Mr LEE —My question is to the Prime Minister. I remind the Prime Minister that yesterday he dismissed expert advice about the dangers of switching between anti-depression drugs as `insubstantial' and described his higher drug charges as `fair' and `responsible'.

Mr Howard —No, I did not.

Mr LEE —Prime Minister, have you changed your mind in the last 24 hours or were you unaware that your health minister was about to announce the second major backdown on your dangerous and unfair pharmaceutical policy by exempting these very drugs—the anti-depression drugs—because he has been forced to accept that these drugs are not of equal clinical value?

Mr HOWARD —I do not recollect saying the first bit attributed to me, but I will have a look at the Hansard record. I do recollect saying to the House that the member who has just asked the question had a lot of things to say about how desirable it was not to allow the thing to get out of control. He also said that it was important to remember that four years ago this country allocated $500 million in taxpayers' money to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and in the last financial year the allocation was more than $1 billion.

Mr Lee —I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was not about generic drugs; it was about whether the Prime Minister knew his health minister was about to announce another backdown.

Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order and I remind the honourable member for Dobell about my cautions to members yesterday about frivolous points of order.

Mr HOWARD —And, of course, the member who has asked the question was not alone in 1990 because, at that particular time, Senator Richardson weighed into the argument. Senator Richardson seems to be weighing into a lot of arguments lately, including arguments on native title. This is what Senator Richardson had to say in 1990:

No government could responsibly continue the PBS in its current form in the face of the fact that the cost of the scheme has doubled in the last four years and was to have doubled again over the next three years. The survival of the scheme depended on action to rein in these escalating costs.

Once again, whatever it takes—one argument in government; a totally different one in opposition.