Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. By way of background, this bill was implemented as a 2008-09 budget measure which Labor says was an election commitment, but we can find no such commitment. It will impose fees at three points: the original submission for listing, after successful application and at resubmission.

The introduction of a cost recovery measure was expected to generate additional revenues of $7 million over forward estimates, with a net cost of $2.2 million. However, the EM states that, once fully operational, annual revenue from fees is expected to total about $9.4 million in 2008-09, rising to $14 million in 2009-10. Irrespective, savings are a very small proportion of the approximately $7 billion spent on the PBS.

Indicative fees and charges proposed under the scheme as at June 2008 were as follows: a major submission, $119,500; a minor submission, $12,500; secretariat listing, $1,000; generic products, $500; and pricing arrangements, $25,000. This effectively means it could cost approximately $145,000 to make a single submission. To bring new drugs to the market, the costs are estimated to be approximately $315,000, providing there are no complications.

Cost recovery measures were first introduced in the 2005-06 budget, with a proposed implementation date of 1 July 2007. Implementation was delayed due to consultations with the pharmaceutical industry about the PBS reform process during 2006.

When originally proposed in 2005-06, there was concern that such measures were undermining the independence of the PBAC and might result in manufacturers declining to list drugs on the PBS. In 2005-06, Medicines Australia argued the operation of the PBAC was a Commonwealth government function and cost recovery measures would be inappropriate. Arguments in favour of cost recovery suggest that a pharmaceutical company receives significant benefit from listing and it is unreasonable that the taxpayer should pay the bill for listing. Manufacturers already incur significant costs in preparing a submission and, under such a proposal, the pharmaceutical industry would also have to pay the additional fee when the submission is considered by the PBAC. There are concerns that cost recovery could affect the independence of the PBAC and the PBS.

Cost recovery has been implemented successfully in the TGA process, which has maintained its independence. However, the TGA and the PBAC have very different roles. The TGA decides whether a drug or medical device can be marketed in Australia, whereas the PBAC advises the minister on which drugs should be approved for a public subsidy.

The Productivity Commission advised that cost recovery arrangements should only be introduced to improve efficiency and should not be implemented where it is inconsistent with policy objectives. Whilst cost recovery may improve efficiency, if it leads to higher drug prices and delays to PBS listings, it would be inconsistent with the objective of the PBS of providing timely and affordable access to pharmaceuticals.

Like many people in this place, including the minister, I have contact with the industry and listen to stakeholders. Their concerns in relation to this particular bill are certainly strongly held. The industry argues that this would be a global first, that it would be unprecedented and that the measures do not adhere to the principles of cost recovery. There is no service to the seller. Recovery is being made for a purchaser’s function, and it could take the costs of a listing to over $1 million. It could risk Australian patients’ access to some new medicines and it could impact small population groups—and this is a very important point.

The point relates to drugs which are brought to the market, which do have a very small patient base, where it is a listing which involves a so-called ‘orphan drug’ and where the returns to the company are nowhere near what the public perception might be about the returns on some of the so-called superdrugs—where there is a significant return on investment to companies. We are talking about smaller population drugs where there is significant cost to the company to bring that drug to market. In many cases, it is already financially unviable for that drug to be brought forward to market, but there is cross-subsidisation that takes place, obviously, in relation to some of the decisions that these companies make. It means that they can afford, in some cases, for the public good, to bring a particular drug forward even though the returns might be quite minimal—if positive at all.

So there are concerns, and I say to the minister that there is a need for the department and for her office to heed those concerns and to look at the measures and how they can provide a way forward so that patient outcomes are optimised into the future.

Some companies will decide that it is not worth listing some drugs for those groups and that is going to have a detrimental outcome for some patient groups. Again, that is something that the government has to weigh up in the decision-making process. It does, the industry advise, have the potential to deter innovation and investment in the Australian pharmaceutical industry and it is, in fact, a tax. It should be acknowledged by the government as such. There is no comparison to the TGA process where payment is for registration. These are all important points in this debate. The government reintroduces this measure at a time the industry is dealing with a substantial four-year reform process initiated in 2007 and it also comes as the budget imposes a further $175 million in price cuts on the industry. It is important to note as part of this debate that the now minister expressed strong opposition to cost recovery when she was the shadow minister for health and ageing. Indeed, the minister said that such actions would threaten the independence of the PBS:

The PBAC needs to be independent of government and of industry, and we cannot see the justification for this move to the cost-recovery model. I have asked the government to reconsider this approach given the risk to the independence of the PBAC.

Obviously, the minister’s view has changed quite considerably over the course of the last 18 months. I also note, as part of my contribution to this debate, that the chair of the PBAC suggested that there were no concerns about cost recovery impacting on recommendations or, indeed, independence of the commitment. The PBS gives Australia one of the best pharmaceutical delivery systems in the world and we intend to make that better. Giving Australians access to the best available medicines that are safe and of the highest quality should be a priority of any government. It certainly was a priority of the coalition government. That is why we initiated the PBS reform and it is why this government has continued with that process.

The coalition fully supports the charter of the PBS to provide timely and affordable access to subsidised medications for the Australian community and, despite some rewrite of history that has taken place in a number of portfolios over the course of the last 18 months by this government, it is important to place on the record that during the coalition government’s time we increased expenditure on pharmaceutical benefits from $2.22 billion in 1996-97 when we came to government to $6.4 billion in 2006-07. That is a significant increase, recognised by people in the industry but most importantly recognised by Australians who have the potential for lifesaving drugs to make a difference to their situation and to improve their health. That is certainly a continuing priority for this coalition. When we return to government we will make sure that we continue to have a sustainable PBS system. We will also continue to listen to the concerns of those within the industry who are making investment decisions about whether or not they will manufacture or conduct research and development in this country and whether or not they continue to employ staff in a highly productive industry. These are all decisions which go to whether or not these future investments will be made in this country. That is why the government needs to tread very lightly.

As part of this debate, I want to mention Pauline Talty, a very brave woman who lives in Sydney. She has a terrible condition which necessitates a transplant that is going to be performed overseas because of an announcement made by the government earlier today. This has been a very difficult time for Pauline and her family. It has been an extremely taxing time for a number of months. They have jumped through bureaucratic hoops to facilitate the only option available to this young woman. I have met with Pauline in hospital. I have listened to her case and I have spoken and corresponded with her family and supporters and her case is compelling. I thank the government for their change of heart, for the reversal of their decision. It is a common-sense outcome that they would support this woman to travel overseas to have what potentially is a lifesaving transplant operation.

I thank the government for that change of heart, which did not come easily. A great deal of public debate has taken place. I also want to thank all of the media outlets involved in airing the case of Pauline Talty. I want to thank the Alan Jones program for the interest they have shown in this issue because this really was about the life and death of a young Australian. We have been able to help Pauline in her cause to come to this great outcome, an outcome which I said on radio recently I would praise the government for if they were to change their mind. I offer that praise to the government today. I hope that every accommodation will be made in the delivery of this outcome and Pauline’s travel overseas. We wish her a successful operation and hope and pray that she is returned to Australia so that she can lead the life she has dreamed of for so long, and for her family to live with some peace of mind knowing that she has been given an opportunity to have her life extended, a life which otherwise, without the assistance of this program, would not have been possible.

Also, I want to make some comments about the announcements in the budget last night. The situation is quite dire for public hospitals right around the country. That is why this Prime Minister promised at the last election that he would fix public hospitals by mid-2009. There is now a closing gap but nonetheless a six-week window open to the Prime Minister to fix public hospitals. That is the promise he made at the last election. It is a promise which is going to be broken in six weeks time because, despite any best intention at the eleventh hour, this Prime Minister is not going to be able to fix public hospitals in six weeks. That was the commitment given by this government at the last election but we came through another budget last night without any evidence whatsoever of how they are going to fix public hospitals.

Interestingly enough, the words that were used by the Prime Minister were that he would fix the public hospitals. That has been airbrushed from the Prime Minister’s website. It now says that they will improve public hospitals. And the latest contribution from the federal minister is that they will water down that commitment even further. That is of great concern to all Australians, because all Australians heard at the last election that this Prime Minister would fix public hospitals by mid-2009, and he has failed to do so. And how can you have a health system—

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order as to relevance. The member is not addressing the bill that is in the parliament at the moment.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This of course, to any Australian, is part of the response to the health outcomes of all Australians. To have a member from the Northern Territory stand in this place and suggest that public hospitals are not important really is a sad development. This really is—

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order with respect to relevance. The bill is the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 [No. 2] and the member is not addressing the bill in question.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The title of the bill is ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and for related purposes’. As the occupant of the chair I obviously have to make sure that all honourable members observe the standing orders, but the addition of the words ‘and for related purposes’ does tend to widen the area that members are able to debate. However, I ask the honourable member to be cognisant of the specific provisions of the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and observe the standing orders in making his contribution.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, no debate can be had in this place in relation to PBS or health without talking about public hospitals. The prescription of drugs at public hospitals is an integral part of how the public hospital system operates in this country, and it is a very important issue about which we should not be afraid to speak. The member for Solomon does not need to sign up to every prescriptive word provided through the Prime Minister’s office. If he believes that public hospitals are okay in this country and that they are working well in the Northern Territory and that no fixes, changes or improvements could be made to public hospitals in the Northern Territory then he should say that by way of press release.

We would welcome the member’s contribution by way of press release to his constituents to say that public hospitals in this country cannot improve. There are plenty of other examples in the health system—there is no question about that—particularly in the Northern Territory in relation to the provision of super clinic services. That has been a complete and utter failure, not just by the Northern Territory government but, importantly, by this government as well. The reason that I raise that is in part because this really goes to the way in which this government has managed health over the course of the last 18 months.

There clearly have been a series of blunders. We had the minister involved in the alcopops debate, which was a complete humiliation for the Minister for Health and Ageing. It was a complete embarrassment. This same bill that is before the House came before the House last year, but just before the last election this minister was out saying that she was opposed to the position which she now advocates. So it has been quite a telling exercise, over the course of the last 18 months, to see similar management practices by the federal health minister that we have seen by health ministers at a state level over the last 10 or 11 years—which have been completely and utterly disastrous. That is why I raise great caution in relation to this bill.

If drugs which provide life-saving opportunities to Australians are prevented from being listed then that will be a very sad outcome. We take the assurances of the government that that is not going to be the case. We take the assurances of the government that this bill will not impose those impediments which the industry warns of. But we do put the government on notice that, their having given all of these assurances, we will hold them to account at a future time. For that reason I move a number of amendments which I have circulated in my name. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

acknowledges that the bill does not:

(a)

require an independent review after two years of the cost recovery arrangements for listing medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme;

(b)

require any such review to identify any negative impacts that the cost recovery arrangements have had on access to medicines;

(c)

require any such review to be tabled in Parliament; and

(d)

require an annual quality assurance audit of the evaluation of submissions (from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee) conducted by the relevant Department and its evaluators; and

(2)

calls on the Government to make such amendments to the bill as would rectify these flaws”.

I move those amendments because we think that this would go some way toward improving the position that the government is putting forward. We think that it would provide a better outcome for a more transparent process if reviews were able to be conducted—if the advice that was raised as a result of the recent Senate inquiries and the advice of the industry were adhered to. I just flag a word of caution to this government that they may see people on private health or people in the pharmaceutical industry as an easy touch but the reality is that these people have a significant contribution to make. If this minister is just dismissive of views which are contrary to hers, then we will not arrive at a position of delivering better legislation to the Australian people. That is why we move these amendments as circulated.

In conclusion, I am happy to say to the Australian people that the coalition, when we were in government, stood for a sustainable PBS regime. We have not differed from that stance one iota. We still have a very strong commitment to providing a viable, well funded and sustainable industry to this country into the future. We will rectify the difficulties that this government have created in 18 short months. After the coming election, we will wind back as much of the difficulty that they have put in place as we can. What will take time, of course, is to repay the enormous debt that the Labor Party have created.

The Australian people know that it took Paul Keating and Bob Hawke about 13 years to create $96 billion worth of debt; it has taken Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan about 18 months to rack up $188 billion of debt and there is no end in sight. That is going to make future funding decisions very difficult, and not just in relation to the provision of drugs but for the provision of health services in general. That is why we have to recognise as part of this debate that the government is making it more difficult for future decisions to be made when it has an $8 billion a year interest bill on this huge debt that it has incurred in such a short period of time. That will impact on the government’s capacity, and the incoming government’s capacity after the next election, to make decisions which are going to be beneficial to the Australian health community. We want to provide better health outcomes for all Australians. That is what a coalition opposition stands for, it is what coalition governments have always stood for and it is what we will fight for after the next election.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dickson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for Dickson for his contribution to the debate and note that, if he would like to have some copies of my press releases in regard to the $85 million worth of health programs that were in the budget last night for the good people of Solomon, I will happily provide those to him. I have a copy of them here.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to make my contribution to this debate on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. This important bill proposes to amend the National Health Act 1953 to provide the legislative basis for the Commonwealth to recover costs for services provided. The services provided by the Commonwealth are in relation to submissions for the listing, or changes to current listings, of medicines and vaccines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, and the National Immunisation Program, the NIP. The arrangements are required to provide the framework that will establish charges on a fee-for-service basis.

The bill is not a taxing bill and expressly provides that fees must not amount to taxation. The arrangements are aimed at recovering costs from applicants, usually pharmaceutical companies, who apply for products to be listed on the PBS or the NIP. Having a medicine listed on the PBS or a vaccine designated on the NIP generally provides a high level of commercial certainty to the sales of that product in Australia. In order to establish that a product is worthy of the public trust that accompanies any listing, the assessment process of products requires rigorous tests to ensure the accuracy of the clinical claims made. Those tests and those assessments cost money. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the government to recoup the costs associated with assessing a product’s suitability for subsidy.

It is envisaged the fees prescribed in the regulations will be derived from an activity based costing model. The more complex and time consuming the evaluation, the higher the fee. Let’s be realistic about this: pharmaceutical companies, many of them subsidiaries of large multinational pharmaceutical companies, have the financial capacity to meet the cost of these assessments. Why should the taxpayer of Australia foot the bill? In 2007-08 the top 20 pharmaceutical companies each received, on average, $241 million from the Commonwealth via the PBS or NIP subsidy.

Cost recovery is not a new concept for the pharmaceutical industry. The pre-market evaluation of products through the Therapeutic Goods Administration, or the TGA, is funded through cost recovery arrangements and has been since 1991. This bill is a logical extension of the TGA’s cost recovery process. In fact, the Productivity Commission has noted that cost recovery can provide an important means of improving economic efficiencies and equity by ensuring those who use regulated services bear the costs.

Medicines supplied under the PBS are provided directly to the people of Australia by chemists, doctors and hospitals on a government subsidised basis. Co-payments and other amounts charged will not be affected under the cost recovery arrangements. The PBS was established to set the public co-payment amount. It is very important to note that Australians accessing the PBS will not be required to pay any extra for PBS listed medicines or NIP vaccines as a result of this measure.

Importantly, this bill also ensures the independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, or the PBAC. This group provides expert advice on medicines, independent of government and industry. Members of the PBAC are selected from consumers, health economists, practising community pharmacists, general practitioners and other specialists. They make recommendations to the Minister for Health and Ageing as to which medicines and vaccines should be made available for government subsidised supply. The arrangements for funding the PBAC directly through the budget will continue, and the PBAC will have no role in setting fees and will take no part in discussions with companies over fees. This bill will ensure there will be ongoing monitoring mechanisms to ensure fees continue to reflect costs. It is expected that fees will be indexed annually, and in accordance with the government’s cost recovery guidelines there will be a full review conducted within five years. The bill will see ongoing consultation with key stakeholders, including peak industry, consumer and healthcare provider bodies.

It is not the first time this bill has been before the House. The bill has been scrutinised by two Senate committees looking at various aspects of the bill and the regulations in detail. Both committee inquiries recommended that the bill be passed. Delay in the passage of this bill has already resulted in the loss of millions of dollars in revenue—in fact, around $9.4 million in 2008-09. The bill provides for a commencement date of 1 July this year. Previous operational data suggests fees would be expected to total approximately $14 million in the first full financial year of operation.

It is very interesting that those opposite announced in the 2005-06 budget that costs associated with listing products on the PBS and the NIP would be recovered from the pharmaceutical industry. So I think it is worth repeating what our fantastic Minister for Health and Ageing asked yesterday at the end of her second reading speech for this bill:

Given that this was a measure of the previous Liberal government in the first place, it is reasonable for us to ask why they continue to oppose it. It is just another example of opposition for opposition’s sake, or is it just the opposition choosing to once again support big business over the interests of the Australian people?

I commend this bill to the House.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in support of the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. This is a bill which will allow the Australian government to recover costs associated with the assessment of applications for both new listings and changes in the listing of products on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or for the designation of vaccines under the National Immunisation Program. These assessments are undertaken by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is fundamental to the architecture of the way the Australian government administers health in this country. In the financial year 2007-08, $7 billion was paid out in subsidies under the PBS. There were 171 million prescriptions made in that year, the equivalent of eight prescriptions for every Australian. This is a scheme fundamental to ensuring that drugs and medications can be provided to Australians at an affordable price, thus making our system one which we would want to see representing a developed economy and country. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has been providing affordable medications to Australians for 60 years and it is essential to the administration of health in this country.

While the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme provides an enormous benefit to those persons buying drugs and medications, there is also, very evidently, a significant benefit which goes to the pharmaceutical companies who have their products listed under the PBS or their vaccines designated under the National Immunisation Program. Indeed, in the financial year 2007-08, the top 20 pharmaceutical companies who had products under the umbrella of these two schemes received, on average, $241 million each through subsidies under the PBS or the NIP. It is clear that it is essential to the business plan of these pharmaceutical companies that they receive the subsidies that are paid under the PBS or through the NIP.

So the proposition which forms the heart of this legislation is very simple: if these companies are to receive the considerable benefit associated with having their products listed on the PBS or designated under the NIP, then the assessment which is undertaken by the government of their products in order for those products to come under the umbrella of those programs ought be paid for by the companies receiving the benefits. And these costs are not insubstantial. The assessment process is significant. It involves a very exhaustive assessment and testing of the particular products involved so that the clinical claims being made by the pharmaceutical companies can be verified by the government. That is very important in ensuring that there is public trust in the products which find themselves listed on the PBS or the National Immunisation Program. There is also a function undertaken by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee of entering into negotiations around the ultimate price which a consumer is required to pay for these products on chemists’ shelves.

Seeking cost recovery in circumstances such as this is consistent with the Australian government’s cost recovery guidelines. Indeed, the Productivity Commission has commented on the importance in circumstances such as these of having cost recovery programs, and for three reasons. Firstly, there is an argument of equity. If companies which are in a position to pay are receiving a significant benefit from a service provided by government, then it is appropriate that they, rather than the taxpayer in general, pay for that service. Secondly, there is an economic argument that goes to economic efficiency on the part of those who are providing the service through government. They will provide that service in a more efficient and productive way if they know that they are subject to the discipline of needing to provide a bill to those applicants seeking listing of their products on the PBS. Thirdly, there is an economic efficiency argument from the point of view of the applicants themselves, and that is that there is an incentive not to put in place a substandard application if they risk the prospect of that application being knocked back and of then having to pay a price without getting an outcome.

This bill provides for the cost recovery scheme by allowing for regulations to be made under the National Health Act for such a cost recovery regime. It is important to understand that we are not here tonight legislating for a tax; this is a fee for service. The regulations that would come under this legislation may include but certainly would not be limited to provisions which deal with the administrative process for putting in place the cost recovery scheme through the making of the submissions and the prescribing of fees. They would deal with provisions relating to the payment of those fees and whether there are any categories of applicants or products which ought to be exempt from those fees, and whether there ought to be perhaps a provision which deals with the waiver of fees in certain circumstances. The provisions can deal with refusal to provide services in circumstances where no fees are paid—in a sense, a ‘down tools’ provision that if the company is not paying the fee then the service being provided, the assessment of their product, would stop. The regulations will provide for the recovery of unpaid fees, for the provision of penalties where there are late fees and, importantly, for a review mechanism for the administrative decisions which are made in the process of putting this scheme in place.

These regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They will provide for a very simple method, a very simple proposition, which is that the more complex the assessment of a product, the more complex the price negotiations involved in a product, the greater the fee that will be charged. Indeed, if there were an application that was substandard and was knocked back, as I said, then every new application would be subject to a new fee, as there would be a new service provided. It is expected that these fees would be indexed annually, that there would be a full review of all the fees within five years and that the department would put in place a mechanism for monitoring the fees. As the member for Solomon said, it is anticipated that the revenue raised through this cost recovery scheme would be in the vicinity of $14 million annually.

The independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee will be assured, as the Commonwealth will continue to directly fund the committee and the revenue raised as a result of this regime would be paid into consolidated revenue. Very importantly, Australians accessing PBS products—accessing the medications or the drugs which are subsidised through the PBS—would not be paying a cent more as a result of the implementation of the scheme, and that is really a function of the process of negotiating the price, which is part of the assessment of the product in the first place.

There has been significant consultation with stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry over the last two years about the implementation of this scheme. And, indeed, this is not new. There are cost recovery schemes, for example, in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, where there is a system of providing for the registration of products or goods for their sale and for their marketing, and, as part of the assessment process required for registration, there is a fee paid by the applicant. So this is not a new concept to the industry; it is something that the industry is very familiar with.

This bill has a recent legislative history. It was first passed by this House of Representatives on 5 June last year. From here it went to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and from there to the full Senate, where the motion for the second reading was rejected, on 28 August last year. It went back to the Senate community affairs committee, where a second inquiry into the bill was held. It is worth mentioning to the House that both the committee inquiries recommended that this bill be passed.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a very important part of the architecture of this country’s administration of health. This bill will absolutely improve that architecture. The pharmaceutical companies are certainly receiving a reasonable benefit, but the service that is provided by government in assessing their products to form part of the PBS or the NIP is a service for which they ought to pay, and so I commend this bill to the House.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for La Trobe, some members having just entered the House, can we call the quorum off?

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Justice and Public Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I withdraw that request.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I note that the member for Dickson is in the House and has flagged some amendments to this bill. It is my intention that those amendments be discussed in the Senate. It might be helpful to the member for Dickson to hear these commitments: we are happy to undertake to discuss those amendments but, in order to not delay the proceedings of this House, our suggestion, given that a number of the other parties in the other place have also suggested some amendments, is that those discussions and negotiations occur in the other place. It would be my intention to seek the bill’s passage through the House today and for discussions to be able to commence.

I thank the other members, the member for Corio and the member for Solomon, for speaking on this bill. It is a bill that would provide authority for the cost recovery of services provided by the Commonwealth in relation to submissions for listing, or amendment to a listing, of medicines, vaccines and other products on the PBS or the NIP. As I have informed the House, this bill has been subject to considerable review already by the Senate community affairs committee, which has held two inquiries into the proposed cost recovery measure, with both inquiries recommending that the bill proceed in its current form.

As I have indicated, in this debate the member for Dickson has proposed some amendments to the bill which the government is prepared to undertake to consider, but in order to avoid further delays to the bill the government proposes that it be passed by the House in its current form and that the government consider its position on any amendments proposed by the opposition or other parties when the bill is debated in the Senate.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dickson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.