Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the National Health Amendment (Safety Net Thresholds) Bill 2019. This is an uncontroversial bill that represents election commitments made by both major parties at the last election. It will reduce thresholds in 2020 from where they would have been. As earlier speakers on this side of the House have indicated, this is a welcome measure.

But, as earlier speakers on this side of the House have indicated, when we discuss measures such as this which are uncontroversial and relatively narrow, in addition to noting support for the specific bill it's also worth noting the broader context within which the bill is brought to the chamber. It's an honour to follow on from speakers such as the member for Werriwa, the member for Macnamara and the member for Macarthur who have so well laid out that broader context. In particular, they've laid out the major contributions of earlier governments to health policy and health service delivery, such as the creation of Medicare and not just the creation of that framework but also over many years the funding of many services within that framework. They've also pointed out failings on the government side, such as the 2014 budget with its unannounced proposal that wasn't taken to an election for a co-payment and other proposals that were not acceptable to the community and which were blocked by the opposition and those on this side of the chamber.

Those earlier speakers on this side have also pointed out how those failings have actually continued since that now infamous budget. I just want to put on the public record a few facts about where we in Australia find ourselves today in relation to the provision of health services. These are some basic facts which I think should be very concerning to everybody in this place and which should create an urgency for much more to be done. In 2017-18, Australians spent $9.4 billion on medicines and pharmacy products not listed on the PBS. That's money coming out of the pockets of people who are already feeling that their household budgets are under strain.

In addition to this, the government's own figures show that many Australians don't fill prescriptions because they can't afford them. What burden can there be on people, on people's lifestyles, for them not to take drugs that doctors have recommended and that they need because they can't afford them? According to the ABS, 961,000 people a year delay or avoid taking prescribed medicines due to cost. I say again: these are drugs which doctors or specialists have indicated to people that they need and that people clearly want, but they're delaying taking them or not taking them at all because of the fact that they can't afford the out-of-pocket expenses. Importantly, the rate of people skipping prescriptions is twice as high in disadvantaged areas as in less disadvantaged areas. This shouldn't come as a surprise, but those figures should be on the public record in this place because that inequality is something on which this parliament should be taking action. It's something which a bill like this, a worthwhile bill, an uncontroversial bill, but a very narrow bill, completely fails to address in any way whatsoever. So that's really the broad context within which we are debating this bill. This is a small, positive measure, but health policy is lacking.

As earlier speakers on this side have said, we on this side acknowledge the result of the last election, but when you look at the offerings of the two sides in this area in particular the difference couldn't be starker. The difference couldn't be starker when it comes to the assistance that this side offered to those who can't afford needed drugs and the assistance for out-of-pocket expenses that would have been offered and the vision this government have and the very narrow vision that's being offered by those opposite.

Let's look at mental health. Again, just to draw on one particular area of health policy, Allan Fels has put on the record that he sees mental health as an area which is particularly underdone. In Australia, the total mental health budget is itself only 6.5 per cent of the health budget when the burden of disease due to mental health suggests this should be closer to 14 per cent. So there are clear economic costs in this area. Again, if you are looking at the funding of drugs, mental health is an area where that failure is particularly stark. Allan Fels looked at the impact of that not just on income inequality but across the age spectrum. He knows that there are still serious questions about our 'investment in young minds', as he puts it. About 11 per cent of spending on specialised mental health services in 2010-11 was towards child and adolescent services, yet zero- to 17-year-olds constitute almost 23 per cent of the population. I want to put on the public record that there are a number of very serious—and I would say urgent—health issues that need to be addressed currently but that are—

See this speech in context