Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I'm speaking today in support of the National Health Amendment (Cheaper Medicines) Bill 2025. This is a bill that aims to ease the financial burden on Australians and improve access to essential medicines, which I commend. The bill also implements a key pre-election promise from the Labor Party, which was matched by the coalition, so we're unlikely to see much opposition to this bill from the coalition. This election promise matching is good for swift outcomes but could be bad, more broadly, for critical analysis of new laws. That said, reducing the PBS co-payment from $31.60 to $25 for patients with a concession card is a meaningful step.

For many Australians, particularly those managing chronic conditions or supporting families, this change will result in hundreds of dollars in annual savings. It's estimated to save patients nearly $800 million over four years, which is a big number with a huge impact on individuals. Lower-cost medicines means fewer skipped doses, fewer delayed treatments and fewer people forced to choose between their health and their household budget.

The bill also expands access to vital treatments, covering conditions like breast cancer, endometriosis, menopause and rare diseases. These are not fringe issues. They affect thousands of Australians. This legislation will make a real difference in their lives.

But, while I support this bill, I do so with a clear understanding of its limitations. This is a step in the right direction, but there are still plenty of people struggling with the cost of medicines. The general PBS safety net remains high, requiring nearly $1,700 in annual spending before additional subsidies or support apply. That's a threshold far above what we see in countries like New Zealand or the UK and it leaves many low-income patients still vulnerable to high out-of-pocket expenses.

The bill's impact assessment might have benefited from broader stakeholder consultation. The Office of Impact Analysis noted that, while the assessment was adequate, it lacked a detailed implementation and input from some key groups.

We must remember that affordability is only one part of the equation. Medication adherence is influenced by many factors—access to pharmacies, health literacy and continuity of care. If we truly want to improve health outcomes, we must continue to address those systemic challenges. But this is a step in the right direction. It reflects a commitment to equity, preventive care and easing the burden on everyday Australians.

On a related issue, I'm frequently contacted by constituents about vital medicines they require that are not listed on the PBS. This includes medications for heart disease, cancer treatment and menopause management. A 2020 House committee inquiry showed that Australia is starting to lag behind in access to new medicines. It takes an average of 466 days from when the Therapeutic Goods Administration says a new medicine is safe to when it's actually added to the PBS. The assessment process for new medications is outdated. It's 30 years old. It doesn't consider many broader benefits, like keeping people out of hospital or in school, or longer term benefits. It could involve patients earlier and more deeply to ensure that the full patient experience situation is considered.

I'm aware that Minister Butler has committed to reforms and to implementing the 50 recommendations that came out of the health technology assessment. I appreciate that commitment but note that it's coming up to three years since those recommendations were made and it's time to get on with it. Just before speaking, I saw that there was an amendment put by the member for Lindsay on this legislation. I will be supporting that amendment, the first half of which really draws attention to this delay on implementing the health technology assessment. I will be supporting that amendment even though I don't really agree with the second half of it, which says that the national interest would be progressed by a meeting between the Prime Minister and Donald Trump. I'm not convinced that a face-to-face meeting with the US President would actually further Australia's interests in relation to pharmaceuticals or other issues based on what we have seen from other meetings and it is the gratuitous attack line of the week. But I think the member makes a really good point in the first half of that amendment. We do need to get on with implementing the 50 recommendations that came out of the health technology assessment.

In conclusion, I support this bill and the amendment. I urge the government to treat it as part of broader ongoing reform of our healthcare system and to focus on timely access to new medicines as a high priority. We need to continue to build a health system when no-one's left behind and where access to medicine and health care is not a privilege but a right.

See this speech in context