Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will start by saying that I know the member for Pearce is a person who has genuine concern about issues of health and social wellbeing of people living in Australia. But, on this particular issue, I cannot agree with all that she has had to say. Firstly, I would like to go through a little bit of the history of the PBS. It was established in 1948 and it has supplied approximately 140 life-saving and disease-preventing drugs.

The PBS was a Labor scheme which was introduced by Ben Chifley as part of his plan at that stage to look at a nationalisation of the health scheme, and that was found to be unconstitutional. But the PBS scheme came into being. It is a scheme which subsidises the supply of drugs to Australians. It is a scheme that has served our country very well. It is a scheme that I am extremely supportive of and it is a scheme that has increased in cost over a number of years. In 1956, I think the co-payment was 5s, or 50c, and it is now up to $34.20. I note that there was a massive increase in the co-payment for PBS drugs under the former Howard government, when the cost to consumers absolutely skyrocketed.

In the first year the scheme was introduced, it cost the Australian government £149,000. It now costs $6.5 billion. It is interesting to note some of the actions of the opposition when they were in government. Former Treasurer, Peter Costello, was very proactive in increasing the costs to Australians of the PBS co-payment.

We on this side of the House respect the independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Board. The role of the PBAC is to make recommendations to the government. In 2001 the former government inserted another layer, stating an exception that, where a drug was going to cost more than $10 million, it should then be referred to the cabinet. The referral of recommendations from the PBAC to cabinet was actually brought into being under the Howard government. This is not something new; it was a Howard government initiative.

The member for Pearce was right in saying that not only did they defer the listing of a drug—it was Viagra—but they rejected it. One of the uses of Viagra is for sexual dysfunction—and that can even be caused by other medications—but another is for pulmonary hypertension. I had a constituent who suffered from pulmonary hypertension. She was having difficulty walking from the door of my office into my office. She saw me quite a few years ago. She was pointing out to me just how important that drug was for keeping her alive, yet the previous Howard government had refused to list it.

We can go through and look at a variety of issues around the PBAC and the listing of drugs, but the most important thing is to ensure that there is a drug available to treat all conditions. The deferral by the minister was based on the fact that these drugs would probably be very nice to have listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—they do offer some benefits; I have spoken to a number of the companies that produce some of these drugs, and I know that there is an argument for listing some of them—but they are not groundbreaking drugs. They are not new drugs. There are drugs available currently that provide treatment for those conditions. To put before the House that there is no treatment available for people suffering from these diseases is not quite honest.

The minister was reluctant to have to defer—and I emphasise defer, not reject, as was the situation with Viagra—some of these drugs under a provision that was put in place by the Howard government. The reason she chose to do this was that there were some drugs available. She believes it is absolutely imperative that some drugs that are not listed should be listed. When she was faced with the choice of continuing the Bowel Cancer Screening Program or placing a drug on the PBS where there was already a drug available to treat the condition, she decided that the Bowel Cancer Screening Program, which saves life, will be funded now, and $137 million over four years has been put into that program.

Government is about choices. The government has not rejected those drugs from being listed. I know that drug companies can come back and provide additional information that shows that if they are not listed there is no other treatment available. I look at something like Fragmin, from Pfizer, for blood clotting. There are already warfarin and heparin, which Australians can use to deal with those sorts of illnesses. A number of drugs were listed. There was Nplate for a rare bleeding disorder, Xolair for severe asthma, and Duodopa for Parkinson's disease. It could be demonstrated there was no substitute drug currently available for these. There was Galvus MET for type 2 diabetes; Epiduo Gel for severe acne; Prevenar, a pneumococcal vaccine; Mentorix, which is also a meningococcal C vaccine; and Prevnar, which was listed in the budget. There were a number of new drugs listed.

For those opposite to stand in this House and say that this is the first time this has happened and that it is something specific to this government is very misleading. It was the Howard government that put in place the requirement for drugs that were going to cost the PBS over $10 million per year to be referred to cabinet. The Howard government was the first government to use this mechanism. It has been used in the past. It was the Howard government that not only deferred but rejected the listing of Viagra. I put my full support behind the PBS and the work of the PBAC. I do not think this is contrary to its purpose.

See this speech in context