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

I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. At its heart, this bill aims to improve access to health care and reduce costs by extending prescribing rights under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme to authorised nurse practitioners. These changes recognise the essential role nurse practitioners already play across our health system, and I support the objective of improving accessible, affordable care.

In a country as vast and decentralised as Australia, geography too often dictates health outcomes. In rural, regional and remote areas, the closest GP may be hours away. For older Australians, people living with disability, First Nations communities and vulnerable people, the barriers to safe, timely and affordable care can be even higher. When a nurse practitioner is already providing frontline care, it's both logical and safe to allow them to prescribe medicines within a clearly defined scope.

While I support the intention of this bill, the success of these reforms will depend entirely on how the detail is implemented. Several stakeholders have highlighted that key elements, including approval conditions and scope of prescribing, are being left for future ministerial determinations. This means we're being asked to legislate a framework without yet seeing the guardrails that will govern it, and we're doing so before the Senate committee has delivered its report. This is not an ideal position for the parliament to be in and risks leaving questions unanswered for practitioners, patients and the broader health system.

There are two areas in particular that I want to highlight. First, the scope of medicines available for prescribing must be sensible and safe. This reform should focus on routine, low-risk and clinically appropriate medicines, not those that carry higher risks of dependency or misuse. Schedule 8 medicines, in particular, should fall outside this expanded authority. Our goal here is to improve access, not to create unintended consequences for patients or the health system. Doctors are best placed to make decisions about these schedule 8 medicines, which are used for severe pain or conditions like ADHD and include opioids such as morphine, stimulants such as dexamphetamine, cannabis and certain benzodiazepines. Our goal here is to appropriately improve access.

Second, the definition of 'authorised health practitioner' must be precise. Nurse practitioners play an invaluable role, but it should be absolutely clear that they will continue to practise within a collaborative, medically supported model of primary care. This is how high-quality care already functions and the regulations should reflect this reality. Ambiguity helps no-one, not practitioners, not regulators and not patients. These are not objections to the reform; they are a request for safeguards to ensure it delivers what it promises—better access without compromising safety or fragmenting care.

This bill has the potential to move us meaningfully towards a more equitable health system but only if the detail is done well. I urge the government to engage openly with the findings of the Senate committee, once available, and to ensure the regulations are transparent, evidence based and clear. Australians deserve a health system that's accessible, safe and equitable. This bill can contribute to that goal if we get the implementation of it right, and I'll continue to engage constructively with the government to ensure that that happens.

See this speech in context