Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

And the member for Cunningham has heard the same. She has met with people in her electorate. They tell me that, in a matter of days, 20 or 25 years worth of migraine is dealt with by the drugs Emgality and Ajovy. That is a wonderful achievement. The trouble is, they are very expensive. In the normal course of events, most people can't afford them. So they know that there's a drug there, that there's this miracle that is sitting there on the shelf, which they can't reach because they can't afford it. If it was on the PBS, as the PBAC has recommended it should be, they would be able to reach that, and 20 or 25 years worth of chronic migraine would go away. This government, just as a matter of fact, hasn't listed Emgality and Ajovy. Emgality was recommended 15 months ago. That's 15 months of agony for some people that was avoidable on this government's watch. And there are other examples as well.

I have met with some people, particularly some delightful young people, who suffer chronic eczema. Some people in the community think of eczema as a rash—something that a bit of cream can make go away. It is not; for many people it is much worse than that. It's a chronic condition which affects their schooling and their mental health, and is no trivial matter. Like with migraine, I've met with people who take the drug Dupixent and find that what was a chronic, unmanageable eczema condition is dealt with. But, again, it's expensive. Again, the government have a recommendation sitting on their desk from the PBAC to list it and they haven't.

I always give the minister some slack. I don't expect him to list a drug days or weeks after it is recommended by the PBAC. I recognise that there are issues to be worked through and discussions to be had with the drug companies. I give the minister six months—I think that's not unreasonable—to list a drug before I start criticising him about it and before I start making a point about it. I think six months is a reasonable amount of time. Dupixent was recommended seven months ago. That's seven months of agony for many Australians, particularly young Australians, with eczema that could have been avoided.

I did say that I give the minister time, and I do, but there is one drug that I am going to raise which is quite recent. I fully recognise that it was only recommended three months ago but I am going to raise it because the company has said that the discussions with the Department of Health have broken down and they are walking away. That is in relation to the drug Faslodex. This is particularly serious because Faslodex extends the life of women suffering breast cancer. This is no trivial matter. The fact is that many women who have breast cancer had a hope created that they might get this drug, Faslodex—those precious months they might have had with Faslodex might extend their life—and it's been taken away. I appeal to the government: don't just play the politics of blaming the drug company; get it sorted; get it fixed. There's a recommendation from the PBAC to list it. It should be listed. Those women should be given some hope that they can get access to the drug Faslodex. The other day I held a press conference with our friend and colleague Peta Murphy, the member for Dunkley. This drug is not relevant for her, but she knows better than anyone what that hope means for so many Australians. She gave a very passionate address to the media as to why Faslodex should be listed, and I was very pleased to be standing next to her as she did so. I echo in this chamber: list Faslodex. Get it done, get it sorted with the company and get on with it.

Whenever you raise the PBS, the minister rabbits on about 2011, which is four prime ministers ago, four health ministers ago, nine years ago. He always wants to talk about 2011. Well, I want to talk about 2020. He should care more about the 70 drugs he hasn't listed in 2020 than the seven drugs that were listed eventually in 2011. You can talk about 2011—I'm happy to debate him about 2011, if he wants to—but I'd rather focus on 2020 and the 70 drugs he hasn't listed, not the seven that were listed in 2011.

In the time remaining, I want to deal with one other matter—that is, the important matter of mental health. There has been an increased focus on mental health in this chamber over recent months and years, and it's very welcome. I fully recognise the bona fides, good intentions and good faith of everybody on all sides of the chamber when it comes to improving the mental health of Australians. Some members opposite have done superbly. I'd single out the member for Berowra for the superb work that he has done. But I'm not going to tell the House that simply talking about a matter and recognising that we should be doing something are a replacement for action. Frankly, were are not seeing enough action. Mental ill health costs us $180 billion a year. We know that because of the interim Productivity Commission report that was released some time ago. But, more important than the costs, it costs people. It costs friends, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters. It costs them grief. It costs children their parents' lives in some cases of mental ill health. That is the real cost of mental ill health in Australia. It's time we had a revolution, not an evolution, when it comes to mental health policy in Australia.

I wasn't in this portfolio at the time, but I very much welcomed the fact that the government asked the Productivity Commission to examine mental health policy in Australia. I've got a lot of respect for the Productivity Commission. I knew that they would do a decent job, and I welcomed that. I welcome the fact that the government was handed the Productivity Commission's final report more than four months ago. But I'll tell you what I don't welcome. I don't welcome the fact that I haven't seen it yet, the fact that no member of parliament, apart from the Minister for Health and the Treasurer, has seen it, the fact that no member of the public has seen it, the fact that it wasn't responded to in this month's budget. I don't welcome that at all. Again, I think we've been reasonable. I didn't go out on the day it was handed to government and demand that it be released and responded to. I didn't go out the next week. I thought it was appropriate that the minister took some time to work through it. It is not appropriate that he takes four months to work through it. It is certainly not appropriate that he takes until the next budget to respond to it. It should have been responded to in this budget, but to respond to it they would have had to have released it first, and they hadn't done that.

I have been concerned about some of the evidence we've seen before Senate estimates this week. I've been concerned and, I don't mind telling the House, perplexed as I've watched this evidence. I'm perplexed to see the evidence from the Department of Health that they got a copy of the report in June but that they are not sure, as we speak, that they have a copy of the final report. We were told that the final report went to the Treasurer but that maybe, depending on its reception, it might not be the formal one that gets given to the department. Now, I'm sorry, but the Productivity Commission final report is the final report. It doesn't get amended by the government. It doesn't get worked through with a pen on reception. They can accept it or reject it. They can amend their response to it. They're the government of the day; they can do whatever they like. But they can't rewrite a Productivity Commission report, so it is entirely unclear whether the Department of Health even have the final report of the Productivity Commission, let alone are working on the response and on the release of it.

The government was very keen to announce this inquiry. Fair enough. They were very keen to say that they're getting on with the job and they referred it to the Productivity Commission—and it's a bipartisan thing, to refer it to the Productivity Commission. As I said, I welcomed it. But I'm not going to welcome it if it sits on the shelf unimplemented. I'm not going to welcome it if it's not released for a full and proper discussion in good time.

The government does have to release it under the law, I think by December. They have to release it under the law, so we know we're going to see it eventually. I say to the minister and to the government: Get on with it. We've cut you slack. We know that the Department of Health has a lot going on at the moment. But, we can't kick this in the long grass. The Minister for Health and I both participated in the Don't Wait Mate campaign, and plenty of honourable members have. It was a message to Australians not to put off their health care during the pandemic. The principle of Don't Wait Mate applies to the minister as well, and to the government. Don't wait to deal with mental health because there's a COVID pandemic as well. Don't wait to respond to the Productivity Commission report because you're still working through it. Don't Wait Mate is my message to the Minister of Health. Get on with the job when it comes to mental health.

If the government releases the mental health report and provides a full and comprehensive response, they will have no bigger supporter than me, and I will go out publicly and welcome it. I want to see the Productivity Commission report. I want to work through it. I want to talk to my colleagues about its recommendations and try and give it bipartisan support if it is a good quality piece of work, as I expect it probably is. That's pretty hard to do when this side of the House is not given it and, more importantly, when the public aren't given it. That's a cop-out and an excuse and an alibi for real action on mental health, and I've had enough of it.

See this speech in context