Senate debates
Thursday, 21 June 2007
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2007
Consideration of House of Representatives Message
Message received from the House of Representatives returning the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2007, informing the Senate that the House has agreed to amendments made by the Senate, has disagreed to amendment No. 3 made by the Senate but has made an identical amendment in place of the amendment.
Ordered that the message be considered in Committee of the Whole immediately.
House of Representatives message—
(3) Schedule 1, item 81, page 29 (lines 4 to 12), omit subsection 99ACC(4), substitute:
(4) If the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee gives advice to the Minister under subsection 101(4AC) in relation to the combination item, then, in working out the new price of the single brand of the combination item, the Minister may have regard to that advice in considering the extent (if any) to which to reduce the existing agreed price.
(4A) If:
(a) subsection (4) applies; and
(b) the Minister decides to reduce the existing agreed price;
then, in agreeing the new price of the single brand of the combination item, the Minister:
(c) may have regard to the advice referred to in subsection (4) in relation to the combination item; and
(d) must take into account, in relation to the listed component drug, or each listed component drug, that became subject to statutory price reduction:
(i) the approved price to pharmacists, on the reduction day, of each brand of a pharmaceutical item that has the drug that is the listed component drug; and
(ii) the quantity of the listed component drug contained in the combination item.
(4B) If subsection (4) does not apply, then, in agreeing the new price of the single brand of the combination item, the Minister must take into account, in relation to the listed component drug, or each listed component drug, that became subject to statutory price reduction:
(a) the approved price to pharmacists, on the reduction day, of each brand of a pharmaceutical item that has the drug that is the listed component drug; and
(b) the quantity of the listed component drug contained in the combination item.
John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Before proceeding I have a statement to make as the chairman of committees. Although the relevant Senate amendment was moved by the government in the Senate without any suggestion that it should be a request, the amendment has been disagreed to in the House of Representatives on the basis that it should have been a request. The statement under the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000, which would have been issued if the government had raised the question in the Senate, would have indicated that it would not be in accordance with the precedents of the Senate to treat this amendment as a request. A resolution of the Senate in 1981 established the principle that an amendment which would empower a minister to make determinations which would increase expenditure otherwise to be made under the bill should not be a request, on a proper interpretation of section 53 of the Constitution. This principle has consistently been applied by the Senate since that time. As the substitute amendment made in the House is the same as the amendment made by the Senate, it is suggested that the Senate can now simply agree to the amendment which it originally made.
4:49 pm
Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move:
That the committee agrees to the amendment made by the House of Representatives to the bill, which is identical to Senate amendment No. 3.
4:50 pm
Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
This is what you get when you rush things. During the whole debate that we have had about the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2007, I have made the point that this has been rushed through the Senate. This was referred to a committee on a Thursday; the committee met on a Friday and reported on a Monday. It has been a completely rushed process. When you report on a Monday and expect to deal with a bill properly and appropriately through the Senate processes alone you make mistakes. And I am afraid this is a perfect example of a government not thinking things through. We are talking about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is a scheme that Australians are, and should be, proud of. If the Howard government is going to make legislation in this way, and with these sorts of results, it is quite reasonable for the Australian public to be somewhat perturbed.
We will, of course, be supporting this amendment. Its intent is correct. This a question of process. It is a process issue where this government, once again, has failed to get it right. I said, earlier in debate in the committee stage of this bill, that we are doing a lot of legislation by luck. I think this is legislation by hope. We hope that the government’s intent in this bill will be achieved. We hope that patients will not bear the brunt of these changes to the pricing arrangements of pharmaceuticals, but without the modelling and without the information that this government should have provided us, it is, unfortunately, not a position that one can hold strongly.
This is embarrassing for the government. They should be embarrassed. This is a principle that has been part of this place for eons. Maybe ‘eons’ is overstating it, but it has been a principle for a very long time. This is an error that should not have been made but Labor will be supporting it. We supported the intent initially and we hope that the government learns from this debacle. It has tried to push legislation through the Senate and as a result we have ended up with mistakes being made.
4:52 pm
Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Can I make two points. Firstly, as I said in the committee stage of the debate on the bill, I have some sympathy for Senator McLucas—and I can see in the chamber Senator Moore, the deputy chair of the community affairs committee—about the length of time that was given to deliberate on this bill. I accept that. As I mentioned, I was a chair not so long ago in a similar situation on another important bill, and I know the time pressures. It makes it very difficult for senators, and I accept that.
Secondly, however, can I disagree with Senator McLucas on the point about it being rushed through or it being a debacle. This reflects the 106-year tension between the Senate and the House of Representatives over constitutional prerogatives. It is not a debacle; it was not a mistake. It simply represents the tension between the two houses under section 53 of the Constitution. So there was no mistake: this was deliberate. We were trying to assert the Senate’s prerogatives, which I would hope all good senators would agree with.
Question agreed to.
Resolution reported; report adopted.