Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am glad the previous speaker raised the issue of price disclosure within the PBS system, because that is a reform that did deliver savings, savings that should have gone into the PBS system to ensure that it was sustainable. They are the kinds of budget savings measures that Labor introduced in government to ensure that the PBS and our health system was sustainable. It looked at the system and said: where are taxpayers not getting value for money? That is why price disclosure was introduced. Where has that billions of dollars that has been saved gone? We are calling for that funding to go into the PBS to pay for the drugs that the previous speaker, the member for Bowman, spoke about. This is how you can keep the PBS fair and sustainable.

Instead, what we have seen is that not only have the government agreed with and put forward Labor's amendments on PBS price disclosure in this term of government but also they have sought to introduce cruel measures like increasing the co-payment and the tax on medicines. This increase will hurt all Australians and in particular those on the lowest incomes and those on fixed incomes who can least afford it. In my own electorate, that is about 30 per cent of households—30 per cent of households are surviving on less than $600 a week. This increase will hit them the hardest. Who are these people? These are our self-funded retirees, who may have a health-care or concession card. These people also include our pensioners, people who are on Newstart benefits, people who are on single parent benefits, people who are on the disability pension and people who are on very, very low incomes. These reforms and this increase will hit them hard.

It is not just this increase—there are a number of increases in this very cruel budget that attack the most vulnerable in our community. We have heard that the COAG Reform Council released a report in early June that found that 8.5 per cent of people in 2012-13 were delaying or did not fill prescriptions due to cost. In disadvantaged areas, it was up to as much as 12.4 per cent. When I meet with pharmacists—depending on where they are from in my electorate—they talk about this. The pharmacists in Long Gully and Eaglehawk, which are areas of high social disadvantage, talk about people coming in with four or five prescriptions and saying to the pharmacist, 'Tell me which ones I cannot go without. Tell me which ones I must take.' Those pharmacists are in an impossible position. They are in that position because people's incomes just do not stretch far enough today.

This problem will only be compounded by the increase in this tax that this government is proposing. It is a tax that we say is unnecessary because the savings in the PBS have already been made through price disclosure. That is money that should not have gone directly back into government coffers to be spent on whatever pork-barrelling the government wish to pursue. That should have gone back into the PBS and back into the healthcare system—we should have ensured that that money was reinvested in health. If we are really serious about the sustainability of the health system, then revenue being raised from the GP co-payment and this tax, as well as others, would be going back into the PBS and back into Medicare. We have not seen that proposal yet from this government. What we have seen instead is an ideological campaign that is about breaking the universal healthcare system that this country's health system has been built on.

Labor has already, as I have said, moved the reforms in the last government to ensure that our system is sustainable. When I am at my listening post, many people argue—and rightly so—that we have already paid for our Medicare systems through our Medicare levy. That is why the suggestion of a co-payment hits people really hard in an 'Are you kidding?' kind of way. Some of the most senior doctors around Australia have already come out to condemn the co-payment and raise their concerns. In my own electorate, doctors—regardless of where I am—say that they are opposed to the co-payment because they believe it will discourage those most in need of medical help from presenting at their GP.

At Woodend's Brooke Street Medical Centre, Dr Richard Bills has raised concerns about how this will affect not only his practice but also his after-hours surgery work. They are some distance from a local hospital so therefore they provide an after-hours clinic or service, where the ambos will pop in with the patient for that first triage and assessment. They are concerned that because of the government's extra co-payment people will not go to their clinic first but will travel the hour to Melbourne for something that may not be life threatening but needs medical attention. Brooke Street Medical Centre is not alone. In Castlemaine, 21 local GPs came together to speak out publicly about their concerns with this new tax. The Medicare Local in the Loddon Mallee Murray region is also speaking out. A number of their practitioners say that they agree with the concerns of the doctors in Woodend and Castlemaine that this co-payment will stop people from seeking the help that they need.

On Friday, I got to be at the sod turning and the launch of Heathcote Health's new primary care facility. It is a project that was funded by the former Labor government through the Health and Hospitals Fund. Of course it was acknowledged that the funding came from the Commonwealth but it was not acknowledged that it was from the former Labor government—a government that invested in health care. At this particular sod turning, one of the GPs who partners with Heathcote Health said in the launch that he hopes they have patients to treat. Heathcote is one of those other low socio-economic areas where households are surviving on less than $600 a week. He was worried that, because of the government's changes to the healthcare system, people would not present to ensure that their health needs were met at the early stages of their illness. He was worried that, by not going to the primary health care part of Heathcote Health, they would then become too ill and too sick and then present at the urgent care side of their healthcare facility.

The attacks on our healthcare system do not stop at this increase in the medicines tax or the GP co-payment. The cuts in basic funding to our hospitals are also compounding the problems. Bendigo Health will suffer a $25 million cut from this government because this government has torn up the national partnership on hospital funding. That is a $25 million cut from Bendigo Health. In question time today the health minister had the audacity to stand up and talk about the cost of the carbon tax on hospitals. What about the $25 million he has cut directly from their budget? What about justifying that cut to the people of Bendigo and to the people at the Bendigo health facilities that require health support—$30 million cut directly from hospitals from across the Bendigo electorate?

This is just one regional area hit hard by this budget, yet we have the health minister, who does not talk about his cuts—whether they be direct to the hospitals, whether they be from primary healthcare services, whether they be investment in funding for building new healthcare services, whether they be GP co-payments or increases to the medicines—instead talking about the carbon tax. Well, get onboard with what is going on in your facilities, your health portfolio, and I dare you to come back to Bendigo and stand in front of Bendigo Health again and talk about the carbon tax and not talk about the funding cuts that you have made to Bendigo Health in your first budget. Labor does not support this increase in tax, particularly in conjunction with the other increases in taxes and the cuts to families in all areas, including regional areas like my own. The previous speaker also had a go at the former government about going slow on approving medicines when it comes to the PBS. Well, you are now in government.

I would like to finish with a few words from some local people who have raised concerns about the drug Kalydeco. A Goornong family was delighted and excited on 20 December last year. They thought that Christmas had come early because of the news that Kalydeco had been approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for listing on the PBS. After an extensive review process, the PBAC confirmed that the profound benefits of Kalydeco offered to individuals and the healthcare system were significant. Tim McCrohan, the father of Amelia—the young girl who would benefit from receiving this drug—said that this was a 'great achievement'. He said, 'We have had our Christmas present come early' and 'Now we are looking forward Amelia getting better'.

Tim has said to me. 'All we want is our little girl, Amelia, to live a normal life'. And Kalydeco will provide her with that opportunity. Yes, it is a very expensive therapy, but the benefits it delivers for those who suffer from this rare form of cystic fibrosis is beyond measure. Tim said, 'Our Christmas wishes have been granted' and that he is looking forward. He said:

We are confident that once pricing negotiations conclude, the Minister for Health, the Hon Peter Dutton, will take the PBAC’s recommendation to Cabinet and deliver a listing date for the 200 Australians waiting on Kalydeco.

That was December last year. We are now in July, and Amelia and her family are still waiting. To date, this drug has still not been listed. To date, there are still discussions saying that this drug is too expensive. Price disclosure, as I mentioned at the beginning, ensured that there was money in the system to fund drugs like Kalydeco on the PBS. Yet this young family is still waiting.

Billions have been saved already. Price disclosure, one of the reforms Labor delivered in government, is a sensible way, a fair way, of ensuring that there is money in the system to ensure a sustainable PBS. The proposal being put forward by the government is not fair. It hits the most vulnerable the hardest—those who have the least amount of disposable income to pay this increase in costs. It will result in more and more people filling fewer scripts, meaning that people will get sicker and will end up presenting at our already stretched emergency departments.

It is great to see nurses and doctors, those working in the health professions, standing up and speaking out for the health of Australians. They should not be condemned, they should not be called 'union bosses', they should not be called 'union hacks' for speaking up, wanting to ensure that the health system is there to support the health of Australians. Nurses work hard, doctors work hard. All those working in the health professions deserve our respect, not condemnation for calling the government out for creating a health emergency in this country. That is exactly what is happening because of the government's proposal. Whether it be their GP co-payment or tax of $7, the increase to the medicines that people on the lowest incomes are paying or the cuts to our hospital system, this government's agenda for health care is wrong and is creating problems, and it will create a health emergency within our country.

Here are some more words from people in my electorate about this government's approach to health. In Ian's words: 'About the only thing I can see that these changes will do is stop people from going to the doctor and filling their prescriptions. How cruel is this government? In Paul's words: 'My son has type 1 diabetes. My wife has a chronic illness and is facing major surgery. At the moment she is a member of the workforce as a tutor, but this is limited and may not be continued in the long term. I implore all sides of parliament who represent regional Australians to vote against these changes to the PBS and to Medicare to ensure that there is fairness and equity so that my family continues to receive the medical support that they need to ensure that they live healthy lives.'

See this speech in context