Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The purpose of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 is to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act. Certainly I am not opposing this legislation. In fact, I think it is timely and well overdue for a number of reasons. The amendment allows certain goods on the register to be suspended in certain circumstances—and I will come back to that. It amends the manufacturing licences. It amends monitoring powers to allow the taking of samples of therapeutic goods—and I will also come back to that. It amends arrangements for complementary medicines. It enables the making of lists of permitted and prohibited ingredients in listed medicines, clarifies arrangements for conditions of listing goods and makes some technical corrections to references to reflect changes in terminology.

I make just three very brief points. The first is that I hope this bill reflects some growing interest from the government in the growing desire of community members to explore a range of options in regard to treatment of their own health and wellness. I am noticing at home that, whilst there is certainly a commitment to traditional Western medicines, there is a growing interest and desire to complement those Western techniques with a whole variety of options for personal treatment regarding wellness. Whether they are Eastern medicines, the various complementary medicines or the homeopathic options, a whole range of desires and considerations are becoming more and more prominent. For the government to respond to that—and I hope this bill is part of a response to that—I think is a positive thing in reflecting the needs and wants of the broader community.

I hope this bill also starts to capture the hawking of the snake oil—for want of a better term—that we see far too often in communities such as mine. I am sure that every local member has experienced various products coming into their local communities being sold in various pyramid schemes. One person wins substantially out of the marketing and selling of that product, claiming that it is going to improve the health and wellbeing of everyone in that community, and within a year they are out of town. They might have got a new car, and a lot of people are left with a lot of debt in the community for the longer term. We have experienced that on the mid-North Coast on several occasions. Hopefully, if this bill is reflecting the government wanting to start to capture, monitor and control that process in a better way, and really define the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable as a product on the market, then good work has been done by the government in putting this bill forward.

Thirdly, and probably at the sexier end of the spectrum, in the hawking of product and snake oil, there has been standout debate about various billboards in various communities as to what products can and cannot deliver. Once again, I hope this bill starts to shape some of those debates in a more controlled, managed and sensible way. It might also help in some community advertising standards being reached which reflect the wants and needs of the community better and reflect the wants and needs of government better. There are some pretty confronting billboards. I am no prude, but I think we can do better than having snake oil promoted on billboards, regardless of the product, challenging community standards in the way things are marketed in the marketplace.

I support the bill. I think I am the only speaker on this side, so we can assume the opposition generally supports this bill. I certainly hope this bill, by being put before the House, does the work that is desired and I hope it does what it is trying to achieve.

See this speech in context