John Forrest (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2009 Measures No. 2) Bill 2009. I am standing in for the member for Dickson, the shadow minister for health, who has been urgently called away for another meeting. This bill makes a series of amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. There has been general support for the principles underlying this bill and the coalition supports the bill. The bill amends various technical aspects of the act. It is part of the ongoing reform of the act commenced by the Howard government and to which we have offered our support in opposition. The coalition supports ongoing streamlining and improvements of the regulatory processes surrounding the Therapeutic Goods Act. This is one of the important pillars of our healthcare system.

The most important aspect of this bill is the separation of the scheduling of medicines and poisons. Presently, medicines and poisons are scheduled jointly by a single committee, the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee. The separation of scheduling for medicines and poisons has long been proposed and the coalition acknowledges the proposals put forward by the 2001 Galbally review and the 2008 Productivity Commission report. In fact, reviews dating as far back as 1954 have recommended that poisons and drugs be scheduled and regulated separately, citing (1) the efficiency gains in splitting up decision-making responsibility between the two areas, (2) the differences in the risk profiles associated with each area and (3) the different decision-making paradigms required. Legislative powers will remain with the states, which have agreed to introduce uniform schedules to implement this legislation.

The bill also gives the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing the power to preclude certain use for medical devices on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Other amendments include provisions for greater consultation with the Gene Technology Regulator on genetically modified organisms, changes to offence provisions and the empowering of the Minister for Health and Ageing to specify advisory statements on specific medicines.

The coalition welcomes the Senate inquiry report from the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, published on 7 August. The committee recommends that this bill be passed. The coalition supports the conclusion reached by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, which in particular calls on the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, and her department:

… to work constructively together through a number of areas where industry raised concerns, and which will be the subject of legislative instruments, including membership and expertise on the Scheduling Committees, chemicals scheduling, appeal and review of decisions by the Secretary, cost recovery and the publication of advisory statements.

The coalition also supports the conclusion by the committee:

… that the government should give a commitment that it will undertake the further consultation as foreshadowed with industry in a renewed sprit of openness and cooperation that will provide meaningful feedback to the proposals, issues and general concerns held by industry to ensure that the new system when fully implemented is supported by all parties and is totally transparent and accountable.

Industry groups have been very critical of the lack of meaningful consultation and feedback from the Department of Health and Ageing so far. I might add here as a general observation that this seems to be a common criticism of the current government’s approach to a whole range of issues, but we will put that matter aside. It is vital that industry has trust and confidence in the regulatory regime surrounding medicines and poisons, and the coalition acknowledges the commitment by the minister to pursue further reform in the coming 12 months. We do call on the government to proactively ensure that industry remains a part of the process of reform. The minister is responsible for ensuring that there is a good culture of consultation across all agencies under her control. It is the opposition’s intention to hold her to that commitment.

Not having had a lot of notice on this particular legislation, I will conclude my remarks by just reinforcing the point about the importance of consult by the government. I regularly receive complaints from industry bodies and commodity groups across my electorate, particularly in regard to agriculture—which is the very backbone of the part of the world that I represent. The complaints are about the government’s lack of willingness to consult, particularly in regard to agriculture but in other portfolios as well.

Whilst the government might have a view that the Mallee division is a very conservative seat, it needs to recognise the important contribution it makes across the board to the nation’s coffers. It contributes significantly to the GDP and no minister should be frightened to come and consult with my people. They will find them very even-handed and with a desire to enhance their own position, with the recognition that the government has been elected but it need not adopt that governing process and leave them out of the consultation loop.

The coalition supports this legislation and I am pleased that I had an opportunity to comment on it.

See this speech in context