|
senate vote 2023-06-20#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-08-04 11:35:45
|
Title
Matters of Urgency — Pharmaceutical Industry- Matters of Urgency - Pharmaceutical Industry - Lack of consultation
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>Senator Ruston has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today, as shown at item 12 on today's order of business:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-06-20.123.2) introduced by South Australian Senator [Anne Ruston](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/anne_ruston) (Labor), which means it failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:*
- >
- > *The failure of the Albanese Labor Government to consult with the community pharmacy sector, particularly small and rural and regional pharmacies, prior to the announcement of their 60 day dispensing policy, which may see hundreds of community pharmacies closed, thousands of jobs lost and free access to critical primary healthcare ripped away from vulnerable Australians.*
<p class="italic">Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</p><p class="italic">"The failure of the Albanese Labor Government to consult with the community pharmacy sector, particularly small and rural and regional pharmacies, prior to the announcement of their 60 day dispensing policy, which may see hundreds of community pharmacies closed, thousands of jobs lost and free access to critical primary healthcare ripped away from vulnerable Australians."</p><p>Is the proposal supported?</p><p class="italic"><i>More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</i></p><p>With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:</p><p class="italic">The failure of the Albanese Labor Government to consult with the community pharmacy sector, particularly small and rural and regional pharmacies, prior to the announcement of their 60 day dispensing policy, which may see hundreds of community pharmacies closed, thousands of jobs lost and free access to critical primary healthcare ripped away from vulnerable Australians.</p><p>Today, I stand in support of the motion that I've moved in this place in relation to the failure of the Albanese government to consult properly—or even at all—on a very important new measure that's going to have a very significant impact on the lives of many Australians, most particularly vulnerable Australians and those that live in rural, regional and remote communities. We're calling out the government because it doesn't consult. We're calling out the government because it doesn't do its homework and it doesn't do the detail. And we're calling out the government because it does not consider the secondary effects of these announcements. They're all headline and no substance.</p><p>First of all, I want to put on the record very, very clearly that the opposition has always supported and continues to support Australians having access to affordable medications. But the government's failure to consult has been borne out time and time again since this ill-conceived policy was put into the public domain back in April. It was a great headline, but the consequences of this policy were completely ignored in the policy's development. First of all, we know that there was no real consultation when it came to the development of the impact analysis. We have a letter from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Office of Impact Analysis about this proposal, and I want to put this on the public record:</p><p class="italic">To have been assessed as 'good practice' under the Guide, the IA—</p><p>impact analysis—</p><p class="italic">would have benefited from more recent public consultations on potential stakeholder impacts, particularly for small businesses and pharmacies in rural and remote areas. Moreover, where stakeholder impacts are difficult to ascertain at this point in time … the IA would have benefited from a more detailed evaluation plan that outlines metrics and data required to monitor the impacts on stakeholders following implementation.</p><p>It's a very damning letter about the basis of the impact assessment that was undertaken by the government. I have to say I reckon a 12-year-old could have written a better impact assessment than the one we've got here. But most damning in the assessment is on page 28, where the government's own impact assessment on its 60-day dispensing policy says, 'The community pharmacy sector will be significantly impacted by this proposal,' and some pharmacies may even experience cash flow and purchase problems for stock. This is their impact assessment, but they still decided to go ahead with it. There was no regard for the knock-on impacts, but, most distressingly, there was no modelling done. No modelling was done. The Minister for Finance, who was representing the minister for health at estimates, actually admitted to the fact that there had not been any modelling done.</p><p>We now find out through the work of the Pharmacy Guild—and it's not just the Pharmacy Guild, to those opposite who will probably try and discredit the Pharmacy Guild; it's also the Australian Patients Association, Painaustralia, the National Pharmaceutical Services Association and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia—whose name has gone onto a very credible document that has been written by an eminent economist, Henry Ergas, that the very people who were most likely to be the most negatively impacted by this are elderly people with chronic health conditions and regional Australians. They are the ones who are going to suffer. We've found out that 665 pharmacies are likely to close, but potentially another 900 will be at risk of closing, and some 20,000 Australians who currently work in the pharmacy sector are likely to lose their jobs.</p><p>Time and time again we have asked this government to guarantee that no Australian patient will be worse off either financially or with regard to access to pharmacy by this measure. It's no wonder they've never given us a straight answer; they've just run around the subject because they know that not only will the pharmacy sector be significantly negatively impacted by this but many patients will be negatively impacted as well. I think one of the most distressing things is just how many secondary impacts are likely to result from this: pharmacy closures, reduced hours and reduced services. Services that were previously provided for free will now have a charge. How is this government going to enable shortages to be addressed? What about wastage? That's before we get to pharmacy viability.</p><p>We've got a situation here where a government has rushed to a headline policy. They have had no regard for the potential impacts. The possibility that this particular policy is going to have significant negative impacts on many millions of Australians has been completely disregarded, despite the fact that the impact assessment clearly outlines it and subsequent evaluation has highlighted it, and there has been no consultation at all— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Tammy Tyrrell</p><p>The government says that pharmacies are running a scare campaign—that pharmacists want to 'clip the ticket'. That's just not true. I've spent the past few weeks talking to my local pharmacists in Tassie, and some of them have been in tears. They're scared. At worst, they're looking down the barrel of a policy that will see a lot of them close their doors, and, at best, the policy will see some small-business pharmacies cutting services, cutting staff and reducing opening hours.</p><p>This is what they've told me. Rhys told me about the long shifts his staff did during COVID. When the 60-day dispensing policy comes into effect, he'll have to look his staff in the eye and say, 'Thanks very much for all your hard work and all your efforts, but I'm going to have to let you go.' Maree says health minister Mark Butler should visit her pharmacy in East Devonport to see what pharmacies actually do. She said that the minister needs to see the vital services they offer for free to people that need them and how much staff care about their customers. Luciana told me that the loss of income risks the late-night service she provides. She says it absolutely breaks her heart that she won't be able to offer her customers the support they need. Everywhere I go at home I'm reminded of just how much our communities rely on these pharmacies. In areas like Dover, New Norfolk and Westbury, shutting a pharmacy would be shutting a healthcare lifeline.</p><p>The minister need to go back to the table on this policy. The government should increase the dispensing fee for pharmacists in the community pharmacy agreement to cover the revenue lost by this policy. The government say they are investing $1.2 billion back into pharmacies, but when the cost of these cuts is around $3.5 billion something doesn't add up. I want people to have cheaper medicine, but ripping the guts out of community pharmacies isn't the way to do it.</p> <p class="speaker">Jordon Steele-John</p><p>The Greens have always supported cheaper medicines. In a cost-of-living crisis where people are literally making choices between paying rent, paying for their medicines, paying their bills or putting food on the table, the Greens have been supportive of measures that will ease these cost-of-living pressures. The government has informed the community that the purpose of the proposed changes to the PBS is to make it easier and cheaper for people to access the medicines that they need. Making it easier and cheaper for people to access medicines that they need is obviously something the Greens support. We believe in the depths of our souls in the importance of the public healthcare system, of a universal healthcare system that covers everything from your teeth to your brain—every part of your body—free at the point of use for all.</p><p>As part of our consideration of 60-day dispensing, I have spoken with pharmacists all over the country and heard many concerns about the impact that they feel these measures may have on the local pharmacies they run and also on community members who rely on community pharmacies. After hearing these pieces of feedback from people, I would very much agree that the Albanese government has not consulted effectively with community pharmacists on how these changes will impact on them. I have heard that there will be significant impacts. It's my view that a way forward would be for the government to bring forward the negotiation of the community pharmacy agreement and start talking with pharmacists now to minimise any adverse impacts from this measure.</p><p>One of the concerns raised by pharmacists is on the impact of reduced dispensing fees. We are encouraging the government to find a way forward on this, for the minister to consider the doubling of dispensing fees until a new pharmacy agreement has been finalised or to commit to reimbursing any losses at a community pharmacy that can be proven as an unintended impact of the 60-day dispensing measure.</p><p>The Greens will not be supporting this urgency motion today, but I do want to reiterate—and I want to speak directly to the minister in this statement—that this should not be taken as a final position of the Greens in relation to the proposed regulation. The Greens party room will continue to negotiate to ensure that these regulations do not have unintended consequences and that they actually achieve their intended goal. <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|