Ms MACKLIN (12:38 AM) —I am pleased that the government has accepted the amendments moved by the opposition in the Senate to the propositions put by the government to make sure that we protect the integrity and independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. We were concerned about the way in which the government planned to overhaul this very important committee and retrospectively get rid of many of its experienced members. For reasons that we are still in the dark about, the minister's office only circulated its amendments to this bill last Friday—some 10 months after the Tambling review reported. There has been no explanation to date as to why the government has been so keen to get these amendments introduced in such a quick manner. The original amendments that were circulated by the government just last week included plans to limit the terms of the PBAC members to eight years and to introduce this restriction retrospectively. This would have seen many distinguished members of the committee sacked, and we were very concerned about what was behind it at all.

I am very pleased that the government has withdrawn those two changes completely. The remaining government amendments related to the composition of the committee and the process for member appointments. The government was seeking to place very few requirements on the composition of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Under the current act, the majority of members must be nominated by the Australian Medical Association, the Pharmacy Guild or the Doctors Reform Society. Of course, it is the case that the minister has the power to remove members of the committee, but he can appoint only people nominated to him from various professional bodies.

The amendments drafted by the government did not require the minister to choose the committee's composition from nominations arising from professional bodies. In fact, there was no reference to nomination from professional bodies in the government's original amendments. The amendments, as originally written by the government, therefore signalled a very significant increase in the minister's discretion over appointments. For example, the amendments required the committee to include only a consumer, a health economist, a practising pharmacist, two GPs and one clinical pharmacologist. The only criterion for the appointment of the remaining six members would have been that the minister was satisfied the people had qualifications or experience in a field relevant to the functions of the committee that would enable them to contribute meaningfully to the deliberations of the committee. Our concern was that this would have left the appointments very open-ended and exposed both the minister and the committee to influences that we did not think would be helpful and would have threatened the committee's independence.

In the current environment of intense industry pressure to overhaul the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the close links that exist between the minister and the industry, the moves to increase the minister's discretion over appointments and to remove the need for appointments to be nominees of professional bodies did cause considerable concern. We are therefore pleased that we were able to successfully amend the government's changes to make eight of the committee's 12 members nominees of professional or consumer groups. These amendments will make sure that the arms-length relationship between the minister and the committee continues.

This committee inevitably comes under enormous pressure to recommend the listing of new drugs. For example, one that we have seen in the recent past is its decision not to list Viagra. As many members would know, this was challenged in the courts by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. The prevailing view has always been that the process is strengthened when the committee is seen to be independent of the minister and the individual committee members are seen to have the authority of the professional groups from which they are nominated. If the government amendments had been successful, this precaution would have been lost. Our amendments in the Senate remove the potential for the minister to be exposed to outside pressures when unpopular decisions are made. (Extension of time granted) It also protects the minister from accusations of political appointments.

The independence and authority of this committee have to be maintained, and I am pleased that the government has accepted our amendments, which make sure that the appointment process continues to be transparent and guarantees that the community will have confidence in the committee's independence. To make sure the committee continues to function successfully and that decisions are consistent, we need to make sure that proper transition arrangements between the current committee and the new committee are put in place. This has been one of the concerns put to me by a number of people outside of the parliament who want to make sure that there is a known and clear transition process. This was recommended in Senator Tambling's review of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listing process.

As many people know, the work of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is highly involved and it is very important that we have people experienced in interpreting all the analysis that is presented to it and balancing that with issues to do with clinical need and equity of access. It means we need to get the balance of skills right on the committee and make sure that new people have time to acquaint themselves with the detail that is involved. We are concerned that the government may replace up to six of the current members, including its current chair, Professor Don Birkett, on 31 December. Unless there is some transition process between the new chair and Professor Birkett, we are concerned that a vacuum will be created. We have been arguing for interim arrangements to be put in place so that there can be some handover process between the current chair and the new chair if that is what the government decides.

As I mentioned earlier, this committee has come under intense scrutiny, with the pharmaceutical industry lobbying for a turnover in the membership of the PBAC and for industry representation on the committee. There has been plenty of media comment about the close relationship between the minister and the industry, so that has reinforced our concerns—we should have a very strong and independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee so that the community can know that the drugs that are being approved for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are listed entirely in the interests of consumers. I am very pleased that the government has accepted our amendments so we can guarantee that this committee maintains its independence, but I would say to the government that it should consider proper transition arrangements between the current committee and any new members.

Question resolved in the affirmative.