Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (18:17): I speak in support, in general terms, of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013, and I support the shadow minister, the member for Fremantle, in her concerns in relation to this. I see that the member for Port Adelaide is here. He and I both served as parliamentary secretaries for health in the previous government and I was involved in this particular debate and this sort of legislation when I was Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing. We support the general thrust of this. The TGA is one of Australia's most important agencies. When I was parliamentary secretary I went out and spoke to the staff here in Canberra. They are dedicated Public Service people who are at the front line of protecting Australia's health system. They have copped all manner of criticism in the past, and there have been TV shows, but I can assure you that, from my discussions with them, I was very satisfied with the transparency, the accountability and the commitment of the people that I saw and met. Certainly in the many discussions I had in relation to the TGA there was a strong and consistent determination to put aside the blemishes of the past and a commitment to make sure that the Australian public got the best health care possible, that therapeutic goods that were on the registry were appropriate and that inaccurate claims should be dealt with under consumer protection legislation. For that reason, in general terms we support the thrust of this legislation. It empowers the minister by legislative instrument. It also gives the secretary of the department the power to exclude things from the register that should not be on the register. It also makes important changes across the board to increase the transparency, the efficacy and the efficiency of the system. But there are things in this bill which have—and we find this amazing—reduced transparency and accountability and the public information that is required, certainly the information that the secretary needs to have about what information has been given to the public: users, patients and medical practitioners. We cannot quite understand whether it is deliberate or carelessness by the coalition in relation to this. But certainly that is an oversight and it seems to be against the whole trend of the blueprint for reform that the TGA has undertaken in the last few years. There have been many reviews, many reforms, but the blueprint from about 2011 has been the guiding light, almost the bible, for the reforms in the TGA. The majority of the amendments in this bill are designed to make sure that we have some consistent regulation in this area. Sponsors of therapeutic goods will benefit from the changes. In the discussions I have had with stakeholders in this space—and, I am sure, in the discussions the assistant minister has had with them—they agreed with the thrust of this type of legislation. Many of the amendments are minor and technical but they involve important health policy issues. I am pleased to say that we support in general terms what this bill is doing. We believe strongly there should be consistent regulatory treatment of therapeutic goods, including over-the-counter and complementary medicines, biological and medical devices, therapeutic devices and prescriptions. We think this is extremely important. It is disappointing the coalition cannot seem to help themselves when it comes to health policy. Although the coalition government have, in the bill today, very closely matched the former Labor government's intention and our objectives, they have omitted an important measure from our original bill, and that omission is the provision that would enable the Secretary of the Department of Health to request additional information on therapeutic goods in relation to certification or when public health is a concern. It is a serious omission because, without this specific power, sponsors of complementary medicines and low-risk medical devices can list their goods in the register, using the electronic listing facility, by certifying as to a range of matters about those goods without pre-screening or assessment by the TGA. So we think this is an important amendment that we are sponsoring. We think it is important that we should do this. We think it improves the transparency and accountability in this space. Our original bill provided that sponsors of therapeutic goods, biologicals and medical devices were compelled to provide that information about goods to the public, health professionals or patients and to give the secretary the information about persons to whom therapeutic goods and devices have been supplied. By this omission, the coalition are leaving Australians in the dark. It is not consistent with a healthy, transparent health care system. I urge them to reconsider their position. As I said, we cannot decide whether this is an oversight or is intended. We think they should reconsider this. The Australian public want the health system that they deserve and they pay for, but we want a regulation that actually provides the requisite power to audit these products and the kind of information that would be available. The amendment that we are putting forward makes sure that that would happen. We believe the Australian public require a regulatory scheme that sees patients, doctors and families provided with the kind of information that would be of potential concern to them if they had a problem with a therapeutic good, and that is the thrust of this amendment. I commend the member for Fremantle for the work she is doing, which is important. The coalition should reconsider its position.