Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Hansard source

There are many Australians out there who think that many people in this place spend too much time using politics as a weapon against the other party. But deep down, most of us in this place want to do the best for the Australian people that we possibly can.

When I first heard about the government changing how prescriptions were doled out, I realised that for many Australians it meant that, instead of going to the doctor every month or so, they could have a 60-day prescription. These scripts are only for chronic or stable conditions—things like diabetes, asthma and epilepsy. It doesn't cover things like analgesics or antibiotics.

I've been on serious meds in my past, and I know what it's like to juggle a budget on a single mum's pension, so, at first, this change looked pretty good to me. As I've said before, nothing is ever perfect—certainly not in this place. The government tell us that, as well as saving people money, we are going the way that most Western countries are, with not as many trips to the doctor and not as many trips to the chemist, which you'd think would be a good thing. From September, six million Australians will have some of their prescription bill cut in half. The government says it will save those Australians $1.6 billion a year.

That $1.6 billion in savings has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the pharmacies, unfortunately. If the pharmacy is a Chemist Warehouse, it's probably not an issue, so who really cares, but if it's a small regional pharmacy—and we have plenty of them in Tasmania and around the other states and territories in this country—the loss of income is a real concern, let alone the closure of pharmacies. For small communities, their local pharmacist offers a lot more than a Chemist Warehouse can ever offer. The good ones know their patients. They know what meds they're on and they know what their living circumstances are. They are mates.

Senator Tyrrell has done a damn good job by listening to and raising the concerns of pharmacists, and I thank her very much for that. My office and I have taken soundings from across the board—from doctors to the minister and a pharmacist who works for a community owned pharmacy on Tasmania's very isolated west coast. My pharmacist said that the chemist he works for will lose money. He just doesn't know how much. He also said that they wouldn't know the full impact until 2025. He is worried about running out of meds. He is worried about the young pharmacist who has just bought in with him and about other young pharmacists—a couple of them around Tasmania—who have taken the big deal, borrowed off their grandparents and put their houses down as a down payment. They have done that and backed themselves, and now this move has been made, and they knew nothing about it; otherwise, they would never have invested in a pharmacy. This is what we're doing to our young people. He had other suggestions, like bringing back telehealth for pharmacists—how about that?—doing medical checks or putting pharmacists on the MBS for long-term meds prescribed by doctors. He also reminded me that regional pharmacies get a bit extra. He's just not sure if it will cover what they might lose from the 60-day prescriptions.

The doctors and the minister say these concerns are overblown. I don't think so. I think you've underestimated by a long shot. With every new policy or law, you have to take a deep dive. Our job in this place is to look for the unintended consequences and for the solutions because nothing is ever perfect. That's what Senator Tyrrell and I have been doing—looking for solutions. That has involved talking to everyone. That's what the government and the minister are not doing. They've shut the door. This is not a sewn-up deal yet, you guys over there. So I would like to call on the minister to put on his big-boy pants and sit down with the pharmacists and talk to them again—talk and listen. Get this right. I tell you what, the unintended consequences in the future for these smaller pharmacists will wipe them out, and I can tell you that no patient, no doctor and no pharmacy is going to win out of this. It will send us into a spiralling crisis.

There are other options. You need to either come up with a compensation scheme for those people losing out or bring the pharmacists back to the table and get this right. I can assure you that this bill is not right. You need to look at the unintended consequences and meet them head on. Running away is not the answer. Once again, Minister, don't try and pull the wool over my eyes and Senator Tyrrell's eyes. Get your big-boy pants on and get back to the table with the pharmacists. If that means you have to bring that pharmacy agreement forward and get this right, then bloody well do it. We will not pay the consequences of your actions in Tasmania.