House debates

Thursday, 5 December 2013

Bills

National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013; Second Reading

1:03 pm

Photo of Amanda RishworthAmanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Simplified Price Disclosure) Bill 2013 and the amendments moved by the shadow minister for Health. The bill before the House makes changes to the National Health Act 1953 to streamline the operations of the current price disclosure arrangements within the operation of the PBS. This measure is about ensuring that governments, who set the wholesale price for PBS listed medications, are able to factor in discounts given to pharmacies from pharmaceutical companies and, therefore, are able to adjust this wholesale price to reflect the true aggregate market price in a more timely fashion. In particular, the bill reduces the length of time of price disclosure to government by pharmaceutical companies from 18 to 12 months, allowing the government to change the wholesale price it sets to reflect the market price more quickly. The bill also ensure that there is only one ongoing price disclosure cycle, as opposed to the current arrangement of having three cycles per year. In addition, the bill also decreases the number of price reduction days from three to two and retains the current arrangements which prevent the government reducing the price of a medication on the PBS unless the weighted average price is at least 10 per cent lower than the PBS price. This measure is important, and it does provide value for consumers, for taxpayers and, indeed, for government.

This bill implements a change that the former Labor government announced in August this year. I must say that, at the time when Labor announced this policy, we heard veiled criticism from the opposition about this measure. In particular, there were comments made suggesting that this change was being made too quickly and that it should not be implemented because it changed the formal community pharmacy agreement. However, now they are in government, the coalition have quickly changed their tune, wasting no time implementing Labor's announcement though this legislation. Indeed, we are in the third sitting week of the new parliament, and it seems now that the coalition government is very keen to adopt Labor's policy as quickly as possible.

I do recognise that some stakeholders, in particular community pharmacies, are concerned by this measure. I would like to put on the record the great job that community pharmacies do around the country and, indeed, in my electorate. But this is an important saving measure for government. It provides over $830 million over four years, not to mention savings for consumers as well. It is Labor's view that these saving are important and that this provides an incredibly good opportunity to reinvest them back into the health care system. That is why we have moved the amendment that savings made through the PBS system go back into health. This amendment will ensure that the tradition started under the previous Labor government whereby savings made as a result of price disclosure are reinvested back into health will continue. Indeed, the previous Labor government invested $1.9 billion of savings from price disclosure to make investments in a range of important infrastructure initiatives in the health area, including the integrated cancer centres.

We are also moving this amendment to protect the Commonwealth's investment in health, because it is currently under threat from the new government. The Minister for Health has not really been able to articulate any coherent vision for his portfolio, other than to find savings for the Prime Minister and to sneak through cuts to health services and programs.

Every Australian should be concerned about what the government intends to do in the health area. As we know, despite promising not to touch money in the health area, it has already axed a number of key projects and programs and flagged more cuts. This is another example—one of many examples we are now seeing—where this government says one thing before an election and does something else after the election.

We know they have ripped $100 million out of the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, which provides over 90 per cent of the state's specialist eye surgery. It is a cruel blow to patients and the hospital, which has been providing services to Victorians for over 150 years.

The government has abolished the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council, a body that has existed for almost 50 years and has been giving advice to governments since the Menzies government. It has abolished the expert panel on the marketing of infant formula because this government seems uninterested in getting accurate information about significant health policy. It has indicated $35 million of cuts for the Diabetes Research Foundation and now is providing clear evidence that it will backflip and cut Medicare Locals.

I am particularly concerned about the agenda to cut Medicare Locals. This would be a significant backwards step—

Comments

No comments