Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, President, I appreciate it. My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Gallagher. Your government has acknowledged that your proposed changes to the dispensing limit for pharmacies from 30 to 60 days will mean pharmacists lose income. You've made a welcome commitment that the money your government saves from this measure will be reinvested back into community pharmacies. How much money will pharmacists lose as a result of these changes and how much are you committing to reinvest?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question. There is an important change that the government is making based on the advice of the expert group which has provided this advice to government since 2018, which those opposite ignored and didn't address. It's a significant cost-of-living measure in terms of reducing what people have to pay for their medicines. We know how much that can hit the pocket of many households—six million Australians who rely on regular medicines. In terms of the changes, the impact on the budget—this is from memory, and I will correct this if I have to—is in the order of just over $1 billion in savings to the government, and we are reinvesting all of that back into pharmacy.

We're not disputing that there will be income lost to pharmacies through this, basically because they are not charging people every month for the additional dispensing fees. If they're only charging that once every two months that will impact on pharmacies' income. But it also makes a major difference to people who rely on medicines and how much they pay. These are the decisions that we have thought through carefully.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We want pharmacies to do more. We don't want them to be seen as retailers, clipping the ticket in a sense. We want them to be health professionals. They want to be health professionals.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! Senator Scarr!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our investments are essentially putting that money back into pharmacies so that they can do those important jobs like vaccinations, opioid treatments and other things. I have no doubt the role of the pharmacist will change significantly in coming years. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Tyrrell, a first supplementary?

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the government's commitment to reinvestment extend to the $1.6 billion pharmacists stand to lose from prescription co-payments?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The money that would have normally returned to our budget will go back into pharmacy; we make that 100 per cent commitment. We want to work with pharmacy about how these changes will be rolled through. So we have responded to them—

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was not the question.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston, it is not your turn.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ruston!

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have responded to pharmacy about the rollout of this administration. You're obviously arguing for people to pay more for their medicines, so there you go. That's what you're doing. You are wanting them to pay more. We will make those investments back into pharmacy to make sure they can do new programs, more programs and, indeed, programs that were facing a funding cliff under the former government. We'll work with them on the phasing of this, so, coming in in September, then coming in in January—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order on relevance, I think you'll find that the question that was asked by the senator at the other end of the chamber is not the question that is being answered by the minister. You may draw her attention to it, unless she doesn't understand the question.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ruston. The minister is being directly relevant. Minister, please continue.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the question relates to whether the government will fund the other income, not related to the one that's returning to government, that is not our intention. But we do want to work with pharmacy about the new things they can do— (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Tyrrell, a second supplementary?

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does your government's promise to reinvest every dollar that pharmacies lose include or exclude the lost dispensing fees that are required to compensate for the current community pharmacy agreement?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government remains committed to the agreement, and it will continue. We will enter—no doubt, in the next little while—discussions into the eighth pharmacy agreement. But I think the point we're trying to make here is that the government got advice that said there is absolutely no reason why people have to come in every month to get their medicines. For a certain number of medicines, you only need to come in once every two months. If your doctor approves it, you can get access to this medicine once every two months. It will save you money throughout the year. It is safe. It's the advice to government, and, if we weren't acting on this, I think people who have to buy medicines every month are right to ask the government why, because the very clear advice is that it's safe. We want to work with pharmacies. And it means that it's cheaper for people who rely on long-term medicine.