Mr GILES (Scullin) (18:31): I am pleased to make a contribution which is broadly in support of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013, which of course, as other speakers have mentioned, closely resembles a bill introduced by the former government, with one significant exception. The Therapeutic Goods Administration was one of the significant achievements of the Hawke government. It was established under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. The Therapeutic Goods Administration is responsible, of course, for regulating therapeutic goods before they are marketed and monitors products once they are on the market. This includes goods that we rely on every day, such as sunscreens, through to goods used to treat serious conditions—for example, prescription medicines, vaccines, blood products and implants. Labor introduced the Therapeutic Goods Administration because it recognised the need for effective regulation of therapeutic goods that met Australian standards whilst also encouraging therapeutic advances, striking the right balance between these two goals in the interests of consumers. So the act provides a framework for a risk management approach that allows the Australian community to have timely access to therapeutic goods which are consistently safe, effective and of high quality. Essentially, any product for which therapeutic claims are made must be listed, registered or included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods before it can be supplied in Australia. The Therapeutic Goods Administration works with consumers, health professionals, industry and its international counterparts in order to effectively regulate increasingly complex products, often resulting from rapid scientific developments. As the member for Ballarat put it in March last year, the purposes of the original bill—the bill preceding that which we are considering here—was: … to make a number of minor but important changes that will streamline and improve the operation of the regulatory scheme for therapeutic goods under the act. Most of the amendments are of a minor, technical nature, designed to ensure, where appropriate, consistent regulatory treatment of the different types of therapeutic goods including prescription, over-the-counter and complementary medicines, therapeutic devices, biologicals and medical devices. Many of the changes, including a new offence, standardise or replicate existing regulatory requirements so that common regulatory rules and processes apply to all classes of therapeutic goods under the act. Labor continues to support the amendments to the extent that they reflect the amendments as outlined by the member for Ballarat in March 2013. All of these measures are needed to ensure that regulation remains directed at goods that have a link with diagnosing, treating or ameliorating medical conditions or have a relevance to public health more generally. Currently, the definition for therapeutic goods is so wide that it may encompass household items, food and other products for which public health is not or is very unlikely to be at issue. These products may be—and in all cases will be, I would think—more appropriately regulated under general consumer protection or other legislation, particularly having regard to the nature of the penalties under this legislation. So the bill includes a measure designed to ensure consistency in the way that the different classes of therapeutic goods—for example, medicines, medical devices and biologicals—are regulated by allowing the secretary to remove products when requested information is not provided or the presentation of goods is no longer acceptable. Amendments will also enable the Minister for Health to remove, by way of legislative instrument, goods from the definition of 'therapeutic goods' and in turn make them exempt from regulation under this act. This will ensure that only goods which have some impact on public health are regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Amendments will also enable the secretary to remove from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods products which are not, or are no longer, therapeutic goods, for instance because they are food or where therapeutic claims no longer persist in relation to them. Amendments will also provide flexibility in the manner in which various decisions made under the act, such as the cancellation of products from the registers, can be communicated to the general public. These amendments are all consistent with the former government's intention to improve the transparency and the Australian community's understanding of the Therapeutic Goods Administration's regulatory process and decisions and so are to be supported. But, while the bill matches many of the former government's intentions and objectives, forming part of the broader therapeutic goods reform, the bill before us today omits an important measure that was in Labor's original bill, a provision that required the sponsor of therapeutic goods, biologicals and medical devices to provide information about the goods to the public, health professionals or patients and to give the secretary information about persons to whom the therapeutic goods or devices have been supplied. Australians deserve a robust and transparent healthcare system, and they need a regulator that has adequate authority to advise patients, doctors and families alike where there is a potential problem or concern with a particular therapeutic good. The former provision of a new capacity for the secretary to require more information in relation to therapeutic goods or devices where there is a legitimate concern for public health and safety represented a substantial improvement in transparency and oversight and also an opportunity to take sensible action in relation to potentially serious health issues. The other aspect of the original bill, the 2013 legislation, pertained to oversight—namely, information being provided to the Secretary of the Department of Health about persons to whom therapeutic goods or devices have been supplied. Oversight is, of course, an important part of any regulatory regime. In this instance, getting the sponsors of these products to advise the secretary about who they sold their products to does not seem particularly onerous. If there were to be any issue with a therapeutic product or device, surely it would be worthwhile and consistent with the broader public policy objectives of the legislation to know how widespread the dissemination of the product or device was. The rationale underpinning the original bill and the amendments to the current bill proposed by the member for Fremantle are driven by a desire for public information improvement that health sector advocates and individuals sought for quite some time. It is difficult to understand why the government would choose to keep the public in the dark, including as part of the debate in this place. This obsession with secrecy all sounds eerily familiar to those of us here as once again, as in other areas of governance, given a choice between transparency and accountability on the one hand and secrecy or just silence on the other, this government always takes the latter choice. Maintaining secrecy in relation to health concerns is not cutting red tape. This bill and its amendments should be concerned with better health outcomes for all Australians based on them being able to make informed choices, a principle that I am sure the parliamentary secretary is supportive of. The amendments proposed by the member for Fremantle address these concerns regarding properly informing the public, health consumers, consumers of therapeutic goods and devices, by making the proposed insertions after paragraph 30HA(2)(b) and at the end of subsection 32HA(2) and also insertions in respect of paragraph 30EA(2)(b) and EA(2). I urge the government to adopt, in full, the opposition's amendments to this bill, which are entirely consistent with the worthy policy objectives underpinning the legislation.