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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by Senator Ruston and Senator Hume relating to the pharmaceutical industry and the budget.

Senator Ruston asked some very serious questions in relation to the future of our community pharmacies. Those listening to this broadcast and those in the gallery will be aware of the major change that this government has announced, whereby Australians will be able to obtain dispensation of prescriptions on a 60-day basis instead of a 30-day basis. From the point of view of the customers of pharmacies, this seems like a good idea. But there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay.

In this case, this announcement, which has been made by the government, is going to have a devastating impact upon our community pharmacies, including community pharmacies in small, regional and rural centres. That is of considerable concern to the coalition and it should be of considerable concern to all Australians. After all, we all want cheaper prescriptions, but what if the local pharmacy closes in your town because it can't afford to keep its doors open because of this change? That's what we're talking about in this question, and that is of great concern to those sitting on this side of the house. My office, like, I'm sure, other offices, has been inundated with queries from local pharmacies concerned about how they are going to manage to keep the doors open with this change.

Let's look at the report that was just released today. This report, which was authored by economist Henry Ergas AO, an advisory company and also a data lab out of Griffith University in my home state of Queensland, found that this policy will result in the loss of upward of 20,000 pharmacy jobs because community pharmacies will no longer be able to keep on the number of employees that they previously had, because of the effect of this policy on their cash flow. It's a simple matter of cash flow. If your cash flow is so materially disrupted, you simply don't have the money to employ as many people or to keep your pharmacy open for as long as it currently stays open. This is the devastating impact of this policy. They predict in this report that up to 665 pharmacies could close. Also, pharmacies will cease opening on weekends or will not stay open late, because of the additional costs they'll have to bear.

One of the surprising things in relation to the announcement of this policy was that finance minister Katy Gallagher admitted that no modelling was done. There might have been an impact analysis, but there was no modelling done prior to the announcement of this policy. If you are going to announce a policy which has such a material impact on community pharmacies across this country, you should at the very least conduct modelling before you make the announcement, as part of your consideration of the policy. But that was not done. In fact, now we're hearing from the government that they're actually going to do some modelling—after the event. What is this? You announce the policy and then you do the modelling after the event? It's meant to be the other way around. You're meant to do the modelling and engage in consultation as you're crafting the policy, and then announce the policy, which has the benefit of that input. But that is not the case here.

It isn't just us on the coalition benches making this point. It isn't just the Pharmacy Guild. The Office of Impact Analysis, which has a key responsibility in terms of how laws are made in this place and makes an assessment as to whether or not proposed laws have gone through an appropriate process, has found that the impact of the government's change to 60-day dispensing was not properly assessed to the standard of good practice. I repeat that: the Office of Impact Analysis, independent of the opposition, noted that the government's change to 60-day dispensing was not properly assessed to the standard of good practice. The government's impact analysis failed to meet the criteria for good practice due to a lack of public consultation, particularly on the potential impacts for small businesses and pharmacies in rural and remote areas. And that's the feedback we're getting now, especially from pharmacies in rural and remote areas. This devastating hit to their cash flow is going to have a material impact on whether or not they can keep their doors open. That sort of consultation should have been done before this policy was announced. We on this side of the chamber will fight for our community pharmacies from now until the next election.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was interesting to listen to the contribution from Senator Scarr because I think maybe Senator Scarr and those opposite forget that, when they were last in government, they acted on advice that was provided by the expert Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Similar advice on this very matter was provided to the previous government five years ago, but that advice was ignored. For five years, as a result of the previous government's inertia, millions of Australians have been shelling out twice as much as they needed to for medications. The previous government were happy to see families, pensioners and people with chronic health conditions pay more for their medicines, ignoring the advice from many health experts around this country. Federal Labor is making medicines cheaper for millions of Australians, and we're very proud to do so. We know that making medicines cheaper is good, not just for the hip pockets of Australians but it's also good for their health. At a time where there are increasing cost-of-living pressures, I think this is a reasonable policy to put to the Australian people, through our budget, in terms of why we're addressing the Medicare and medicines fiascos that were left by those opposite.

Just to be clear, too: it sounds like those opposite are saying that this government hasn't consulted. That's far from the truth. In fact, not only have we consulted but there's a list of many health professions right across the country which support our policy: Arthritis Australia, Diabetes Australia, the health foundation, the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine, the National Rural Health Alliance, the Rural Doctors Association, the Council on the Ageing and the Breast Cancer Network Australia. Plus, the Australian Medical Association has said that this policy is a win for patients and:

It should lead to better medicines adherence and ultimately better health outcomes, with reduced pressure on the health system.

Further, the president of the—

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

What does the Prime Minister's own pharmacist say?

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has said:

This change has been recommended because it is in the best interests of patients, and I am pleased that the Government has heeded the expert advice.

Senator Scarr, listen to the experts!

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

What does the Prime Minister's own pharmacist say?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr!

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further, the policy has been welcomed by the Consumers Health Forum of Australia, who have said that the policy shows that government is listening to health consumers, and, 'Every single dollar saved in a pharmacy is more money that can be spent on groceries and rent.' And the list keeps going and going.

There was another matter also raised today: we heard a question about housing. It's really surprising—I would have thought, after what happened last week, that when the Liberal party came back into this chamber they would have seen some sense. Why would they line up with the Australian Greens in blocking housing—more money for social housing? The Liberals, Nationals and the Greens are now all seeking to justify their unjustifiable opposition to the Labor Party's Housing Australia Future Fund. This comes after the coalition and the Greens teamed up once more this morning to delay investment in affordable housing. Sadly, people who are now living on the streets will suffer another four months because of those opposite teaming up with the Greens. They're now going to be homeless again for another four months.

What a shameful, cynical and political act in the midst of rising cost-of-living pressures. It's something I would have expected back in the old days at the National Union of Students, where we had the Trots teaming up with the conservatives after being out all night at God knows where. This is the behaviour of student politicians and it's still happening in this building. Grow up! I say to those opposite: grow up! We're adults in this room, and let's deliver real, genuine policy that can make a difference for millions of Australians who are doing it tough out there on the streets. Both the Greens and the coalition love to stand up in here and say that the government isn't doing enough to support Australians. Well, join us in $10 billion in affordable housing! But let's be clear: you cannot say that you support more social and affordable housing but oppose the future fund.

It's hardly surprising to see that the coalition is in this position again, but the Greens are a bunch of hypocrites too. We have to look at their own record: councillors across very many metropolitan cities around Australia are opposing reasonable development—reasonable development that will put the roofs over many, many people's heads in this country. (Time expired)

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

tor BRAGG () (): I think it's good that from time to time we see senators give unscripted addresses like we just saw from Senator Ciccone. I think it's far better than the dreadful, turgid reading out of other people's points that puts most of us to sleep! So I think it was good to hear that. But the point I want to make today in this address is really more in relation to the budget management, which was, of course, the subject of the last few questions from the opposition.

Of course, the overall problem here is that the government has not been able to adopt a contractionary budget stance and has decided that it would effectively fuel inflation by being incapable of restraining new spending. The key stat from the budget just delivered was the $14 billion in additional spending based on decisions made in that budget process for this financial year about to start—$14 billion of new spending in that budget process. Since that budget, which is only a few weeks ago, we've now seen another couple of billion dollars spent. That is the central problem that is facing the country's economic management, because we have an executive government deciding that it cannot slow new spending. In fact, it is committing new spending on a regular and, frankly, unusual basis. To spend $2 billion when a budget has just been freshly inked is unusual.

Then, of course, you have the Reserve Bank, which is trying to soften things out there in the economy with its blunt tool of monetary policy, and you see fiscal and monetary policy working against one another. It is very frustrating that we see the procession of Labor backbenchers being sent out to attack Philip Lowe for doing his job. Philip Lowe might not be the most popular person in Australia, but at least he's doing his job by raising interest rates to try and deal with inflation whilst Canberra continues to spend more and more money. So that is the central problem in the budget and in the overall position the country faces.

The second issue, though, is the lack of productivity reforms in the budget. When we had the Senate estimates recently, we had the Productivity Commission come and give evidence, and the main question that the chair of the PC was asked was, 'How many of the measures in your recent report are actually in the budget?' The answer was none, because, of course, the Productivity Commission's advice is that the country should be moving to liberalise and improve the level of flexibility in labour laws, whereas the government's agenda has been to try and ensure that the labour laws are more complex and more convoluted.

Of course, this goes to the third major issue here, which is the central driver of this government, which is to enrich its favourite vested interests. If you are a union, a super fund or a class-action law firm, your issues will be at the top of the list here in Canberra. Of course, that also goes to the spending of money, which again goes back to that first point about the very difficult issue we face: inflation. So that is the central problem: inflation being fuelled by Canberra, no productivity, and then, on top of that, a government which is obsessed with trying to enrich its favourite vested interests. I think, unfortunately, until we see the government adopt a productivity agenda and start to say no to new spending proposals, we're going to see higher inflation then we should see, and we're going to see a weakening economy with weakening competitiveness.

So those are the central questions that we've been asking in question time today. Again, I want to reiterate my thanks to Senator Ciccone for being able to go off script. I think that's very helpful, and I hope that in future we can see more contributions which are unscripted. I do not want to make any commentary about the content, but I want to very much associate myself with the manner in which the senator gave his contribution.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a great speech! I agree with Senator Bragg that Senator Ciccone's speech was exceptionally good and one that people should take a great deal of note of. I'd also reach out to Senator Bragg and those on his side of the argument and say that they should also take note of what Senator Ciccone had to say, because what's quite clear is that they have been consistent on the opposite side. They've been very consistent. We've just had criticism of having the Social Housing Accelerator going forward. Not only did they vote, with their mates from the Greens, against having a bill to bring 10,000 homes, and not only did they vote against ultimately bringing 30,000 homes into the market to make sure that we start putting pressure back on the housing crisis, but they are also now criticising the fact that we're trying to take important steps, with the premiers of the country, to start dealing with the incredibly important area of social housing. Because, for 10 years, they did so little; they created this crisis. They failed for 10 years. They threw our kids out of the opportunity to get homes, they reduced their wages, because the Liberal and National parties are the low-income parties, and they also want us to continue their agenda—don't have social housing and housing affordability for people within this country.

I heard a lot of people from all political parties speaking at the 'yes' campaign. I've been a strong supporter of the 'yes' campaign. I congratulated a number of those people privately, and they're more than welcome to say it publicly, if they like. Many of them I didn't mention publicly. But you can't come in here and vote one way when it comes to the referendum and then argue another when we're trying to get social housing support for the most disadvantaged people in this country. Because housing in this country is a critical piece—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, on a point of order?

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

My point of order was going to be relevance, given I wasn't sure how the referendum was relevant to the housing questions. But I note that Senator Sheldon has come back to the topic.

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

Senator Sheldon, please proceed.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hopefully, I'll get a tick from Senator McGrath. I'm not quite sure I'll get the same tick as my colleague Senator Ciccone. One thing that is quite clear is that you can't continue to deny that we have a housing crisis in this country. You have to stop playing politics with it! Our kids, our families, and our communities deserve better. Housing coming in for people suffering from domestic violence, housing coming in for those that are veterans, housing coming in for those who are disadvantaged, housing coming in for those that are First Nations people—you have a social responsibility for people throughout this country to support the bill on housing. You have a responsibility not to criticise the social housing accelerator but to say to those people in New South Wales who are getting $610 million worth of funding, to those people in Victoria who are getting $496 million worth of funding, to those people in Queensland who are getting $396 million in funding, to those people in Western Australia who are getting $209 million in funding, to those people in South Australia who are getting $135 million in funding, to those people in Tasmania who are getting $50 million in funding, to those people in the Northern Territory who are getting $50 million in funding and to those in the Australian Capital Territory who are getting $50 million why you are against proposals and why you are questioning the strategy to make sure the social housing goes ahead under this proposal that's been put forward and will continue to be generated by this government, along with the premiers, right across the political divide across this country.

It points out that the criticism of that accelerator program is a criticism at the heart of what you don't have and at the heart to say that we need to make sure that Australians have the opportunity to be in homes, to be in housing and to have an opportunity to have a roof over their heads, one that they can call home, and deliver it for their families and their local communities. That cohesion that a house brings is something that the Greens and those opposite are stopping. They are stopping our kids from getting homes. They are stopping the most disadvantaged from getting homes. They're stopping veterans from getting home. They are stopping people from across this country who have been let down by those opposite for the past decade. Because this crisis has been here for over a decade, and this crisis is being accelerated by the way the Greens have voted and by the way that those opposite keep voting on the resolution about housing within this country. It's time to stand by your community rather than, in some cases, play petty politics and attempt to wedge. For the others, get out of your ideological quagmire.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise quickly to talk about the response to the 60-day prescription model. Strangely enough, I'm going to talk about the Key and Peele comedy series. Many of you may know them from the A-Aron and Jay Quellin skit. I want to talk about the Obama anger translator. This government needs a regional translator because they see every policy through the views of the cities. When we're talking about 665 pharmacies closing and 20,000 jobs being lost, affordability does not come into it if there is no accessibility. Time and time again this is where this government goes. We have cheaper child care, but you can't get child care in the bush. We have cheaper medicines, but there won't be chemists in the bush after this.

Senator Ciccone sat there and rattled off a list of people who were consulted—all these different groups—not one of which was pharmacy based. I tell you that if you took the same axe to the funding of those groups as you did to pharmacies they would squeal like bayoneted pigs, because they'd know this is wrong. In the bush, we don't have doctors and Medicare and all these things. These are community assets. We saw the mistake of the government my side was on when we merged councils in New South Wales. They don't understand that in the bush there is community. In the cities you wake up in one LGA, drop your kids in another LGA and go to work in another LGA. In the bush there is community, in the regions there is community. Near my place, Chelsea Felkai at Whitebridge Pharmacy said, 'It's soul-destroying, what's going on.' They've just bought this and they pay themselves three days a week so they can afford the interest rates on the pharmacy they bought, and this will take more. If we go down to Rowen Turnbull at Blacksmiths pharmacy, in a beautiful little beachside suburb, with the second-best surf club in the area—behind Redhead!—he is saying he will put off staff and cut services, or have to charge more to be able to maintain it. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.