Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to highlight the government's failure to consult in relation to a policy that has the potential to destroy lives and livelihoods in Tasmania and across Australia. The Albanese Labor government's change to 60-day dispensing for some medicines could cripple our community pharmacists. In a poor attempt to save consumers money in a cost-of-living crisis, the Albanese government announced its 60-day dispensing reforms in the days before the May 2023 budget. While this announcement was greeted with much fanfare from those on the other side of this chamber, there were many who were not celebrating.

As has been stated earlier, the coalition strongly supports affordable access to medicines for all Australians. In fact, in government, we committed to lowering the cost of medicines, and approved more than 2,900 new or amended listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, at an overall investment of around $16½ billion. However, we do not support affordable medicines at the expense of pharmacists. Within hours of this announcement, I had received emails from community pharmacists who feared for their futures and the futures of the businesses that they had worked hard to build, in communities around my home state of Tasmania. These emails multiplied in my inbox, as pharmacists in incredible distress called my electorate office and dropped in to voice their concern. When I arranged to meet with two pharmacists, as part of a Senate tour with my Tasmanian Liberal colleagues, we were met by 12 from the state's north and north-west, all of whom were desperate to share how these changes would impact them.

Community pharmacies in rural and regional areas will be disproportionately impacted by the changes to 60-day dispensing—so much so, that many will be forced to reduce their opening hours, cut the services they offer, or even close altogether. Without pharmacies and bulk-billing or permanent GPs, small rural and regional towns, like so many in Tasmania, are at risk of becoming healthcare deserts. This will mean that many more people will present to emergency departments because they can't access the local healthcare services that they need, which we all know is not going to save anyone money in the long run.

Pharmacists see their patients significantly more than doctors, especially older customers, who regularly seek advice around medicines and symptoms they're experiencing and need ongoing monitoring for chronic conditions. This proposal will cost pharmacy owners thousands of dollars, with a likely 30 per cent drop from their bottom line. One pharmacist calculated that this policy would cost them $104,000 annually, while, for others, it was up to $500,000 per annum. That's a lot of money for a small business.

These pharmacists told us that they would be forced to charge for services they currently provide at no or minimal cost to patients. These are important services, like preparing Webster-paks; reviewing medications, often in the patients' homes; servicing aged-care facilities and nursing homes; doing home delivery for those who can't make it to the pharmacy; filling prescription requests; and doing blood pressure checks, triage and doctor referrals. The 60-day dispensing plan could also drive up the cost of other pharmacy items, as pharmacists try to recoup the funds they have lost as a result of this policy.

Those opposite will tell you that they are reinvesting into community pharmacies, but we need to read the fine print on that promise. For example, doubling the regional pharmacy maintenance program won't help the thousands of pharmacies that are already ineligible for it, and not all pharmacists are geared for vaccination services.

The 60-day dispensing policy is billed as a cost-saving measure, but it is a measure that will be introduced at the expense of pharmacists, their patients and the wider community. And, in many cases, it won't actually save money for the people who need it the most, because, once they've reached the safety net, their medications are often provided free.

So who is really benefiting from this poorly-thought-out plan? The government, who are banking the savings and making pharmacists wear the pain. So something promoted as a saving for consumers risks the viability of our local community pharmacies, leaving us with community pharmacies running on skeleton staff, opening fewer hours and offering fewer services to customers who they've served in their local community for many years. It does not make good business sense. The government's failure to consult, prior to their grandstanding announcement in the lead-up to the budget, will result in poorer service provision to our rural and regional communities.

The coalition does support cheaper access to medicines, but not at the expense of small business. This is just another clear example of the consequences of this Labor government's policy brain-snaps have never been properly considered or consulted on.