Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) | Hansard source

It's interesting to come into this chamber and hear members opposite talk about health care, because, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Those members opposite have for such a long time complained about how, allegedly, we were going to scrap Medicare. We all remember the 'Mediscare' campaign in the 2016 election campaign. Of course, that was all proven to be absolute rubbish, but it doesn't stop them from continuing with their fabrications.

It's really interesting to hear those opposite talk about Medicare and pharmaceuticals because, as I said before, the proof is in the pudding. I want to use a very salient and topical example, and that's the town of Montville. Those opposite are patting themselves on the back and saying how wonderful they are in government for making changes to health care. Well, I can tell you now that there are not too many people in the township of Montville in my electorate who share government members' view about how wonderful a job they are doing. Why? At the beginning of this year, in January, Montville lost its doctor. Ochre Health said that it was no longer economically viable for them to continue to operate in Montville, so, regrettably, they pulled out. They closed down their surgery, and they were the only GP in Montville.

What followed from that? After the Labor Party announced their changes to Medicare and their increase in funding to Medicare, I got on the phone to one of the directors of Ochre Health and said: 'Will this make a difference? Is this enough for you to stay in town? Can you bring a doctor back?' 'No, it won't make any difference,' he said. It'll make no difference to Ochre's business model. They're not coming back. So that was very unfortunate. The people of Montville now no longer have a doctor. What flowed from the fact that Montville no longer has a doctor? People go to see a doctor in Maleny or Nambour.

What that means is that, particularly as a result of the increase in the cost of living and the cost of doing business—which some of those opposite may have heard me talking about in question time today—Montville has just lost its pharmacist. Its pharmacy closed yesterday. Why? Because there's no doctor in town anymore. Natalie Lindner, who was the pharmacist in Montville, specifically said that the change by the Labor government to the 60-day dispensing rule has meant that her business will no longer be viable. Losing the doctor, losing the pharmacy and now having the newsagent talking about closing—these things have a knock-on effect in a small country town.

Those members opposite in the Labor government did no economic modelling whatsoever. They talked to some of the very large pharmacies, but they didn't talk to community pharmacists about the impact that this was going to have. We warned them. The Pharmacy Guild warned them that there would be closures of pharmacies in small towns. Either they didn't listen or they did not care—one of the two—but they were warned that small pharmacies, mum-and-dad community pharmacies, would close. And guess what: the first one closed yesterday, and it happens to be in my electorate, in Montville.

I can tell you now that the people in Montville—the same 775 people who signed a petition that I tabled in the last sitting week—are not congratulating the Labor government on their reforms, on the so-called wonderful work that they are doing in health in this country.

See this speech in context