corporations) Bill 2023, for the obvious reason that it makes a lot of sense.

This legislation closes a loophole where a pharmacy holds a licence in a company name to engage in the PBS and provide medications to the Australian people through the PBS system. There can be circumstances where a director of that company has been found to have engaged in misconduct in the supply of those pharmaceuticals. Unless you close the loophole, the company that holds the licence for the pharmacy could continue to supply those medicines under the PBS, notwithstanding the fact that the director has been found to have engaged in misconduct under the PBS. It makes absolute sense to close that loophole. The opposition are supporting the government in this regard.

The debate of this bill though has opened up other areas of discussion. Contributions have been made by senators across the chamber in relation to the PBS. That is where I will continue my remarks. The first point I want to make is that, from my perspective, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a core function of government. I believe the Australian government have a moral obligation to make sure that we provide affordable medications to the Australian people. It is a core function of government. Those listening today will hear debate in relation to other grandiose schemes that have been proposed by the Albanese government, including a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, which from my perspective is not a core function of government. Every dollar spent on those grandiose schemes is a dollar that can't be spent on the core functions of government, such as the PBS. That's the first point I make.

The second point I make is that the previous coalition government had a proud history of managing the economy in such a responsible way that 3,000 medicines—approximately 30 a month—were added to the PBS during the term of the last coalition government. I have met people in the community. I recollect one particular conversation I had before the 2019 election, when I was first elected to this place, where I met a beautiful young woman who was suffering from a chronic illness. If she had been forced to buy the medication for that illness out of her own pocked, it would have cost her $250,000 a year, but the previous coalition government had added that medicine to the PBS, so it cost virtually nothing to buy that medicine. We are a rich country. We should be able to provide that service to the Australian people. I'm proud that, before the last election, I served in a government which did provide that service to the Australian people. That's a core function of government.

In that context, what has happened with the PBS since the last election? On 2 March 2023 I received an email from a lady in the western suburbs of Brisbane in relation to her diabetes insulin medication called Fiasp. She could be your mother, your aunt, your sister or a dear friend This is what she wrote: 'I'm a type 1 insulin-dependent diabetic, and have been for over 52 years now. This morning, at 8.42 am'—she sent this email at 10.41 am, two hours after this event—'I received a phone call from my chemist, informing me that, as of 1 April 2023'—bear in mind that she sent this email at the beginning of March, so she had less than one month's notice—'my insulin that I use in my pump will be withdrawn from the PBS listing. This being the case, then, my insulin purchase on script will go from $30 per filling of five boxes to approximately $220 for the same.'

This medication for insulin was on the PBS list. This lady and approximately 15,000 other Australians were accessing this medication, and then all of a sudden, because of ministerial inaction on the part of the relevant minister in the government, this insulin was taken off the list. This lady, and no doubt thousands of others, found out about it because her chemist rang her and said, 'By the way, your medication is going up from $30 to $220.' This is what she says—they are her words, not mine. They are not the words of a politician, but her words. She says: 'What the hell! This is a life drug for me, and I know it is not your doing, but if you could please assist in finding out what is happening here, that would be very much appreciated. I do know there are other alternative insulin is available that are still on the PBS, but I was moved to specifically enter this insulin due to the benefits of a quicker acting insulin for me.' The government said earlier this week that there are alternatives, but the thing about this medication for this lady and thousands of other Australians is that it is faster acting. Her medical specialist put her on this specific medication which was on the PBS and then, due to ministerial inaction on behalf of the relevant Albanese government minister, it's off the PBS. She continues: 'I've attached for your information the letter that was received by my chemist informing them of this PBS change. Please have someone in the federal government take a look at this, as I know I will not be the only person impacted by this terrible decision-making.' This is poor government, poor administration, poor ministerial oversight with respect to the PBS.

Australians should not be put in the position where they have been put onto a drug that's on the PBS, on medical advice, that's working for them and then they find out from a phone call from the chemist that all of a sudden it's coming off the PBS. The minister should actually apologise to the cohort of 15,000 Australians who have been put in this position. It is unbelievable, to be frank. There was no ministerial intervention to make sure that this drug could stay on the list. There was no consultation with the 15,000 Australians who were taking this drug. There was no warning that it was coming off the PBS. This lady, like thousands of others, found out from a phone call from the chemist. There's no understanding whatsoever that people are on this medication—they've been advised by their medical specialist to be on this medication—because it gives them therapeutic benefits that other drugs don't provide.

So I say to those opposite that the PBS is a core function. Instead of being distracted by utopian fantasies of the National Reconstruction Fund et cetera, get back to the core business of providing health services to Australians.