PRIME MINISTER:
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this joint news conference, myself and the Minister for Health, I'm delighted to announce that as a result of some very effective negotiation between the Minister for Health and CSL Limited and assisted very ably in a very professional manner by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, arrangements have been concluded so that the vaccine Gardasil will be available for a nationwide vaccination campaign commencing next year.
There are three elements to the proposal. There will be an annual school vaccination program commencing, we hope, depending on the measure of co-operation by the states, in about April of next year for girls 12 to 13 years. There will be a catch-up program for girls between 13 and 18 years through the schools and for women 18 to 26 the vaccine will be available for two years through general practitioners.
Now this represents an excellent outcome so that this remarkable Australian drug can be made widely and cheaply available to Australian women. It's a wonderful breakthrough treating cervical cancer or providing protection against cervical cancer and I want to congratulate the Minister who's done a really first class job. Not only have we reached this outstanding agreement, but in the course of the negotiation, greater value for the Commonwealth dollar has been obtained. The total cost is estimated to be $436 million between 2006-07 to 2009-10. The original price I understand was in the order of about $600 million and Mr Abbott said at the time that anxious though we were to have the vaccination program start immediately or as soon as possible, we had an obligation to make sure that we got value for money and the Minister has achieved that and I want to congratulate him and congratulate him and his department and he may want to say a few things about it, but I think this is really a great example of how the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme works to the benefit of all Australians.
MINISTER ABBOTT:
Thanks very much PM. Yes, I think this is a great day for Australian women because cervical cancer kills about 270 Australian women a year. This new vaccine can prevent the Human Papilloma Virus which causes about 70 per cent of these cancers and it's great that thanks to the good work of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and my department we can now put it on the national immunisation program. I guess I'd really want to make two fundamental points. The first is that it will still be necessary for vaccinated women to be screened regularly so people shouldn't think that pap smears are no longer necessary just because they have this vaccination and the second is that ordinary PBAC processes have been respected. There was an expedited consideration of this particular application because it was necessary to do this in order to have an immunisation program through the schools next year. But they're two important points that I think ought to be made, that pap smears will still be necessary and that the PBAC's processes have been respected here.
JOURNALIST:
Does the intervention, political intervention, mean that you've played into CSL's hands, that you actually weren't able to get the best price, rather than leaving the PBAC to do its work as it was?
MINISTER ABBOTT:
I think that we have had a very, very good negotiating process with CSL and they have offered us a significantly lower price with some important ongoing concessions. So I think that this has been a good process. It demonstrates that the cost effectiveness methodology that the PBAC applies can work and can work in the right circumstances very expeditiously.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Abbott, you said a couple of weeks ago that you wouldn't be rushing out to pay for your own daughters to be vaccinated against this. Would you now obviously participate in the program? And secondly, do you think parents would still, some find it a little confrontational in terms of a vaccination program for a disease that can become more of a risk when girls become sexually active? Do you think some parents may feel uncomfortable or confronted by that?
MINISTER ABBOTT:
First of all, I will be very pleased to have my own daughters vaccinated under this program. We put vaccines on the national immunisation program because we believe it is essential for the relevant population to be vaccinated. If they're not on the national immunisation program, almost by definition, it's not essential for them to be vaccinated. If they are on the program it is essential, that's why I think the test as to whether we should be vaccinated is the presence of a vaccine on the immunisation program which is run by the experts. So that's the first point, the second point I make is that anyone who is sexually active is potentially exposed to the HPV virus and at some point in their lives, almost every woman is going to be sexually active. So I don't think we're making any particular values judgement or morals judgement about what people should and shouldn't, should or shouldn't do in their life. We're just making the practical assumption that just about every woman is going to be sexually active and therefore this protection should be extended to everyone.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Abbott, you received about a 25 per cent price cut. The PBAC has expressed doubts about the certainty of the long lasting nature of this vaccine. Was this a trade-off that because of this uncertainly you were able to get the price cut?
MINISTER ABBOTT:
Look I don't want to go into the full details of the exact price under the exact circumstances because it's commercial-in-confidence and pharmaceutical companies are obviously sensitive about just what deals they do with particular governments, but certainly if there is the need for booster shots that has been appropriately acknowledged by the company.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, do you agree with Sharan Burrow that it's obscene for the Commonwealth Bank, which has made a $4 billion profit, to now be stripping away workers' entitlements back to the minimum five conditions under your workplace relations legislation or is that fair game under the new IR laws?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I am told that that allegation's wrong. I'm told that workplace agreements of this nature have been in existence since 1997. I'm told that the AWA example used in the media this morning has a significant increase in the base rate of pay of 13 per cent, with the potential to earn up to 10 per cent in performance bonuses in 12 months. The AWA I'm told does buyout several award conditions but on...in circumstances that I've described - and this has occurred since AWAs were introduced by the Commonwealth Bank in 1997 - in other words Sharan Burrow is once again engaging in a beat up. There is one new element in the AWA that I'm aware of, and it makes changes to the hours of work provisions to increase the ability to provide customer needs - including opening branches on the weekends - and I'm sure there are customers of the Commonwealth Bank all around Australia who will applaud the greater flexibility that these things provide. What I'm saying in reply to the unions is that on the information available to me, this does not represent stripping back to minimum conditions. Indeed there is provision for increases in the base rate of pay and in that sense the buying out of conditions mirrors what has occurred since 1997. So I suggest that Sharan Burrow may be leading the Australian public a merry dance once again.
JOURNALIST:
What do you say to those workers though who may not want to work weekends because they see it as an intrusion on their family life?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I'm also told...I thought you might ask that, that new and existing staff can choose to remain on the collective agreement, and the award, if they choose not to sign an AWA. We need flexibility and this will provide flexibility and freedom. They are good words and they're good concepts and this is what the new industrial relations system provides and we have to worry about the customers and the customers are entitled to a greater range of services and this is what the bank is wanting to provide. Now somebody else is asking me a question, Mr Parry?
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister will you be insisting that members of the Coalition who have shares in AWB exempt themselves from discussions or any vote about.....
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't think there's an obligation to exempt yourself from the discussion. I think there are loose rules, or there's a loose understanding that when you participate in a parliamentary debate, and you've got shares in a company that is being discussed, that you ought to declare that. That is something that I would encourage, but that applies to all members on all issues. It's just not restricted to Coalition members in a discussion on AWB - and there may even be one or two members of the Labor Party who've got shares in AWB - I know they don't have many rural members.....
JOURNALIST:
But the decision really is driven from the joint party room, isn't it? Of single desk, whether it stays or not?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the proper processes of disclosure will occur in the Cabinet and I will invite people who've got shares in AWB during the discussion on our recommendation to declare whether or not they have shares, I will, yes.
JOURNALIST:
What's your reaction to AWB's announcement this morning....
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I've only just had a look at it, just before I came to this news conference, but it doesn't alter the view I expressed to the joint party room yesterday, and that is that the world cannot remain the same as a result of the Cole inquiry. Now I don't want to say much more than that because we are at the moment looking at how we respond. I've told my colleagues in the joint party room that we will take back a Government proposal to the meeting next week, a proposal about the way forward, but plainly the status quo can't remain.
JOURNALIST:
What options are you exploring Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
A whole range of options.
JOURNALIST:
But do you agree that the days of the single desk are numbered?
PRIME MINISTER:
What I agree with is the proposition that I've just repeated. And that is that given the Cole inquiry and everything that surrounds it, the status quo cannot remain.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Michelle, I've given you the answer, that's what I'm saying on the subject. We're going to have a discussion, there's a range of views inside the Government. It's quite an important issue and any changed arrangements have to be ones that work and have wide acceptability amongst Australian wheat growers. Our main concern is to protect the interests of Australian wheat growers and I'm determined that whatever arrangement comes out of the discussion will protect the interests of Australian wheat growers.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister you also said that you didn't want to be in a position of giving up the single desk without getting some sort of quid pro quo, can you just explain that a little bit more in terms of the context of the debate, in terms of trade negotiations?
PRIME MINISTER:
As a broad proposition, a unilateral move totally away from the present situation without something being given in return would be foolish. But I'm not going to go into any more details other than to state the general proposition.
JOURNALIST:
Have you reached a final decision Mr Howard in relation to the cloning debate which starts tomorrow?
PRIME MINISTER:
No. I'll tell the Parliament what I'm....before I vote I'll tell the Parliament what my position is. I haven't really had my mind on that issue over the last week and I've got a couple of things to deal with over the next few days. I'm going to Malaysia this afternoon for a very important bilateral visit in the interests of a relationship that has strengthened at a government level greatly over the last few years. But I'm thinking about the matter and I will give a considered view to the parliament when I make a contribution and I will listen to the contribution of others including the contribution made by my esteemed colleague on the left me...on the left of me you know geographically speaking.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon? I can't hear you.
JOURNALIST:
I just wondered if the therapeutic cloning bill is passed, how Mr Abbott will feel as the Health Minister having to implement any legislation that gives effect to allowing therapeutic cloning.
MINISTER ABBOTT:
As a Government minister, my duty is to discharge the laws of the Commonwealth and if that's what I have to do as a minister, that's what I do. As a private citizen, I have all sorts of views and because this is conscience vote, I'll be expressing my views as a citizen in the course of the debate.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister what's your view about the kind of language that Government members have been using in their interactions with each other in recent days, I am thinking of some altercations in the...
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not privy to everything my colleagues say to each other, thank heavens.
JOURNALIST:
But Mr Tuckey this morning all but accused the Nationals of corruption and that they knew about the AWB corruption, are you going to have a word to Mr Tuckey about his views and his vitriol?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I heard that interview, I thought Mr Tuckey said that he wasn't making any accusations against any members of parliament, but let's make it clear, as I did in the parliament yesterday, I deal with the men and women of the National Party on a regular basis, they are people with impeccable reputations, they are men and women of great integrity. My colleagues in the National Party are as appalled at the revelations of the Cole inquiry as I am and that's been my experience all along and it remains my experience. This is an issue that arouses passions within both parties and I think the people who feel strongly enough and sides of the debate should just calm down and just make sure that their remarks are directed down the path of policy difference but it must be getting to the end of the year mustn't it and some people are getting are getting a little bit overwrought and they should just calm down.
JOURNALIST:
Is free trade on the agenda in Malaysia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Free-er trade. I think it is unrealistic to imagine that we are ever going to have total free trade, but Australia's trade relationship with Malaysia will be discussed, we are having lengthy discussions about the concept of a free trade agreement, but I don't expect that those discussions will come to finality over the next 24 hours. The real importance of this visit is that firstly it is a courtesy response to the visit of the Prime Minister of Malaysia Abdullah Badawi paid to Australia last year, but it's also a reinforcement of the way in which in the relationship has recovered and recuperated since the change of leadership in Malaysia. Dr Badawi is a good friend of Australia's he's a very good man to deal with, he's friendly and affable and he's concerned about the quality of the bilateral relationship at a head of government level. It's always been one of those relationships that despite the static at a head of government level and the older stagers amongst you will recall that that was true under the former government as it's occasionally been under this government. Despite the static at the head of government level, underneath, largely due to the wonderful legacy of the Colombo plan, there's always been a terrific network of relations and I don't think there's a country in the world that in percentage terms has a larger alumni from Australian universities than does Malaysia, it's one of those really valuable things that you look back on and say 'gee didn't we get that right all those years ago'.
JOURNALIST:
Just clarifying on AWB, can we take it from your comments earlier that the announcement out of Melbourne this morning has not satisfied your concerns?
PRIME MINISTER:
You can take it from what I've said that in the light of the Cole inquiry, the status quo cannot remain. I haven't analysed the statement out of Melbourne, but nothing is going to alter my view that the status quo cannot remain. Now what replaces the status quo is something that we need to discuss and we'll be doing that at a Cabinet level and putting a proposition to the Government parties next week. Now that's the sensible way of doing it, that's due process, it's an orderly way of doing it and in the meantime people can go on expressing their views, provided they do so with proper and decorous communication.
JOURNALIST:
Next year's election...
PRIME MINISTER:
Next year's election?
JOURNALIST:
Who would you rather face Kim Beazley or Kevin Rudd?
PRIME MINISTER:
I am not saying anything about those matters, I have always taken the view that when issues of leadership arise on one side of politics when those on the other side start making comments, those comments always sound self-serving, and I am not going to make any comment.
JOURNALIST:
It doesn't stop you colleagues though from raising these issues as they've done all this week from the floor?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I was asked a question, I mean I am in a different position from my colleagues. I don't run, you know, a gulag, I try to lead a political party, and therefore I accept the fact that different people are going to react to these things differently. But speaking for myself, I am not going to make comment on the leadership issue inside the Labor Party. And the reason for that is that I always think to the public it sounds incredibly self-serving and I don't think it advances my interests or those of the party I lead, I am just getting on with the job. I mean here we are, we are announcing an incredibly important step forward for the health of Australian women. Now this is government for the Australian people and in the interests of the Australian people and that's what I am trying to do and I think the Australian people want to hear from me and my ministers on those matters, they are not really all that respectful of views that I might express on the Labor Party leadership, they would think well he, you know 'what's his angle in saying that?' I think they're understandable views and I'm not going to depart.
JOURNALIST:
Do you still hold the view that you could beat Mr Beazley a third time as you expressed in Athens in 2005
PRIME MINISTER:
We are in Canberra and not in Athens.
Thank you.
[ends]