Senate debates
Tuesday, 20 June 2023
Matters of Urgency
Pharmaceutical Industry
4:09 pm
Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Hansard source
I must say that I find it incredibly concerning that Senator Payman has compared industry consultation with the Voice to Parliament. Is she honestly suggesting that for consultation to be true and proper we need to constitutionally enshrine organisations to be able to consult with them? It was a farcical comparison, absolutely farcical, and it's exactly what we see from this government, time and time again—particularly when it comes to policies that impact rural and regional Australia most significantly. The decision to change the current dispensing policy without proper consultation with the very people who it's going to impact the most, being community pharmacies, is just the last in a long line of disastrous decisions for our regional communities.
Let me say from the outset that I am absolutely all for cheaper medicines. That's why I'm very proud of the record that the Liberals and Nationals had in government of approving PBS medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, saving literally thousands of dollars from the pockets of our sick Australians. But we did that with no impact—zero impact—on the bottom line of community pharmacies. The government makes big noises about saving patients $180 a year on their medicines through this policy. What about the $180,000 a year, per pharmacy, that will be stripped from their business bottom lines? That's money they use to pay rent, utilities and staff.
Respected economist Henry Ergas has estimated that about $4.5 billion will taken from community pharmacies. That puts at risk 665 pharmacies and as many as 20,000 jobs. In regional areas, like where I live, pharmacies are often the first and only medical support in a country town. Across Australia, there are 320 towns that don't have a doctor but they do have a pharmacy. And I ask: what will the savings mean to the people of those towns if they lose their pharmacy and they have to get in the car and drive a two-hour round trip just to get their scripts filled? It makes a mockery of the $180 a year the government claims will be saved.
I met recently with Port Macquarie pharmacist Judy Plunkett, who told me of the services her pharmacy provides. It's not just filling scripts; she takes blood pressure; she helps to set up CPAP machines for people with sleep apnoea; she give vaccinations; she goes into the aged-care homes and delivers and dispenses their pharmaceuticals; and she fills Webster-paks for her aged clients. A lot of these services she does for free because she can afford it, and that's because of her business bottom line. But she won't be able to afford it if $180,000 a year is stripped from her. And the Capital Chemist in Braidwood, which currently employs eight staff and is open for extended operating hours, will not be able to continue to service that community at the same level if they lose $180,000 per year. We know already, because we've been told , that the banks are circling the pharmacists because they're seeing the impact that this bad policy will have. The Albanese government must confront the fact that the changes will drastically affect Australians' ability to access health care through pharmacies, particularly in regional areas.
We are, of course, supportive of the intention to reduce the cost of medicines on Australians, but we must ensure that people have access and equity of access. It's so that I can access a pharmacy in Deniliquin just like someone living in Chatswood or on the North Shore can access their pharmacy. There is absolutely no point in having two months worth of dispensing if the pharmacist in your town closes down.
No comments