Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to add some brief comments in support of the Community Affairs References Committee report on consumer access to pharmaceutical benefits. The core message that came out of this is that there is real value in the PBS and the scheme is valued. In fact, all the contributors—and there were over 30 who gave their time and effort to contribute to our committee hearings—stressed the importance of the PBS system. They all said that it was an important system and needed to be cherished and maintained. The important aspect, though, is that it is a dynamic system and needs to be reviewed. It needs to evolve constantly in response to the ever-growing need for people to have effective access to medicines in our country. As to the core messages, Senator Siewert has gone through the recommendations, and I too draw them to the attention of the chamber and the government. I just want to concentrate on the one that looked at more engagement of consumer groups.

One of the things that consistently happens in this area is that we talk about the need to consult and engage with consumers. That is a fine and noble principle but, in reality, it does not happen effectively. At best, at times, it seems token. But when we actually have these discussions we see that the consumer groups take the health system in this country extraordinarily seriously. They value it. They discuss it. They care about it. And no-one knows more about how it impacts on people than those people who use the system. So we did have evidence from the consumer network, and they talked about their willingness to be involved. Certainly, governments, over many years, have consulted with them in a way by having discussions and, when policy changes occur, some meetings with them. But our committee, based on many years of committee hearings, believes that there has to be a stronger, more effective way for consumers to be engaged in policy development and implementation. That was a core element of the evidence that we received and it is also a recommendation that we make from that evidence.

In the area of pharmaceuticals, as Senator Siewert said, there has been considerable debate in this place over the past few weeks on key legislative changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and that will continue because the scheme, as I said, is dynamic. At the same time as we were having the hearings into this particular inquiry, movement was taking place on post-budget initiatives and that gave a certain focus for many of the people who were contributing to the committee. That was important to our deliberations to see how the department in particular interacted with all of the various groups who had a need to be involved in effective consultation and not just the exchange of information, although that in itself is important. Sometimes there are even questions about how effectively information is exchanged. But the true meaning of consultation is the effective exchange of information with the chance to have engagement in possible change or improvement.

That will not always be possible, particularly when you are talking about budget decisions. But the principle remains: if we are going to get the best system in this country—and we spoke about that with the previous legislation—we need to identify those people who have the knowledge and the interest. We need to value their knowledge and engage them in discussion because they are the people who will best know how policy should be developed and what the impact will be. At this stage I just want to reinforce the importance of this reference, reinforce the importance of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and say: please have a look at the work that was done by the committee. I acknowledge the work of the secretariat, who work with impossible time frames to meet the requirements of this place. This is another valuable piece of work which should be important to further discussions of our system.