Senator CONROY (2.00 p.m.) —My question is to Senator Campbell, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Is the minister aware that US trade ambassador Zoellick has stated:

In implementing these principles, Australia will make a number of improvements in its Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) procedures—including establishment of an independent process to review determinations of product listings—that will enhance transparency and accountability in the operation of the PBS.

Can the minister advise the Australian public who will conduct the review? Will the review have the authority to overturn a decision of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —I thank Senator Conroy for the question. The US-Australia free trade agreement will in fact see improvements to the transparency of the process of listing drugs on the PBS. However, it will not change the framework of how those drugs are listed. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a vital part of ensuring in Australia that people get access to the very best medicines at an affordable price. This government has led the way in ensuring that not only are more drugs covered under the PBS but also that the PBS is affordable into the future. It is the Australian Labor Party that have resisted our attempts to reform the funding of the PBS to ensure that future generations receive the same benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that our generation have enjoyed. We want to ensure that the funding and sustainability of the PBS is there so that people in the future do get the benefit of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

No person in Australia has been a stronger supporter and defender of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme than the Prime Minister, John Howard, who had a conversation with the President of the United States and dealt with these issues. The Australian government's commitment to the PBS is demonstrated by the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, made it very clear to US trade negotiators that the PBS was not on the table—as Senator Conroy tried to imply last year—and that the PBS was non-negotiable; in fact, that any interference with the PBS would be a deal breaker.

This government's commitment to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme through negotiations for this historic trade agreement—an agreement which will add to Australia's economy and create, some people are saying, 35,000 new jobs; see significant benefits in the manufacturing industry and the financial services industry; and will maintain the integrity of the PBS—is now threatened with being scuppered by none other than the opposition. We did notice late last year that, with the change of management on the other side, the opposition said they will be more positive, more constructive and more forward looking. We are now in the first sitting week of 2004, with a historic opportunity to have a trade agreement that is good for Australian industry—

Senator Conroy —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I specifically asked whether the minister could advise the Australian public who will conduct the review and whether the review will have the authority to overturn a decision of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The minister has had three minutes, a fair enough time to ramble on. I was wondering if you could perhaps draw him back to the question.

The PRESIDENT —The minister has another minute and I presume he will be asked a supplementary question as well.

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —I think all Australians are very interested in ensuring that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is sustained and improved. It is the coalition that have sought to improve the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme by ensuring its financial viability and sustainability, which has been attacked and opposed by Labor. This government have ensured that it was in fact protected under the US-Australia free trade agreement, and we have sought to ensure that, under the new arrangements which will apply once legislation passes the Senate—of course, that is now put at risk by a negative, carping, whingeing opposition—there will be a review process, which the senator has referred to. The details of that process are, very importantly, going to be worked out in close consultation with stakeholders. What people would be keen to know is that the review process will make the decisions more open to public scrutiny. That should be welcomed by the opposition. (Time expired)

Senator CONROY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I will give the minister the opportunity again to answer the questions. Who will actually be responsible for conducting the review? Will the review have the authority to overturn a decision of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee? Can the minister give the Australian public an absolute guarantee that this US initiated review cannot override a cabinet decision on either the price or access to drugs on the PBS?

Senator IAN CAMPBELL —A lot of this has already been stated clearly. Senator Conroy has again failed in his diligence to actually read what is already on the public record. The review process will not have the power to override the authority of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and it will not have the power to override a decision of the minister; thus, it will do nothing to change the scientific integrity and independence of the PBAC. The review process will only apply where the PBAC decides not to recommend the listing of a drug. The government's view is that not only will the new process be more open to public scrutiny, which should be welcomed by the parliament, but it will do it in such a way that will not increase the time it takes to list pharmaceuticals, it will ensure that prices stay down and it will ensure that drugs are listed more quickly and more readily on the PBS, assisting all Australians. You would think the opposition would welcome this. They are clearly determined to be as negative and carping in 2004 as they were in 2003. (Time expired)