Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, the PBS is budgeted at $19.5 billion this year and $20.7 billion next year. Is that the full cost of the PBS? Are there prescriptions written under the PBS that are not counted in those figures?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice I have, Senator, is that the published costings for the PBS include only those medicines issued from within the PBS. There are other scripts issued privately, but they are not counted in the published costs.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are prescriptions written for public hospital inpatients included in the costing?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice I have, Senator, is that those are dealt with separately, through agreements that are made with the states and territories.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The PBS increased in cost, from $17.7 billion in 2023-24, to $19.5 billion in 2024-25. That's a $1.8 billion increase in a single year. What happened in 2024-25 that caused this huge increase?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not in a position to confirm for you the numbers that you cite. I have no reason to doubt them, but I don't have those budget figures in front of me. If I have additional information I can provide to you, I will, but, at this point, I don't have the information that you seek

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you aware, Minister, that there was a huge increase in 2024-25?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can inform you that we are aware that, as new medicines are added to the PBS, some of them relate to advanced therapies. They respond to very significant improvements in technology which are delivering better outcomes for patients, and some of the costs associated with the PBS will inevitably be associated with the listing of some of those advanced therapies.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand you put the co-payment down. The reduction in the co-payment was costed in your own impact analysis at $738 million, three-quarters of $1 billion, for two years or $369 million per year. Where did the other $1.4 billion of cost increase come from?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might ask Senator Roberts to perhaps go over that question again. I'm not sure that the relationship that you're asserting between the cost of this measure and the cost of the PBS is as you think it is. Perhaps, if you ask the question again, I can seek advice from the officials.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reduction in co-payment was costed in your own impact analysis at $738 million for two years or $369 million per year. Where did the other $1.4 billion cost increase come from?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In general, there are a range of cost drivers within the PBS. You are correct that there are costs associated with reducing the maximum co-payment, and they are as you've described them. Other cost drivers within the PBS are generally associated with new listings, and, as I indicated to you earlier, some of the new listings are associated with advanced therapies which, as new technologies, deliver very strong outcomes for patients but have costs attached to them.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the last financial year, how many people were given access to the PBS as a result of gaining access to Medicare? For clarity, how many new people came into the Medicare or PBS system last calendar or financial year? I'm looking for whatever data you have, please, Minister.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking information. Senator Roberts, essentially, your question asks about increases in the number of people who are eligible to access Medicare. I don't believe that I'll be in a position to answer that in today's discussion, but I'm seeing if there is any other information that's relevant to your question that I may provide to you.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for your openness. I have another question on an associated topic. How many people are accessing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents, and under what circumstances are they allowed to access it?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that eligibility for the PBS is attached to eligibility for Medicare, and so the eligibility criteria for Medicare is essentially the same as the eligibility criteria for the PBS.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, is this correct? To be eligible, a person must be living in Australia and meet one of the following criteria to be eligible for Medicare: an Australian citizen; a New Zealand citizen living in Australia; an Australian permanent resident or someone applying for permanent residency, within certain conditions; a temporary resident covered by a ministerial order; a resident of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island or Lord Howe Island; someone covered by a reciprocal healthcare agreement within their own country—of the 11 countries, New Zealand and Great Britain have reciprocal arrangements, but otherwise they are small Western countries. Isn't this a concern?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I think that you are probably reading from government information in relation to eligibility. The government is bringing this bill before the chamber with a view to lowering the price, the maximum co-payment, that can be paid by a person under the PBS. It's not a bill to deal with eligibility for the PBS or eligibility for Medicare. The government, broadly, of course, reviews settings from time to time, but the government self-evidently is not bringing a bill before this chamber to change eligibility for Medicare.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister; I wasn't imputing that you are. All I want to get a handle on is the cost. Let's just focus on two: people applying for Australian citizenship, currently totalling 150,000 people, from outstanding applications, and temporary residents covered by ministerial order. This includes humanitarian visas. Is that correct?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not in a position to provide the numbers that Senator Roberts is asking for. As I've sort of indicated already, the bill that's before the Senate seeks to deal with the change in the maximum co-payment. It is not a bill that deals with eligibility. The officials here have not come prepared to answer questions at the level of detail that you're asking them, in terms of numbers of people who are eligible under certain kinds of visa categories.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I acknowledged that last time, that you had already mentioned that point. What I'm interested in is what this will cost the Australian taxpayer. Can you confirm that refugees entering under a 786 humanitarian visa are being enrolled in Medicare or the PBS, and, if so, how many 786 visa holders are accessing Medicare in total?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll refer the senator to the answer I provided just now to his question. I can confirm that the government is confident about the costings attached to the measure that's before the parliament.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What measures is the government taking to ensure that the person presenting a Medicare card to access taxpayer subsidised prescriptions is the person or family to whom the card was issued?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts has asked questions of this kind before, I think. The last time we engaged on a health bill in this chamber he asked similar kinds of questions. There are a range of ways that the government seeks to monitor questions of integrity within both the PBS and the Medicare system. These issues are significantly beyond the terms of this bill, which, I've already explained, go to the co-contribution that may be levied within the PBS.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I disagree with you because it all impacts at a cost to the taxpayers. Let's move on. How much would taxpayers save by imposing an eight-year wait for access to Medicare and the PBS for new arrivals?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't believe the government has costed that policy option.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will reiterate that question, from Senator Roberts, with regard to using the Medicare card. The minister stated that it has no relation to this bill. This bill is about the PBS. That's prescriptions. It does relate to it, very much so, because there is fraud going on. People are using someone else's Medicare card to go and see a doctor, and that doctor prescribes scripts to them that they are not entitled to.

This is fraud. It is estimated that the cost of fraud imposed on Australian taxpayers is up to $3 billion a year. What precautions are the government taking to stop this fraud from happening, to ensure that a person using a Medicare card in this country is not some tourist visa holder visiting friends or family or someone accessing these drugs—paid for by taxpayers—and taking them out of the country to sell on the black market?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some of the facts cited by Senator Hanson, in her question, are not facts that the government agrees with. However, I can assure Senator Hanson that, amongst other things, pharmacists are required to ensure that the person to whom the prescription is being dispensed is, indeed, the person to whom it has been prescribed.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm fully aware that you give your name and your address. There is no identification required other than the Medicare card or the script that is handed over to the pharmacist. What facts have I stated that are not true?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a number of aspects of your question that I am uncertain about, including you citing $3 billion associated with this kind of activity. To obtain a card within the PBS, you are required to provide ID.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm confused. I thought I was pretty good at maths. The explanatory memorandum says:

Patients who are part of the Closing the Gap program won't have to pay more to reach the general patient PBS Safety Net threshold.

The safety net is expressed as a dollar value and prescription is also expressed as a dollar value. How could a person spend more to reach the safety net, and that is a defined value? Yes, they would need more prescriptions to qualify but they wouldn't, as your explanatory memorandum says, spend any more money. How is that the case? It's basic maths.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice I have is that the Closing the Gap program you refer to is different to the co-contributions that are required of general patients under the PBS.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll see if I can make sense of that one. Let's move to another topic. Are Americans still telling us which drugs to approve?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Decisions about which medicines are listed under the PBS are made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does USA pharma have any input into or say on the drugs sold under or put on our PBS system?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

McALLISTER (—) (): The objective of the PBS is to make sure Australians have access to medicines that will help them and improve their health. The role of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is to make that assessment. In doing so, they take information from a range of sources. The decision is taken by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2004 Australia signed a free trade agreement with America, and pharmaceuticals were part of it. Part of the agreement was that a medicines working group would be set up and the Americans would be part of that board, which would indicate what drugs would be available on the PBS scheme. Were you aware of that, Minister, and, tell me, is that medicines working group still active? I haven't been told any different.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reiterate my answer to the previous question, which is that the government depends on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to provide advice to it about which medicines should be listed on the PBS. I understand your question suggests there is some alternative or different mechanism. That is not correct. I reassure senators and, indeed, the public that decisions about which medicines are to be listed are taken by the government on the advice of this committee. That is a process that has operated under both Liberal and Labor governments over a long period of time.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll explain to people what my understanding is and what I have read and come to understand about pharmaceuticals in the agreement. When the free trade agreement was drawn up, it was signed in 2004 and became an act in January 2005 here in Australia. America doesn't have a PBS scheme. We're one of the very few countries in the world that has it; it started up in Australia in 1953. The United States were very concerned about it because the United States wanted to access our market and were very concerned that they wouldn't be able to get medications from pharma onto the market here in Australia. That's why this medicines working group was set up—to allow the Americans to have a say in what medications went onto the PBS scheme.

You may ask why this is of interest to the Americans. It's because pharma make a lot of money out of the drugs they sell worldwide. A case in point is that pharma claims they can spend half a billion dollars to produce a drug, whereas, in fact, a lot of the government research departments and universities do the basics of that drug and then hand it to pharma, and they progress it further. So it really doesn't cost them that amount of money. It could have been around $60 million to $70 million at that time—I am going back to the time when this was drawn up. They pass on that cost to the consumer. It was in the interests of the Americans to get this deal out of Australia—to have an input into the drugs here into Australia.

Also, on top of that, the big problem is generic brands. The generic brands usually have a patent. When these drug companies make the drug, they can have a patent on it. It used to be for around 12 years; then it was extended to 15 years and 20 years, and now it's 25 years. That's because they want to protect it. So when a drug is patented, the drug companies can get big money for it. Once it comes out of the patent, other drug companies can use it and sell the drug a lot cheaper. So it's in their interest to make a lot of money for their shareholders from this drug.

Are we really looking after the purse of the taxpayer in this country? We have seen the cost of the PBS system go up by billions of dollars. I want to put some background to this. There is something that I would like to know, on behalf of the Australian people. Under the PBS scheme, these drugs—the generic brands—are basically the same, but they're cheaper because they're not under the patent of these big companies. Minister, what I would like to ask you is this: If you are going to have taxpayer funded drugs, is it part of your plan to ensure that generic drugs are issued before big pharma or other companies make huge profits out of this? To cut the cost to the taxpayer, will you ensure that generic brands are delivered to the patient or the person who is getting it, if it is the same medication?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps I can make some general observations about the significance of the PBS to the health of Australians and to the overall way that we approach public health in Australia. The PBS is an incredibly significant instrument for Australian public policy. It does mean that we are able to obtain access to medicines from a range of suppliers and from a range of different countries at very competitive prices, and we are able to provide those to Australian citizens. Our feedback, and the feedback from people I talk to in my electorate, is that it is one of the government programs they care about the most. You may hear something different in Queensland, Senator Hanson, but that's not what I hear. I hear from mums and dads on the ground that having access to affordable medicine through the PBS is highly valued, because every Australian wants to know that if their child, partner, parent or neighbour is sick, they will be able to get access to the medicine that they require. It's why in our public-policy making we place such a high emphasis on making sure it continues to be affordable.

The investment that is being debated in the Senate today is a really significant part of this. It is, as other senators have pointed out, a very long time since the maximum co-contribution for an Australian to make under the PBS was $25. That's a big deal. It will mean a great deal to many families who are looking for support in accessing the medicines they require, and it has flow-on benefits for the rest of the health system. It's important that people are treated in a timely way with the medicines that are prescribed to them because it preserves and protects their health and, in some circumstances, prevents people from accessing more acute medical services as a consequence of their health deteriorating.

This government is absolutely committed to protecting the integrity of that system. Senator Hanson, you and Senator Roberts have asked questions this morning that suggest there is some other process at play. Without evidence, you suggest that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is not, in fact, making decisions. I am here to tell you that that is incorrect. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is the body that is tasked with evaluating applications to list medicines on the PBS. It's an incredibly important mechanism. The integrity of that process is important to government. And I can assure taxpayers that the entire purpose of the PBS is to make sure that we work on behalf of all Australians to obtain medicine at an affordable price so that all Australians can access the health care that they require.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm fully aware of how important the PBS is to the Australian people. I just want to remind the Senate and the Australian people that it was One Nation, prior to the 2019 election, that advocated to drop the prescription cost from over $40 to $19. We were the only ones that advocated that, in 2019, so we're very well aware of the cost on the average Australian out there, with the PBS schemes. And it was then that the Liberal Party did drop it, to about $32, and only after that did the Labor Party come in to drop it further. But ours was at $19, which was supported by the pharmaceutical industry.

The minister has not answered the question with regard to generic brands, and the reason we are questioning this is that the cost is going up; it is costing billions and billions of extra taxpayer dollars. I want accountability that the money is being spent properly by the people who are truly entitled to it—yet you can't even answer that question—to ensure that they are actually covered for it.

The question I have raised is important to taxpayers. I'm not denying people access to the PBS, but I definitely want accountability, and you have not been able to answer those questions in this chamber at all. As I asked you, Minister, what are you going to do to address the generic brands that are available and that are cheaper? Have you put in your legislation that generic brands should be given out first, before the brands of these big pharmaceutical companies, which make their money—hundreds of millions of dollars—out of the taxpayer? Why can't you answer that one?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can provide Senator Hanson with information about the approach that's taken to generic drugs. Of course we recognise that once a drug is out of patent it produces opportunities for other brands to produce that drug, and those brands then seek listing on the PBS, as any other brand would do. I am advised that at the moment there are over 900 drugs on the PBS; 419 of those are listed with generic brand options available.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I stand by what Senator Hanson said. Regarding your comment that 'the PBS is an incredibly significant instrument', I agree; we agree. It's significant for people who are using the drugs, and it's highly significant for the people who are making the drugs. In COVID, we had $18 billion transferred from we the people to big pharma, for a drug that was approved provisionally by the TGA, with no testing in this country. Professor Skerritt confirmed that for me in Senate estimates. He said he relied upon the FDA in America. The FDA had previously said that they relied entirely on Pfizer and didn't undertake their own testing. So, we're transferring vast amounts of money—billions of dollars—to big pharma, with no independent testing. So, I ask the question, is anyone on the TGA getting royalties from big pharma? In America, there are people at the National Institutes of Health who are getting royalties from big pharma, for drugs that taxpayers funded the research of, and then the approvers get the royalties. Is anyone from the TGA getting royalties from big pharma?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You and Senator Hanson have sought to use the committee stage for this bill to canvass a wide set of issues—some of which are grounded in fact, some of which are not. We are now straying well beyond the parameters of the bill. This is a bill that deals with co-payments associated with the PBS. It doesn't deal with the operation of the TGA. But I do wish to say that I do not think it is in the public interest for you and others to undermine public confidence in the TGA.

The TGA is a well-established authority which serves an important purpose: validating the suitability of pharmaceuticals for use in Australia. It plays a critical role in ensuring that medicines are safe and fit for purpose when they're used in Australia and it is a precursor for being able to list medicines on the PBS. It is part of a world-leading health infrastructure that sees Australians enjoy significantly better health outcomes than many other people across many of the countries that we would ordinarily compare ourselves with. We are proud of that health infrastructure. You may not be proud; you may have a different agenda. But my view is that we are best served by ensuring that Australians can be confident in the health organisations that have done a good job over many years in supporting the health of Australian citizens.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm giving you a huge opportunity to actually validate the TGA. This is a huge opportunity, which is in the public interest. All I'm doing—and all Senator Hanson's doing—is asking questions based on fact. Where we don't know the facts, we ask simple questions. You have a huge opportunity to dispel every question. The TGA has done more damage to itself than any other person or entity in this country as a result of its handling of COVID. That's what raised serious questions amongst the whole population of this country. The TGA did that to itself.

I have another question. Is Professor Skerritt lobbying on behalf of Medicines Australia to the TGA or to the pharmaceutical advisory approval committee?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer Senator Roberts to my answers to his earlier questions.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australia's Voice) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) on sheet 3424:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "$25.00", substitute "$20.00".

_____

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to further reduce the proposed general patient charge amount from $25.00 to $20.00. The amendment will increase expenditure to subsidise the cost of medicines above the general patient charge amount. The amendment would therefore increase the amount of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account.

As the effect of this amendment is to increase payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account, it will increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 or in certain circumstances the standing appropriation in section 18 of the Medicare Guarantee Act 2017.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under a standing appropriation, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

The amendment calls for the proposed general patient charge amount of $25 to be reduced to $20. The Pharmacy Guild advocated to reduce it to $19 for it to truly be effective for Australians who are struggling to put food on the table and pay for their medications. This would massively help them with affordability and the cost-of-living crisis.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Payman. We reiterate the point that, thanks to Labor's plan, the maximum amount a general patient pays will be $25 per prescription plus any applicable premiums. We consider that it provides immediate cost-of-living relief to patients without a concession card, but the important thing is that it will also ensure that the PBS remains sustainable. These are some of the things that parties of government need to give consideration to because we need to ensure that the PBS operates in a way that allows us to continue to list new medicines; allows us to continue, as a government, to make investments in other essential services like bulk-billing; and allows us to ensure that we have a competitive and sustainable pharmaceutical market.

I should add, Senator Payman, that it is also the case that this is the policy that we took to the last election and the policy that the Australian people voted for.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():  I want to put on record the Greens' position in relation to this amendment. We will be supporting this amendment, but the context for that support is one in which our position as a party, which we took to the election, is to actually eliminate co-payments for those with concession cards and to lower the rate for non-concession-card holders to the current concessional rate. We see this amendment, offered to the Senate, as a step closer to the policy position that we advocated for, so we will support it on that basis. I just wanted to make clear what our continued position in relation to this policy in fact is—which is that those on concession cards should not have to pay a co-payment to get their medicines and the rest of the community should have to pay no more than the current concessional rate.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the request for amendment moved by Senator Payman on sheet 3424 be agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have only two questions to go, Minister. You didn't answer the question about whether or not there's an American representative on the pharmaceutical approvals advisory committee. Is there a big pharma representative on it?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Information about the make-up of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is publicly available.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is my last question. Has the government had any discussions on this matter regarding drug pricing and availability with the Trump presidency?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your question is very general. Our government, of course, engages with elements of the US administration on many occasions and for many reasons. I'm not in a position to give you detailed information about every conversation that might have been had at every time, but I can refer you to my earlier answer where I was very clear that the Australian government is keenly aware of the significance of the PBS to Australians and to the Australian public healthcare system. We are deeply committed to preserving it because of its utility over so many decades for all of our people.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. I reiterate what Senator Hanson said, about 15 minutes ago, as to how important the PBS is to the Australian people, and One Nation supports it. We've made it easier for people to access the PBS. I'm just concerned that big pharma is primarily—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, please resume your seat. It being 1.00 pm, the committee will report progress.

Progress reported.