Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too would like to express my support for all the contributions that have been given here today on the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme inquiry. I will start by expressing my support for our leader in this inquiry. I apologise to the chair, Senator Humphries, and the deputy chair, Senator Moore, but it was quite clear that this inquiry was driven and led by Senator Adams.

What also became clear from these hearings is that there are some fundamental problems. One of those problems is the promotion of the scheme. In Tasmania, we heard two stories of where changes made to the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme were actually beneficial to the patients. One of those stories was to do with renal dialysis and the change to the strict 75-kilometre travel rule. There did not seem to be a view that, other than making the change, it should be promoted. The Tasmanian branch of Kidney Health Australia knew nothing about the change, and I understand most of the patients affected knew nothing about the change. It was left to the coordinators in Burnie.

In Tasmania we have a review committee—a standing committee, I believe—which encompasses the coordinators and other managers of the scheme, but it does not have a consumer advocate on it. It is clear that consumers are concerned that they are being left out; they believe they are not being listened to and they want their concerns addressed. This inquiry provided to many witnesses, particularly the users, the advocates and their carers, an invaluable opportunity—some for the very first time—to voice their concerns and put forward to a national audience their views on the benefits, shortcomings and fundamental importance of the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme.

The terms of reference with regard to the operation and effectiveness of the travel scheme allowed us to range over all aspects of the scheme, such as the need for greater national consistency and uniformity, the need for national minimum standards, the current level of utilisation of the scheme and, of course, the level of unmet need. The depth of interest in this inquiry is indicative of the depth of engagement on health issues in this country.

My home state of Tasmania has the most dispersed population of any state. The percentage of the population that is located outside the capital city is higher in Tasmania than in any other state. Given Tasmania’s low population relative to other states, a range of services are not available intrastate, which means assistance with travel is essential for many Tasmanians.

It became clear from the committee’s work that we need increased patient liaison and better communication to ensure continuity of care for patients. It also became clear that the demand for PATS would increase and other pressures would also impact on the demand for the scheme. We have heard that there is a great need, but there is also a massive job to be done. That is why I fully support the recommendations, particularly recommendation 2, which states:

That as a matter of urgency, the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council establish a taskforce comprised of government, consumer and practitioner representatives to develop a set of national standards for patient assisted travel schemes that ensure equity of access to medical services for people living in rural, regional and remote Australia.

It needs to be a national approach. It was clear from all the submissions we received that that is what the patients need and want.

I would like to commend the secretariat for their work; as usual, they have done a very good job. I commend the report Highway to health: better access for rural, regional and remote patients to the Senate, and I hope that its very important recommendations will be taken up and acted upon.