CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Ms LE (Fowler) (09:41): A constituent, a pensioner with diabetes, recently came to my office and reached out to me. They've given me permission to share their story. Ms Oliva uses a continuous glucose monitor.
It works alongside her insulin pump to track her blood glucose day and night. For her, that is not a convenience; it is what allows her to manage her serious condition safely and stay at home on her own terms. Her family tells me that, since she began using it, her management has improved considerably.
It has given her independence. It has given them peace of mind. Now, they've been told the cost can no longer be met through her aged-care package.
Under the former home-care-package arrangements, they were told by their aged-care provider there was scope to fund it. Under Support at Home, which replaced that program on 1 November 2025, they have been advised there is no scope. The cost to Ms Oliva is around $330 a month—close to $4,000 a year.
On the pension, that is not just an adjustment at the margins; that is the difference between managing a condition safely and going without. I want to be careful here because I know that this case falls between two systems. Continuous glucose monitors are subsidised through the National Diabetes Services Scheme, but only for people with type 1 diabetes.
For Australians living with insulin-treated type 2 and other forms of diabetes, there is no subsidy. They pay full price or they go without. This gap is not news to anyone in this House.
The House inquiry into diabetes recommended expanding CGM subsidies to insulin-requiring groups when it reported in July 2024. The Medical Services Advisory Committee deferred its advice in 2025 and consulted again this year. Diabetes Australia estimates covering 16,000 Australians in priority groups would cost around $106 million over four years, a fraction of what we spend treating the complications.
In an electorate like Fowler—we've got the highest rate of diabetes, and the median personal income is around $520 a week. For people like Ms Oliva—the wait is going to be costing us more in the future through, obviously, emergency departments, through dialysis chairs and perhaps through amputations. I want to ask the government to do three things: clarify what transitional arrangements or exemptions exist for people who made decisions in good faith under the previous system; tell families plainly, and in languages they speak, what is and is not funded before support is withdrawn, not after; and resolve the CGM subsidy question, which has now been under consideration for more than two years.
Ms Oliva did everything right. She deserves better than being caught between two programs, neither of which will claim her.