Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (18:49): Likewise, I rise to support the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No.1) Bill 2013. Some sensible provisions are contained in this bill to amend the legislation so that it does not in an unintended way catch a lot of products that are being marketed as beneficial to health. It would be quite absurd for us to seek to have the TGA deliberate on jewellery, bedding or even clothing because those products are being marketed as health products. Obviously, there is the need for some honesty in consumer communication, but that is better dealt with by consumer protection legislation than it is by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which deals with products that are very much within the medical sphere. We support that. Concern has been raised by Labor about the removal of the provisions that require persons who may be affected by a product whose registration has been cancelled to be contacted. We do not believe that there has been a coherent argument put forward to justify the removal of the provisions that would require the TGA to make sure that people who are affected by these therapeutic goods that have been removed from the register—that have been deemed to be no longer acceptable—are contacted. We believe that the provisions that change the obligation of the TGA to contact those persons has not been supported. That has been set out in this place by the member for Fremantle. I want to use this opportunity to express my concern about some other aspects of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. My concern is that we are seeing some poor-quality results. I would like us to perhaps have a more rigorous regime than we have now. In particular, it reflects a concern that I have—and, no doubt, it is shared by many people—about the impact and influence of big business and, in particular, big pharma. Being a relatively new member of parliament, I have been quite surprised at seeing the number of events that are organised to deal with pharmaceuticals—promotional events by pharmaceutical companies or interest groups that are associated with the promotion of a particular medicine or treatment. I am not convinced that we really have our settings right. I have raised concerns about the product Strattera, which was an Eli Lilly brand-name for atomoxetine. This product was originally developed in the 1980s as an antidepressant. It was found to be ineffective, but in the early 2000s it popped up with a new use as an alternative medication for ADHD. It was presented as a non-stimulant suitable for treating people with ADHD, who were not suitable candidates or there were sufficient contraindications for them to be treated with non-stimulants. This drug was promoted by the company as a treatment for the disorganisation disorder—if we can use that term—known as ADHD. While the drug would treat ADHD it would also stop the trade in stimulants that we know is one of the problematic side effects of the widespread prescription of stimulant drugs, which then enter the broader market and in particular the school market. Many schoolkids get their gateway drugs from these prescribed drugs being sold in school playgrounds. This drug was presented as being great, because it was not a stimulant. Various concerns were raised by the American Food and Drug Administration, but when the drug was considered in Australia for this purpose, there were concerns about the process that had appeared to be acceptable. Two studies were presented. There were 18 medical people involved in the preparation of the first study. It turned out that all 18 were either actively on the payroll of the drug company or had previously been on the payroll of the drug company. How that study could have been considered to be an objective report is very puzzling. We have seen this problem with drugs in the ADHD area, where there has been a great deal of evidence—not just for this drug, but for other drugs—of vested interests in the studies into their effectiveness. The question is whether the companies can control the evidence, as they are not required to present all reports. It is important that the trials conducted into this drug's former use as an antidepressant should have been examined, as the trials were not just into the effectiveness of this drug to control a condition but also into the side effects of the drug. The company argued it was irrelevant to consider the work done on the assessment of the drug as an antidepressant, because it was dealing with a different cohort of people. However, the dangers presented by this drug in relation to its potential—putting aside the psychotropic problems—to cause liver damage and a range of other physical side effects will not vary greatly between the two target populations. There is a very important principle here, and I am not confident about how it is dealt with on the basis of the way this drug has been treated. I am not convinced that we are rigorously testing the side effects of these drugs. There have been more and more reports—and they are voluntary reports, because there is no compulsory reporting—of a range of alarming side effects. These side effects are not just psychotropic but also physiological side effects. If a drug is for treating a life-threatening illness, like cancer, one would weigh the side effects quite differently. But, when the disorder really focuses on a child's inattention or the difficulty a child might have in getting itself organised, I think the fact that you are finding these side effects must be weighed much more heavily, because the mischief that is sought to be relieved is probably not worth the risk that we are seeing. I am extremely alarmed that there does not seem to be a process for systematic review of the drugs in light of subsequent findings. Finally, after quite some time, we have now had the TGA make a public warning about some of the impacts: clinically significant increases in heart rate and blood pressure, suicide ideation and even attempted suicidal behaviour that has been created by this drug. As I said, I would have thought that, given we are not dealing with a life-threatening condition, this should be an occasion where we go back to the drawing board, review the benefits that we are getting out of this drug, weigh those against these very significant side effects and ask the drug company to produce some better longitudinal studies that are not performed by people who are on the company payroll. There is obviously an enormous amount of money within this industry and they have enormous influence. I find their lobbying abilities and their funding of consumer groups to advance the particular cause of their drug very worrying, and I believe they are quite distorting of the whole process and the protection regime that we have sought to put in place with the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. So, whilst I support this legislation, I think that we have cause for concern about some aspects of the TGA.