Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Regional Communications) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Di Natale. Obviously, the government similarly wants to ensure that when Australians are purchasing products they have the required information to make informed choices. We agree with the Sansom review to that extent. We also recognise, again, that we have a $4 billion export industry in this type of product and we walk that line between recognising traditional medicine and ensuring that Australians' safety is not compromised. We have to recognise that all of these products, all the ingredients in these products, have been approved for consumption, so there is not a safety risk per se. But we have to get the balance right and recognise that for some, particularly those using Chinese medicine, the history of practising in that traditional medicine paradigm goes back thousands of years. It's been extensively refined, practised and documented and in many cases incorporated into mainstream medicine. So a statement required by the Australian government that the indication is not in accordance with modern medical knowledge and that there is no scientific evidence will be seen as arrogant and insensitive to those practising and using traditional Chinese medicines.

The government will not be supporting this amendment by the Australian Greens, because the bill itself introduces a new pathway for products to have evidence assessed and be able to have a positive claim on their label. Hence, consumers will be able to differentiate between ones that have had the evidence assessed and those that have not, and at the end of the day it will be up to the consumer. Overseas experience shows that the suggestions of the Australian Greens will actually be ineffective in practice. The evidence from the United States, where the US Food and Drug Administration has mandated such disclaimers, is that these disclaimers are ineffective in assisting consumers to make more informed choices when self-selecting medicines. So those who want to purchase a certain product, irrespective of the disclaimer made, will still choose to purchase such a product. It won't change behaviour.

Many stakeholders did not support this proposal. We consulted extensively on the bill itself and the stakeholders did not support it. As noted by the review, there is a divergence of views. I know Senator Di Natale went to some submitters, but, equally, the government has assessed the range of submissions across the review and has come to the view that this amendment, and what it seeks to do, goes too far.

Other mandatory statements will be required if we go down this track. The reforms will introduce measures to improve transparency for consumers, including a new mandatory requirement for listed medicine products to identify their evidence base for efficacy. For example, they'll be required to say 'traditionally used in Western herbal medicine' or 'traditionally used in Chinese medicine'. That will be required to be put on the product. So if you want to purchase something that is for traditional use, and you as a consumer understand what you're looking for and why you need it, that will be clear to you. But if you are seeking a different type of product as you shop around for your medicines and health products then you won't be selecting that type of product, or you'll be forced to actually think about whether that's the product you indeed want.

There will be a significant impact on our industry. As I've stated earlier, I think it is offensive and disrespectful to those who practise traditional medicine. It's not consistent with the World Health Organization. We, as a country, have endorsed the World Health Organization position on the role of complementary medicines in the national medicines framework, and this position acknowledges that traditional medicines do have a valid function in modern medicinal frameworks. It's great to recognise diversity, to talk about multiculturalism and to recognise traditional owners, but you also need to understand that cohorts within Australian society have been practising traditional medicines and forms of healing for centuries—for millennia. What we have sought to do is recognise that but also to underpin it with regard to human health and safety, which, obviously, is paramount.

Traditional Chinese medicine practitioners are recognised under the national law governing medical practitioners administered by the Commonwealth and AHPRA. It follows a detailed review by government of which modalities are evidence-based and, therefore, have credibility. We have done a lot of thinking around this and we think we've hit the mark on the types of labels, disclosure and information that will be available to Australian consumers. We've committed to increased compliance activity for listed medicines. I know that Senator Di Natale in his comments made reference to past incidents of concern. We've actually strengthened compliance around that to ensure the health and safety of all Australians as much as possible. So the government will not be supporting the amendment.