Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a world-leading scheme that we can all be proud of. The scheme helps protect Australian families from the soaring prices of prescription drugs that we see in other parts of the world. The affordability of the scheme for the family needs some more attention, and I should note that Family First expressed concerns about changes to the safety net threshold levels under the previous government which increased costs for families.

With regard to this bill, the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008, Family First does support the concept of cost recovery outlined in the bill. That is a principle that Family First supports, but the detail is also important. We have heard throughout this second reading debate from both sides of the chamber about the regulations having only come out since the Community Affairs Committee report on the bill was finalised. Family First has concerns with some of those regulations. The issue here is that even the committee report found that there was concern about making sure there were no unintended consequences. What this gets down to is: will there be some drugs in the future that will not be available for vulnerable Australians because making applications to get those drugs on the PBS could be cost prohibitive to the company applying? That would be of concern especially in Australia where we have a sense of a fair go. I understand about the orphan drugs, but I am worried about things falling in the gap and whether there will be unintended consequences through these regulations. Now that we have the regulations I wonder whether we should actually have a good look at them and see whether there is some way of bridging that gap or hole.

It is very hard for us when we get information last Friday night and then are in here debating a bill that actually unfolds the regulations that follow it. It would be very good for this Senate and for Australia to look at those two items together. That way we can get off on the right step rather than doing a half step with a few holes probably into the future. I am going to leave this problem for the government to solve. As it stands, Family First is looking for—I hate to say it—the topic that the Rudd government likes, which is another inquiry. I would hate to be the first person to stand here today and say, ‘Family First is suggesting an inquiry.’ But these regulations came out last Friday, and even the committee report was seeking government assurances:

... the regulations should incorporate specific measures, whether through exemptions or waivers or some other form, to ensure that there is no disincentive for companies to lodge applications to list low-volume medicines, or to change or extend the indications of listed medicines.

All that is gobbledegook to a lot of people. What that basically says is that there could be some Australians missing out on getting drugs through the PBS because of this cost recovery principle—and, while we agree with the principle, we need to make sure that somewhere in the regulations we have some way of making sure that does not happen. I will not go through suggestions; I will let the government come up with suggestions. However, I think we need a short, sharp inquiry into the regulations that came out on Friday, as we have already had the bill looked at and a report that came out on Friday—just to make sure that when we pass this bill we understand the regulations that we are passing along with it. We have heard in debate here today that when the regulations go forward we can change them through disallowance. That is a very, very messy way of doing it. This is a significant change and I think we need to make sure we are actually on solid ground moving forward. So I appeal to the government that they support—even propose themselves—a short, sharp inquiry into these regulations because without that inquiry Family First cannot support this bill as it stands.