Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Santoro, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Is the minister aware that 740 Australian women are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year and that 270 women die each year from this devastating cancer? Is the minister also aware that Professor Ian Frazer was made Australian of the Year for developing the vaccine? Can the minister confirm that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has rejected an application to fund the vaccination of all 12-year-old Australian girls against cervical cancer? Why has the government refused to help fund the availability of this vaccine immediately? What does the minister have to say to parents who will now be forced to try and find the $460 they will need to spend on the health of their daughters until the government acts?

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Honourable senators would appreciate that I was expecting a question like this and that I have prepared myself to answer the question as informatively as I can. I thank Senator Webber for her question, and I immediately correct her and state very clearly that it is not the government that has made the decision. In fact it is the relevant government instrumentality.

I would like to commence my answer by reminding opposition senators of what Julia Gillard had to say on this topic only very recently. I want to go on the record as saying that Julia Gillard in fact made a very sensible contribution in advance of this debate. She had some very sensible things to say in February this year in relation to the PBS. I urge senators opposite to listen to what the opposition’s shadow health minister said about the body that made the decision, not the government. She said: ‘The way the PBS works is that there is an expert committee that assesses what drugs should go on the PBS. You want experts looking at drugs. You don’t want politicians going, ‘‘I’ll pick that one and not that one.”’ That is what Julia Gillard said on 9 AM with David and Kim on 2 February 2006. I commend that view to all senators in this place, particularly senators opposite. It is a sensible attitude.

However, when I awoke this morning—and I understand that is not a very attractive notion to members opposite—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I awoke to Tony Abbott on radio—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is too much noise in the chamber, and I would ask you all to come to order.

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I awoke to the sound of Tony Abbott’s voice on radio saying that, if the interested parties were willing to resubmit their application, it would again be considered and that there was plenty of opportunity and there were plenty of options contained within the administrative and legislative framework for that application to be reconsidered. If Senator Webber had in fact been following the advancement of this debate earlier today, she would have heard that the Prime Minister again followed up the very sensible contribution to the debate this morning by Minister Abbott. The Prime Minister said:

Well my view is that it will be subsidised, I am sure of that. The debate at the moment is about the terms and conditions and you’ve got to remember that these companies do try and drive a very hard bargain, and it’s our responsibility to have this vaccine available for the mass immunisation campaign. And if agreement can be reached fairly soon, that mass campaign can still start on the 1st of January 2008. But you can’t have a situation where you just accept the first request that’s made by a company. I mean companies know that they have a very strong position in relation to these drugs where there’s a lot of support. But let me make it clear that this drug will end up being on the PBS list. It’s a question of precisely when and it’s a question of the price and the terms and conditions, and I think we have every reason to make sure that we get good value for the Australian taxpayer.

This is a very sensible attitude expressed first of all by Julia Gillard, amplified very well by Minister Abbott this morning and then subsequently by the Prime Minister. (Time expired)

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that the PBAC recommends to the minister; it is cabinet that makes the decision. I also remind the minister that the company offered the government a 30 per cent discount on the cost of the vaccine. Is the minister aware of comments this morning by his colleague Senator Ferris that the decision not to fund the cervical cancer vaccine was ‘embarrassing’? Isn’t it also embarrassing that at the same time as the government will not fund the Gardasil vaccine the industry minister, Mr Macfarlane, is promoting it through Invest Australia as an ‘investment in scientific excellence’? Why won’t the government take the opportunity to help prevent the spread of cervical cancer among Australian women in the future by funding the Gardasil vaccine immediately?

Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have just outlined, in response to Senator Webber’s first question, a very proper process. I outlined a process that in fact has been endorsed by the Labor Party shadow minister, a process which is being applied very sensitively by the government, first by the minister and then by the Prime Minister. You just cannot, as the Prime Minister outlined, accept the very first offer irrespective of how generous it looks first up, as outlined by Senator Webber. There is a proper process. That process has been undertaken, and the government will follow through with that process.