Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What is the government doing to maintain the sustainability of the PBS and what has been the response to these reforms?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. He represents one of the oldest electorates in the country, so he would be acutely aware of any changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the impact those changes might have on patients, particularly pensioners. The good news for the member for Hindmarsh, the parliament and the community is that, thanks to the support of the Independents and the Greens, in both the House and the Senate, the government’s PBS reforms have been passed by this parliament.

What that means is that the price taxpayers pay to pharmacies will now more accurately reflect the market price instead of the current listed price, which is often much higher. This sounds technical but it is a very, very important measure. It means that we will save nearly $2 billion worth of expenditure and that means we will be able to invest in new drugs when they become available and need to be listed on the PBS. It means we can invest in training more doctors and nurses that are needed in our health system and, most importantly, it is an important fiscal reform in that the government is actually using the market price rather than an arbitrary price to benefit consumers.

I was asked by the member for Hindmarsh whether there has been any response to these reforms. I think it is important for the House to be aware that—despite the support from Medicines Australia, the Consumer Health Forum, pensioner organisations and the Greens and the Independents—two voices in the community opposed these reforms. One of those voices, not surprisingly, has been the Liberal Party, who argued that we should not go ahead with these reforms, that we should look at other proposals being put forward and that we should find other ways of making these savings. Interestingly, the second voice has been the Generic Medicines Industry Association. The Liberal Party, particularly the member for Dickson and the Leader of the Opposition, said we should go back and look closely at their proposals. We have done that. We have looked at their proposals. The reason we did not accept those proposals is that they were going to require pensioners to pay an extra $5 per script for their medications. I can tell you what: this government did not increase the age pension so that the member for Dickson and the Leader of the Opposition could put their hands into pensioners’ pockets and take the money back via increased prices for medicines. We were not going to allow that to happen, and the Liberal Party stand condemned for opposing sensible reforms that give the benefit of market competition to the taxpayers and allow us to protect consumers and invest more in health reform.