Lobby group’s dire predictions turn out to be incorrect, surprising nobody

The term “lobbying” — which describes an interest group’s attempt to influence government decision-making — stems from these efforts having originally taken place in a legislative chamber’s lobby.

These days, lobbying occurs through the media as much as it does face to face. Why pressure politicians when you can get the electorate to do it for you? The megaphone tactic has become ritual whenever a government proposes to do something that business doesn’t like. 

The campaigns are getting more and more fantastical. Who can forget Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest warning that the Rudd government’s proposed resources super profits tax (RSPT) would subject the country to economic doom (with Forrest even cosplaying in yellow-and-blue overalls)?

Or the media campaign from Australian ophthalmologists that warned that grandma wouldn’t be able to get her eyes attended to if the government reduced the eyewatering Medicare rebate for cataract surgery — a campaign that some commentators labelled as “blackmail”?

Unfortunately, these scare campaigns usually work, so the nonsensical doomsaying is rarely exposed. The RSPT was scrapped (resulting in billions of budget earnings foregone and heralding Rudd’s demise). The health minister backed out of the rebate reduction, meaning that the veracity of the doctors’ threats was never tested.

But recently we have had a case of the government calling the lobby’s bluff, resulting in… the opposite of the group’s warnings.

Readers may recall that, in 2023, the government announced changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that would allow patients to collect 60 days’ worth of common prescription drugs (up from 30 days), saving consumers (and the government) time and money. 

The Pharmacy Guild of Australia (PGA), whose members faced the prospect of fewer prescription fees and reduced foot traffic for incidental purchases, came out swinging.

PGA president Trent Twomey — in his customary pharmacists’ tunic (these guys love dressing up, don’t they?) — decided to really go for it, openly weeping as he warned of drug shortages (odd, seeing as only the frequency, not volume, of drugs dispensed would be affected) and of imminent pharmacy closures as a result of this modest policy tweak.

Thankfully, the government didn’t cave in, perhaps because the policy was such a no-brainer win for consumers, or because the Australian Medical Association supported it (if only to wither pharmacists’ influence and power).

The change was introduced in September 2023, and not only have there been no medicine shortages since, but also applications to open new pharmacies are 50% higher than in the same period last year. 

PGA jumped the shark on this occasion, but the lesson is that when lobby groups offer threats about policies they don’t like, don’t take them seriously.

No, Minerals Council of Australia (and its political mouthpieces), reducing our coal exports will not result in India’s poor remaining destitute (it is, in fact, the poor who are most affected by climate change).

No, Australian Medical Association, giving health insurers some say on how care is delivered will not compromise patient outcomes any more than is the case already — and nor will giving pharmacists the ability to prescribe medication for certain conditions result in anything other than making life easier for some patients.

No, aged care lobby, more transparency and accountability will not result in the sector’s collapse.

And no, Gerry Harvey and the Business Council of Australia, a levy to improve workers’ mental health will not “harm growth“. In fact, the opposite is more likely.

We need to treat these utterances as the self-serving hyperbole that they are. In fact, the level of exaggeration is a good indicator of how much the proposed change will benefit the rest of society. 

So, thank you, Twomey and the PGA, for your overreach on this one. We can point to you as an example the next time a lobby group reaches for the megaphone.