This is the statement a spokesperson for health minister Greg Hunt provided in response to questions from BioPharmaDispatch about the Opiate Dependence Treatment Program.
Read the first two paragraphs but the key section is the third.
"The Opiate Dependence Treatment Program (ODTP) commenced in 1974 and was established under section 100 of the National Health Act 1953 to assist people who have an opiate dependency to access medicines to help treat their opioid addiction. Information on the ODTP is available at www.pbs.gov.au/browse/section100-md.
"Under the program, we fund the full cost of ODTP medicines through direct payments to manufacturers, which include methadone, buprenorphine, and buprenorphine + naloxone, which means patients are not charged a PBS co-payment. State and Territory Governments are responsible for the administration of the program including approving the participation of prescribers, dispensing sites and clients.
"Special Arrangements are made under section 100 of the National Health Act 1953. Special Arrangements are not required to be made as legislative instruments. Nevertheless making section 100 special arrangements as legislative instruments supports transparency and clarity. An exposure draft of the ODTP Legislative Instrument was circulated to stakeholders for comment from 30 November to 18 December 2020 with a view to register on the Legislation Register."
This statement is complete nonsense but it has enormous implications.
If special arrangements for medicines listed under Section 100 are not required to be legislative instruments, why does the government do it for every special arrangement other than for medicines accessed through the ODTP?
They have legislative instruments for access to Botox, IVF treatment, growth hormone, take-home naloxone and chemotherapy. There are over one dozen of these special arrangements for medicines listed under Section 100 arrangements.
Every other special arrangement in place has a legislative instrument - except for the one that denies one group of patients access to the protection of PBS co-payment and safety-net arrangements.
Every PBS price reduction, price increase or change, extended indication and change in restriction is implemented via a legislative instrument. Even a simple move from F1 to F2 is subject to a legislative instrument.
Yet denying patients access to proper PBS co-payments and the safety-net does not require a legislative instrument?
According to Minister Hunt, or whoever wrote this statement, they can just make any change at any time. Think about the implications of that.
Of course, If they do not believe they need a legislative instrument after so many years, why do it now? Transparency and clarity? Please. What an embarrassing excuse.
The government will be transparently discriminating against these patients who will now have clarity over the denial of protections provided to every other Australian.
The law is very clear.
The operation of the government's powers is established in The Legislation Act 2003. It requires the tabling of legislative instruments when powers are exercised.
Of course, Minister Hunt's 'robodebt' response has been written based on the fact his Department of Health thought they had established a legislative instrument for this program - their maladministration has been exposed and they have now attempted to fool him as much as they have fooled patients who in law are considered to have a disability.
More importantly, and setting aside the disgraceful treatment of these patients, every single Australian should take the clear message from the Minister's statement - the government believes it can simply remove your full rights to PBS-listed medicines without even bothering to make a formal decision.
