Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 and note that the process through which the government has taken this particular piece of legislation would have to give significant cause for concern. The government seemed to have taken the view that, because this is a piece of legislation or a proposal that was first announced by the previous government in 2005, all it had to do was to pick up what it saw as a proposal that was already on the table and, without any consultation with industry at all, announce it as a budget measure on budget night.

It is quite clear from the report of the committee that the level of consultation by this government with industry has not been satisfactory. The committee learnt during the committee inquiry that there were some significant groups that had not been consulted at all through that process. The committee also learnt that the industry’s understanding of what was being consulted on was quite different from what the government was presenting as consultation. In 2007 there were some proposals put forward on types of cost recovery measures that might be considered but not in the context of a measure specifically going forward. Those groups of industry who were consulted as a part of that process made their submissions but never heard anything back. They had no further comment from the department as a result of those consultations; they got no feedback. The next they heard was that there was a measure announced in the budget. With respect to the government’s policy on this particular matter, the only thing that the government or a spokesperson for Labor had put forward was a comment made by the then shadow minister—and now minister—during a debate in 2007, when the minister said that the opposition did not see it as an appropriate measure. In fact, the quote was:

The PBAC needs to be independent of government and of industry, and we cannot see the justification for this move to a cost-recovery model.

That is the only indication that industry had from the Labor Party of what their position might be. And yet, tucked away quietly in the budget on budget night was a measure that will raise $14 million and which was supposed to commence on 1 July this year. That was the budget proposal. No notice, no consultation and no warning for industry is of significant concern.

During the term of the inquiry it was quite interesting to hear from witnesses as to their perspectives on this process. The government relies very heavily on the evidence of Associate Professor Faunce, who, of the witnesses that we heard from at the inquiry, was effectively the only supporter of this measure in this legislation. But even Associate Professor Faunce had some concerns, particularly in the absence of the regulations which effectively are the measure in this piece of legislation. All that the legislation effectively does is to modify the act to say that there will be regulations. During the process of conducting the inquiry we were effectively flying blind and relying on some information that the industry had been given at some briefings since the budget was announced—we did not have all of the information and neither did they. I do note that, after the committee presented its report last Friday, the government released the regulations. I commend them for that because that gives industry, the opposition and the minor parties the opportunity to effectively scrutinise the regulations. It would have been of great assistance to all of us had the government been prepared to provide that information during the consultation process.

I find it very hard to believe that there would not have been some fairly well developed draft regulation given that the measure was supposed to start on 1 July 2008. Granted, it is not long between the budget which was brought down on 13 May 2008 and the proposed implementation date on 1 July 2008, but I find it hard to believe that there would not have been the information available so that industry could consult based on the full set of facts. Almost to a person, every witness said it was difficult to fully interrogate this particular measure without the regulations, which are effectively the measure because, as I have said, the legislation itself only says that there will be regulations.

Of significant concern to the committee, reflected in both the majority and the minority reports, was the issue of the impact on off-label products. I commend the PBAC on the work that they have done over the last three or four years in putting special advisory groups in place to look at the use of off-label medicines. That is a very commendable effort. In the circumstance where it has been operating for about four years now, I think, and that was in—

Debate interrupted.