Huge '$25 cap' cost of living change to help millions of Aussies pay for an everyday staple
It will be the second cap on medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) introduced by the Albanese government in three years, after it cut the maximum price of PBS prescriptions from $42.50 to $30.
'The size of your bank balance shouldn't determine the quality of your health care,' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.
'My government will continue to deliver cost-of-living relief for all Australians.'
PBS medicines would be capped at $7.70 for pensioners and concession card holders until 2030.
The bill's introduction is largely a formality, with its passage through the lower house all but assured thanks to Labor's massive 94-seat majority in the 150-seat House of Representatives.
The election promise is the Albanese government's next priority after it introduced childcare safety and HECS debt reduction legislation.
Federal Labor has been talking up plans to strengthen the PBS amid concerns the scheme will be targeted as a bargaining chip in US trade negotiations to ward off threatened pharmaceutical tariffs.
Albanese has repeatedly said the scheme was not up for negotiation.
Australia eased its biosecurity restrictions on US beef imports last week, but the prime minister has denied the move was linked to US trade talks.
He noted the decision followed a 10-year review of Australian biosecurity rules.
Beyond new legislation, conflict in the Middle East will likely prompt fierce debate on the parliamentary floor after Albanese said Israel had breached international law by blocking the flow of food aid into Gaza.
'Quite clearly, it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March,' Albanese told ABC's Insiders on Sunday.
He stopped short of saying Australia would join France in recognising a Palestinian state, but said his government would decide at 'an appropriate time'.
'Hamas can have no role in a future state,' he said.
'Hamas are a terrorist organisation who I find, their actions are abhorrent.'
Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said Albanese failed to adequately condemn the role of the group in the ongoing conflict.
The government is also likely to come under pressure regarding transparency when parliament resumes, after a Centre for Public Integrity probe revealed only a quarter of freedom of information request responses returned by the government in 2023-24 were un-redacted.
By comparison, the Morrison government returned almost half of its FOI requests as complete documents in 2021/22.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
I've been left with a gigantic hernia the size of a football – docs said my symptoms were just a ‘bad back'
GRAHAM Shepherd has been left with a hernia the size of a football after doctors dismissed his symptoms as a "bad back". While the 65-year-old has been awarded a payout after suing the NHS, he's said his and his family's lives "will never be the same again". 5 5 5 Graham developed the gigantic bulge - described as the biggest doctors had ever seen - when it ballooned after an aneurysm ruptured. He had visited his GP multiple times and gone to hospital twice complaining of severe back pain as well as weight loss over a nine week period. Graham said a lump on his stomach was also pulsating - but doctors failed to carry out a full examination and sent him home with painkillers. The result of an MRI scan was incorrectly recorded as clear before he was eventually diagnosed with an 11.5cm abdominal aortic aneurysm 64 days later. The dad-of-one was told by doctors he had been a "walking time bomb" and underwent emergency surgery. But he developed complications, including a torn bowel, suspected to have been caused by painkillers he had been advised to take for his back pain. Graham spent more than seven weeks in intensive care and has been left permanently disabled as a result of his ordeal. The former chief foreman is unable to work after being left with a stoma, mobility problems and the large abdominal hernia. Graham's wife, Sarah, 44, has also been forced to give up her job as a healthcare assistant to become his full-time carer. Lawyers have now secured Graham an undisclosed settlement after two doctors and a hospital trust involved in his care denied liability. I lost 14 stone and finally had my loose skin removed, but it was totally botched and I look like I've been left with a permanent hernia Graham, of Stourbrige, West Mids., said: "I was in pain for months. "It started in my back and gradually spread to my abdomen, groin, and down my left leg. "I could barely move and spent most of my time lying on the settee. "I knew something wasn't right and the lump I found in my stomach was pulsating in time with my heartbeat. "When they diagnosed my aneurysm, the doctors told me it was one of the biggest they'd ever seen and I was a walking time bomb. "They believed it had already ruptured several times. "Because it was leaking it had probably relieved some of the pressure and had stopped it fully rupturing and killing me. "I was told that you could probably only fit a cigarette paper between the aneurysm and my spine and that it had worn my spine down." Graham's emergency surgery went well, but afterwards he felt three pops inside of him. It turned out his bowel had perforated. He continued: " I needed another emergency surgery and was told I'd need a stoma. At first, I refused. I was devastated. "Sarah had to convince me it was the only way to save my life. "It wasn't a case of staying in hospital, getting better and going home. "I've been left with permanent nerve damage, muscle wasting in my leg, I can't work and Sarah has had to give up her job to care for me. "My stomach is unsightly and I have a stoma that can't be reversed. I've been told any further surgery on my abdomen would be very risky and complicated. "Our lives will never be the same again. "I just hope that by sharing what happened to me I can help raise awareness so others don't have to suffer." 5 5 Jenna Harris, the lawyer at Irwin Mitchell representing Graham, said: "We firmly believe that those involved in Graham's care failed to conduct appropriate examinations and arrange and report back on a MRI scan in a timely fashion, especially in light of Graham complaining of symptoms associated with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. "If Graham had received the care we say he should, we believe his condition would have been diagnosed sooner and he wouldn't have gone to suffer life-changing complications. "Nothing can make up for Graham's ordeal but we're pleased to have secured this settlement allowing him to access the ongoing support he requires. "An abdominal aortic aneurysm can be life-threatening, especially if they rupture. "Therefore, it's vital people are aware of the possible signs. Early detection and treatment are crucial in managing the condition and preventing potentially fatal complications." What is an abdominal aortic aneurysm? AN abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a swelling in the aorta, the artery that carries blood from the heart to the tummy (abdomen). Most aneurysms do not cause any problems, but they can be serious because there's a risk they could burst (rupture). They often have no symptoms, but when they get bigger, you might notice: tummy or back pain a pulsing feeling in your tummy You should see a GP if: you have tummy or back pain that does not go away or keeps coming back you feel a lump in your tummy These symptoms can be caused by lots of things and do not mean you have an abdominal aortic aneurysm, but it's best to get them checked. Call 999 if you or someone else: have sudden, severe pain in your tummy or back are struggling to breathe or have stopped breathing have pale or grey skin (on brown or black skin this may be easier to see on the palms of the hands or soles of the feet) lose consciousness These could be signs of an abdominal aortic aneurysm bursting (rupturing). This is a life-threatening emergency that needs to be treated in hospital as soon as possible. Source: NHS
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The AFL grand final is seven weeks away - but airlines are already being accused of RIPPING OFF fans of one famous club
Footy fans have fumed at several airlines after multiple carriers have upped their prices for flights into Melbourne ahead of this year's Grand Final on Saturday, September 27. Specifically, Adelaide Crows fans, hoping their side might reach their first Grand Final at the MCG since 2017, could be forced to pay hefty air fares if they're looking to travel to Melbourne on the eve of the showpiece event. Matthew Nicks' side are flying high as we head into the final three regular-season matches, with the Crows having won six matches on the bounce, which culminated this weekend in their massive 101-87 victory against Hawthorn. While they sit joint top of the league, tied on 60 points with the Crows, the club's fans are preparing for the possible eventuality that they could be in for a trip to Melbourne for Grand Final day. While there is a long way to go for the Crows, who haven't won a premiership since 1998, and also haven't qualified for finals in eight years, some fans have been left aggrieved at the shocking prices some airlines are charging to get from the City of Churches to Melbourne around Grand Final weekend. On Friday, September 26, the day before the big match, Virgin Australia is offering economy tickets to fly from Adelaide to Melbourne Tullamarine, with the lowest-priced seats coming in at $250. Economy fares on two flights at 8:40am and 11:50am are both on sale for $791 - the top priced figures. Qantas has also upped its fees on Grand Final eve, with economy tickets for flights leaving Adelaide at 10:05am and 12:15pm set to cost Crows fans $785. The airline is also offering fares on Thursday, September 25. The top-priced economy fare for that day is set to also set fans back $437. Jetstar has priced its top fares on Grand Final eve at $350. One Crows fan told Seven News: 'It just ruins what should be one of the best days of the season.' 'Make the people happy, let them get over there. It's about going over for the Grand Final or a final and having a ball,' another fan said. Crows fan and mum of two, Kim Skypyrek, said the fees were 'insane'. 'Fair enough if it's one person and they've saved some money but it's really hard for people to be able to afford that,' she told Northern Territory News. Qantas has also upped its fees on Grand Final eve, with economy tickets for flights leaving Adelaide at 10:05am and 12:15pm set to cost Crows fans $785 'If it came down to it we'd just send my husband (Michael) and our son (Ambrose) so that they could go and enjoy it.' But there are other ways fans can get to the footy and dodge the high air fares. Fans can take the train, but that entails an 11-hour journey and is likely to cost around $150. Meanwhile, other fans are arranging their own transport and will embark on an eight-hour trip via bus to Melbourne, should the Crows reach the final. 'A group of twelve of us can drive over, hire a bus and rent out a house cheaper than [the cost of] flights for four,' Skypyrek added. 'Regardless of who's in it, whether we get to go into the grand final or not, we just want to be in Melbourne for the weekend and experience it.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Trump administration planning to roll back abortion access for veterans
Donald Trump's administration has plans to impose one of the most severe anti-abortion policies nationwide, critics fear. The proposal would eliminate access to abortion care and counseling for U.S. military veterans through the federal government's health system, even in instances of rape, incest or to protect the health of the patient — coverage that has been available to veterans and their beneficiaries for nearly three years. The rule change would apply to all veterans receiving care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, even those living in more than a dozen states where abortion care is legally protected and a constitutional right. A statement accompanying the proposal says the rule change is designed to ensure the VA 'provides only needed medical services to our nation's heroes and their families.' Three months after the Supreme Court revoked a constitutional right to abortion care in 2022 by overturning the landmark ruling in Roe v Wade, then-President Joe Biden allowed the VA to provide abortion services for veterans and beneficiaries on federal property, even in states where abortion was outlawed. Advocates hailed the move as a lifeline for coverage. The rule also allowed VA physicians to discuss abortion options or referrals with patients for the first time. However, VA officials under the Trump administration now argue that the Biden-era rule was politically motivated and 'contradicted decades of federal policy against forced taxpayer funding for abortion.' The administration claims that the rule change will not prevent physicians from providing life-saving abortion care in cases of ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages, since other provisions within the law already mandate those protections. But the proposal also states that 'claims in the prior administration's rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women' are 'incorrect.' The Trump administration also claims there isn't any demand for abortion care. Roughly 100 veterans and 40 beneficiaries received abortion care through VA medical centers since the policy change, according to government data. But the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee noted that 500,000 women veterans of reproductive age are enrolled in VA health care, with more than half of them living in states with abortion restrictions. 'We cannot let VA stop providing this care to veterans by ripping away this narrow, targeted protection,' Sen. Richard Blumenthal said in a statement. There are at least 2 million women veterans in the United States, the fastest-growing group of veterans, according to the VA. As of 2024, more than half of women veterans of reproductive age lived in states that banned abortion or faced severe restrictions, according to the National Partnership for Women and Families. Last year, enrollment of women veterans in VA health care increased in every state, including significant increases in Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina — states where abortion is effectively outlawed. The new Trump administration proposal must first go through a public comment period before becoming policy. That period is open until September 5. Abortion rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers blasted the move as an attack on abortion access for veterans and their families. "After veterans put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, the Trump administration is trying to rob them of their own freedoms and putting their health at risk,' according to Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has led several high-profile legal battles defending access to abortion care. 'This administration is sending a clear message to veterans — that their health and dignity aren't worth defending,' she added. 'To devalue veterans in this way and take away life-changing health care would be unconscionable. This shows you just how extreme this administration's anti-abortion stance is — they would rather a veteran suffer severely than receive an abortion.' Skye Perryman, president of legal advocacy group Democracy Forward and a former general counsel for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, called the rule change a 'smack in the face to those who have served our country and their loved ones, stripping pregnant women of their bodily autonomy and restricting their access to abortion.' Washington Sen. Patty Murray, a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, said that 'Republicans don't care if your health is in danger, if you're a veteran, or if you've been raped — they want abortion outlawed everywhere, in every circumstance, for everyone.' 'This administration has shown nothing but callous disregard for veterans' lives, their health care, and their livelihoods — especially when those veterans happen to be women,' she added. Republican lawmakers accused the Biden administration of overreach and defended the Trump administration's move to 'stand up for the sanctity of life.' 'Taxpayers do not want their hard-earned money spent on paying for abortions and VA's sole focus should always be providing service-connected health care and benefits to the veterans they serve,' according to a statement from a group of House Republicans led by House Veterans' Affairs Committee chair Mike Bost.
