Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

Carer Recognition Bill 2010

This bill is the Government’s commitment to enshrine in law the Australian Government’s national recognition of the exceptional contribution made by hundreds of thousands of carers across the country.

Every day they sustain and support the people they care for.

And through their dedication and hard work they enrich community life and are an inspiration to us all.

I am certain that every member in this place, representing electorates from the bush to the city, understands only too well the challenges and the sacrifices that come with the job of caring.

It’s a job where you can’t knock off at five o’clock – or six or seven. No public holidays.

No annual leave, no time off when you’re sick.

Mr Speaker, this Bill recognises in legislation the contribution by the mums and dads, the grandparents, the sons and daughters, the brothers and sisters and partners who every day get on with the job of caring.

We are determined to give carers the acknowledgement of their role that they have asked for – and which they so clearly deserve.

Last year, carers told us they wanted greater acknowledgement and increased recognition.

This message came through loud and clear when the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth tabled its report, Who Cares? Report on the inquiry into better support for carers.

Central to the Government’s response to this Inquiry was a commitment from the Commonwealth to lead the development of a National Carer Recognition Framework.

The National Carer Strategy will deliver on this commitment and will place the needs of carers at the centre of government policy so that they have the same opportunities as other Australians to live healthy, happy lives and reach their full potential.

This Bill is the first element of the Framework.

It formally acknowledges the vital contribution that carers make to Australian society and complements carer recognition legislation already in place in some States and Territories.

There are several key elements to the Bill.

Firstly, the Bill establishes a broad and encompassing definition of carer. This definition captures the diversity of carers and care relationships.

Secondly, the Bill sets out a Statement for Australia’s Carers.

The Statement contains ten key principles that set out how carers should be treated and considered in policy development and program and service delivery.

This includes the fundamental principle that all carers should have the same rights, choices and opportunities as other Australians.

All public service agencies will be required to take all practicable measures to ensure their staff have an awareness and understanding of the principles in the Statement.

This includes a direction that all public service agencies should have due regard to the Statement for Australia’s Carers when developing human resource policies that significantly affect an employee’s caring role.

Public service agencies with responsibility for policies, programs and services that affect carers and the people that they care for will have additional obligations under the legislation.

These agencies need to ensure that their staff take action to reflect the Statement’s principles when developing, implementing, providing or evaluating policies, programs or services directed to carers or the people for whom they care.

These agencies will also be required to consult with carers, and the bodies that represent them, in the development and evaluation of relevant policies, programs and services.

And they will be required to report publicly, in their annual reports, on their compliance with their obligations under the legislation.

Critically, the legislation also extends to associated providers, people or bodies contracted or funded by Australian Government public service agencies with responsibility for policies, programs and services that affect carers and the people that they care for, and their immediate subcontractors.

These associated providers will need to ensure staff and agents have awareness and understanding of the Statement’s principles and take action to reflect the principles when they develop, implement, provide or evaluate policies, programs or services.

The Bill supports the work the Government is undertaking to reform the system of supports for carers and the people for whom they care.

It recognises that carers should have the opportunities and the capability to enjoy optimum health and wellbeing, and social and economic participation.

Implementation of the Bill will drive increased awareness and understanding of the role and contribution of carers.

As well as a much-needed cultural and attitudinal shift so that carers’ interests are taken into account by public service agencies and service providers.

Raising the status and profile of the caring role builds on the Government’s practical measures to improve the lives of carers.

Members will also be aware that Government has commissioned a Productivity Commission inquiry to examine the feasibility, costs and benefits of a National Long-term Disability Care and Support Scheme that would provide an entitlement to services over a person’s lifetime, with a focus on early intervention.

This is a complex area that has the potential to transform the lives of people with disability and their carers – a transformation I am sure you all will agree will be for the better.

The Productivity Commission has been asked to report their findings to the Government in July 2011.

But, Mr Speaker, we know there is still much more to be done to achieve our vision of a fairer Australia for carers.

Which is why, as part of the National Carer Recognition Framework, we are developing the National Carer Strategy to be delivered early next year.

Working with the States and Territories, the National Carers Strategy will shape our long-term agenda for reform.

It will guide policy development and the delivery of services by government agencies and non-government organisations that work with carers.

The National Carers Strategy will include many of the issues raised by carers through the Inquiry into Better Support for Carers.

We have already identified that the strategy will consider, among other things, the training and skills development needs of carers and the adequacy of case management and care coordination for carers.

Addressing the needs of young carers and carers in rural and remote communities will be also be key priorities of the Strategy.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is the first part of a fundamental reform process for carers through the National Carer Recognition Framework.

It recognises in law, the valuable social and economic contribution, as well as the many personal sacrifices that carers make.

Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010

I am pleased today to introduce the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010 into the Parliament.

The Bill encourages parties to take genuine steps to seek to resolve their dispute where possible, before commencing proceedings in the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court.  It builds upon the enhanced case management powers that were legislated by this Government in the previous Parliament.

The Bill will encourage parties to turn their minds to the issues in dispute, the outcomes they are seeking and how this can best be achieved before commencing litigation.

Launching into litigation is not always the best approach.  Parties can benefit from exchanging information, narrowing the issues in dispute and exploring options for resolution will lead to more matters being settled by agreement earlier on, before significant costs have been incurred and positions become entrenched.  Even if matters progress to court, costs will be saved as the issues in dispute will be better understood and narrowed.

The Bill is a further step to moving from the adversarial culture of litigation to one where resolution is actively sought.  Of course, not all matters can be resolved, and some do need the clarity of a judicial ruling.  However, the general aim of considering resolution where possible should be fostered.  In doing so, this Bill does not undermine the critical role of the courts as ultimate adjudicators of legal issues.  Equally, courts are already taking a modern approach and actively promoting judges to facilitate agreements between parties, for example through court-referred ADR.  This Bill does not displace those processes, but encourages parties to genuinely negotiate before commencing litigation.  A further aim of the legislation is to encourage lawyers to fully inform clients about options to resolve disputes and alternatives to legal action. 

The Bill does not introduce mandatory ADR or prescriptive or onerous pre-action protocols, nor does it prevent a party from commencing litigation.  It is deliberately flexible in allowing parties to tailor the genuine steps they take to the circumstances of the dispute.  In doing so, it encourages parties to genuinely turn their minds to what they can do to attempt to resolve the matter.

I am pleased that other jurisdictions are taking a similar approach.  I note the passage of the Civil Procedure Bill 2010 in Victoria, and the consideration by the NSW Attorney-General of recommendations made in the Blueprint for Alternative Dispute Resolution.  It is heartening that other jurisdictions are seeking to take similar measures.

I commend the Bill.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010

I am very pleased today to be introducing the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Amendment Bill 2010 which implements a reform agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments on 3 July 2008.

This amendment reflects the Government’s strong commitment to microeconomic reform.  In particular this amendment supports the goal of reducing the level of unnecessary or poorly designed regulation, with its resulting negative impact on Australian business.

While regulation is essential for the proper functioning of society and the economy, the challenge for government is to deliver effective and efficient regulation.  In doing this, we must ensure that the regulation is effective in addressing an identified problem, and that it does this in a way that is not unduly onerous or duplicative in nature.

This amendment is part of a package of reforms being pursued by the Government in relation to the regulation of chemicals and plastics, which followed a study by the Productivity Commission in 2008.  The reforms have been agreed to by all States and Territories through COAG, as part of the “Seamless National Economy” reform agenda.

Specifically, this reform will address the delay and uncertainty for users of agricultural and veterinary chemicals, who are typically primary producers, which results from overlapping regulatory responsibilities for setting maximum residue limits of chemicals allowed to be present in food.

Under the existing arrangements, both the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) have a role in establishing safe limits for agricultural and veterinary chemical residues.  The APVMA does this in the course of issuing registrations and permits for agricultural and veterinary chemical products. FSANZ, with its role in establishing and maintaining food standards, is responsible for incorporating maximum residue limits into the Food Standards Code.

Both regulatory systems are charged with the protection of public health and safety.  Both rely on rigorous scientific assessment.  But while both systems work well to ensure the safety of Australians, the overlapping regulatory responsibilities of the two agencies lead, in certain circumstances, to significant delays in decisions which mean a product might be grown on a farm but cannot be sold as a food for some months later.

This results from the time-lag of nine to twelve months which occurs between when the APVMA establishes a maximum residue limit in relation to an agricultural or veterinary chemical product, and when FSANZ is able to effect a corresponding modification to the Food Standards Code.

Amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991, designed to improve the operation of the food regulation system in response to consumer, industry and government feedback, were most recently made in 2007.  These included changes intended to streamline the process for establishing maximum residue limits in the Food Standards Code.  The amendments achieved a modest reduction in the timelines for modifying the Food Standards Code, through giving FSANZ early notice of any applications to the APVMA for chemical products that would be likely to result in a change to a maximum residue limit. 

However, the 2007 amendments did not address the fundamental problem with setting maximum residue limits: the duplication of the scientific assessment and decision making process, and the resulting significant time delay for primary producers.

The amendments I am presenting to you today will fix this problem once and for all, by streamlining the decision making process for determining maximum residue limits.  Under the new system, if the APVMA makes a decision on setting a maximum residue limit, in the course of approving a chemical product registration or permit application, then the APVMA can use that decision to vary the maximum residue limits Standard in the Food Standards Code. FSANZ, as the scientific experts in food safety, will retain responsibility for the dietary modelling that the APVMA will rely on to establish safe chemical residue limits.

These amendments will not jeopardise the protection of public health and safety in any way.  In over ten years of the system’s operation, there has never been an occasion where FSANZ has not adjusted the Food Standards Code in line with the maximum residue limits set by the APVMA.  Instead, these amendments reduce duplicative administrative processes, and herald a new era of better integration of the roles of the two regulatory agencies. 

All States and Territories, which are partners in the joint food regulation system, have been consulted on the Bill and are committed to ensuring the system continues to protect public health and safety, whilst also promoting improvements in regulatory efficiencies.

International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010

Today I introduce the bill to give the force of law to the second protocol to the tax treaty with Singapore which will upgrade the exchange of information provisions in that treaty to the internationally agreed tax standard.

The government is a global leader in the implementation of the international standard of tax transparency.  In line with this standard, the upgraded exchange-of-information provisions in the protocol between Australia and Singapore will allow the tax authorities of both countries to exchange a wider range of information on a wider range of taxes.

In particular, the new provisions will provide that neither tax administration can refuse to provide information solely because it does not require the information for its own domestic purposes or because the information is held by a bank or similar institution.

The government has taken an important leadership position to promote international cooperation to combat cross-border tax evasion.  The enhanced provisions in the second protocol to the tax treaty with Singapore are an important tool in Australia’s efforts in this regard, by increasing the probability of detection when taxpayers participate in abusive tax arrangements.  The protocol will further facilitate the prevention of tax evasion by facilitating the exchange of information that predates the protocol.

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has considered this protocol and has recommended that binding treaty action be taken.

Full details of the amendments brought forward in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2010

The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2010 will amend the National Health Act 1953 (the Act) to achieve a more efficient and sustainable Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), better value for money for Australian taxpayers, and policy stability for the pharmaceutical sector.

The Bill underpins the Gillard Government’s commitment to reform of Australia’s health system, by ensuring that every precious health dollar is used as effectively as possible.

The Bill also embodies an historic level of cooperation and collaboration between the Government and the pharmaceutical industry, represented by Medicines Australia. Through jointly negotiating these reforms, the Government and the industry will help ensure the sustainability of the PBS for years to come.

The Bill sets out new PBS pricing arrangements aimed at reducing growth in PBS expenditure, ensuring access to quality medicines at lower cost to the taxpayer, and providing certainty to the pharmaceutical industry in relation to PBS pricing policy.

The PBS plays a vital role in Australia’s health system, particularly for the prevention and management of chronic disease, and for the treatment of life threatening conditions. The PBS provides reliable and timely access to a wide range of medicines at a cost individuals and the community can afford.

In the coming years, medicines will continue to be a significant and growing component of health expenditure. Since the previous major pricing reforms in 2007, the growth rate for PBS expenditure has increased from 4.3 percent in 2006 07 to an estimated 10.5 percent for the 2009 10 financial year.

The Report to Parliament on the 2007 PBS Reforms warned that the cost of the PBS is projected to grow significantly over the next few years. While those earlier reforms will provide more savings than originally estimated, these will be more than outweighed by higher growth in PBS costs. The PBS Reform Report estimates that PBS costs will reach $13 billion in 2018, compared to about $9 billion in 2010.

For the PBS to continue to provide access to medicines, increases in costs need to be managed. The viability of the medicines industry in Australia also needs to be maintained.

To this end, the Government has entered into a four year Memorandum of Understanding with Medicines Australia. Medicines Australia represents over 50 companies, which together account for 86 percent of total annual PBS expenditure and nearly 60 percent of sales of off-patent medicines.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sets out the negotiated pricing reforms which are the subject of the Bill, and the policy innovations that will be introduced to improve the pathway for subsidy of medicines under the PBS.

Under the MOU, the Government will provide the industry with pricing certainty over the next four years. In return for implementing new pricing arrangements that are the subject of this Bill, the Government will undertake not to introduce further new policy to generate price-related savings from the PBS over the life of the MOU. This will provide stability to the industry, helping to foster investment and availability of new and innovative drugs in Australia, such as the $50 million biotech investment in Queensland announced by Eli Lilly in June this year.

Further process and policy changes for the listing of PBS medicines under the MOU will reduce red tape and further foster the availability of new medicines in Australia.

Under the MOU, the PBS will continue to support access to subsidies for new and innovative products. Price reductions are achieved as a result of competition between brands in the market, within a framework of policy certainty. These are good outcomes for all sectors of the medicines industry and for the Australian community in general.

The amendments in this Bill propose a significant broadening of current pricing arrangements which were originally introduced as part of the 2007 PBS Reforms.

The proposed changes to pricing policy recognise that competitive pricing already exists in the market for many PBS-subsidised medicines. The changes acknowledge that Australian taxpayers should be benefiting from that competition and the lower prices that result from it.

The principles which underpin existing price setting and maintenance mechanisms for PBS medicines will continue. In particular, the general separation of medicines between the pricing formularies for single brand drugs (F1), and drugs where there is competition (F2), will be maintained.

The application of price disclosure will be accelerated and expanded to include all drugs in the F2 formulary.

Price disclosure allows market forces to play a part in PBS pricing. Competition between pharmaceutical companies to gain market share for their products can result in significant discounting to pharmacies. The actual price of a brand of medicine may be much less than the Government PBS subsidy price.

Under price disclosure arrangements, pharmaceutical suppliers are required to advise the Government of the price at which PBS medicines are sold into pharmacies. The information is used as the basis for possibly adjusting the price for all brands of a medicine to the weighted average price. Price disclosure ensures that, over time, Government prices reflect more closely actual market prices. This is a fairer deal for taxpayers.

Since it was first introduced in 2007, price disclosure has only been applied to medicines after a new brand lists.

Under these further pricing reforms, price disclosure will become mandatory from 1 December 2010 for all drugs on the F2 formulary. This will increase the number of brands subject to price disclosure from 162 to over 1,600 brands.

The Bill also provides that, for the cycle commencing on 1 December 2010, an average price reduction of at least 23 percent is to be achieved across all the brands in that cycle. These price reductions will occur on 1 April 2012 and represent a very large saving in PBS costs. In the event that the price reductions delivered under the normal operation of price disclosure do not yield an average of a 23 percent price reduction across the formulary, prices for medicines in this cycle will be reduced a little further to achieve the required 23 percent reduction overall. However, this provision will only apply to the price disclosure cycle commencing on 1 December 2010, and no medicine will be reduced to less than the lowest disclosed price for a brand of that medicine.

Expanding price disclosure is a fair and equitable way of achieving value for money for PBS medicines. It allows competition to play a real part in pricing for the PBS and allows taxpayers to benefit from discounting practices in the market. Companies can continue to compete for market share for their products as prices are generally reduced to the weighted average price, and not the lowest price.

In addition, under the further pricing reforms being introduced today, all medicines on F2 will experience a price reduction of two or five percent on 1 February 2011. The level of price reduction for each medicine reflects the level of discounting the medicine has been experiencing in the market.

In a further reform, the price reduction that occurs when the first new brand of a PBS medicine is listed will increase from the current 12.5 percent, to 16 percent as of 1 February 2011. Medicines that have already taken a 12.5 percent price reduction will not be required to take the balance of the 16 percent price reduction.

It is also important to note that the reforms embodied in this Bill preserve features of the PBS that make it such a valued part of Australia’s health system.

Under the new pricing arrangements, medical practitioners will continue to be able to prescribe PBS medicines that are clinically appropriate. The robust process for listing new medicines on the PBS will continue. Only medicines recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) will be considered for listing by the Government.

There will be no extra costs for patients. Some non-concessional patients may pay less, for example, where price reductions cause the price of a medicine to fall below the general co-payment amount. My Report to Parliament on the 2007 PBS reforms estimated that consumers will benefit from those reforms via direct reductions in prices for some prescriptions by $600 to $800 million over the ten years to 2018. The additional direct saving to consumers from these new measures is independently estimated to double this previous estimate, to save general patients an average of almost $3.00 per prescription.

To support awareness of brand choice under the PBS, the Government will invest $10 million, through the National Prescribing Service, to provide factual information to inform consumers that generic medicines are an equal choice in terms of quality and effectiveness, and that some brands of a medicine may cost less than others.

The Bill does not prevent the generic medicines industry from competing for a growing share of PBS scripts. In 2008-09, member companies of the Generic Medicines Industry Association had a share of 33.8 per cent of PBS scripts, up from 27 per cent in 2005-06. Generic manufacturers will also benefit from some $2.3 billion worth of medicines coming off patent over the next 12 years.

The proposed amendments to the Act will also streamline the way drugs are listed for supply under section 100 arrangements. Section 100 of the National Health Act applies to certain specialised medicines with specific supply arrangements, such as chemotherapy or HIV/AIDS medicines. The amendments will make clear how general PBS provisions apply to drugs supplied under those arrangements. The power to make special arrangements under section 100 will be clarified and broadened.

The wider scope of section 100 will mean arrangements such as the revised Intravenous Chemotherapy Supply Program announced in the 2010 11 Budget can be made. Under the new chemotherapy arrangements, the method for supply and pricing of combinations of vials required for single infusions will reduce unnecessary wastage of these expensive chemotherapy drugs. As a result, savings of around $75.4 million are expected over the next four years.

In addition, the Bill contains provisions that address gaps in the current PBS prescription data captured by Medicare Australia. Currently, community and hospital pharmacies supplying PBS medicines only provide data for PBS prescriptions for which the Commonwealth pays a subsidy. The changes being introduced will result in data also being provided for prescriptions when a subsidy is not paid – that is, under co-payment data. For these ‘under co payment’ prescriptions, the cost to patients is below the co-payment amount, currently $33.30 for general patients. The collection of this information, in common with all other PBS prescription data, will give the PBAC and others a more complete picture of PBS medicine prescribing, dispensing and usage. Provision for this change is also included under the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement announced in this year’s Budget.

This Bill also makes explicit price reductions related to the 25 percent staged reductions that were put in place at the time of the 2007 PBS Reform. Price reductions required on listing of a new brand of a drug affected by staged reductions are currently occurring administratively and through serial amendments to Regulations. Including these reductions in the Act will make the provisions clearer for industry and easier to administer.

In conclusion, the reforms in this Bill provide a firm basis for achieving a more efficient and sustainable PBS while, at the same time, providing a period of certainty to industry in relation to medicines pricing policy.

The reforms have been collaboratively and closely negotiated with the pharmaceutical industry to provide benefits for taxpayers and stability for the sector. I would like to acknowledge the important role of Medicines Australia in developing this package of reforms for the benefit of all Australians.

Consumers will pay no more for their medicines, and some may pay less. A choice of medicines and brands will still be available. Medical practitioners will be able to prescribe medicines that are clinically appropriate.

Australians will benefit as consumers and taxpayers from a more sustainable PBS through lower prices for medicines and access to new medicines sooner.

I commend the Bill.

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendmen