Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (12:33 PM) —I rise to support the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 and the second reading amendment moved by the member for Bruce. This is an important issue which has certainly caught the attention of the public and, in particular, the consumers of those pharmaceutical goods that have been under question for some time. I welcome some of the provisions of the bill that will penalise those manufacturers and suppliers who are found to be in fundamental breach of their obligations under the law with respect to these goods. I welcome the fact that fines for individuals will be increased to up to $220,000 and fines for companies will be increased to up to $1.1 million. I am also of the view that jail sentences may need to be applied to individuals who act in such an improper and criminal way as that which appears to have been the case with those in Pan Pharmaceuticals.

This issue has raised enormous concerns in my electorate, and I am sure that it has been no different in other electorates across Australia. Many people, particularly consumers, have been concerned and have raised their concerns with me and others. Indeed, concerns have been expressed by suppliers who will be adversely affected as a result of the complete failure of this rogue company to properly administer its business.

The provisions introduced by the government in this bill are acceptable. One provision which I should touch upon is the announcement of the establishment of an expert committee, which has also been welcomed by the opposition, although we would have liked to have seen the composition and the terms of reference of the committee to ensure that that committee will be vigilant in the way in which it oversees these matters. However, it is very important to add that the bill still does not sufficiently address the types of problems that arose in what every Australian knows was the largest recall crisis in our history. It is fair to say that many of the problems that have arisen were foreseeable and, in fact, should have been attended to a lot earlier by this government.

This is another example of this government acting after the horse has well and truly bolted. As already indicated by the shadow minister, the member for Bruce, this bill in its original form would still not be before the House—it would still be on the backburner—had it not been for the actions and conduct of Pan Pharmaceuticals. It is a worrying fact that the agenda of this government seems to be constantly delayed by the government putting as its priority in this place bills that seek to divide the country or to distract the community from important issues.

It has taken a recall crisis in this country for the government to act. It should be condemned for its failure in that regard. It also exemplifies the government's natural inclination against regulation. It has an enmity towards regulation other than self-regulation. It has an ideological inclination towards archaic laissez-faire forms of conduct in this country. That is something that this government needs to start to redress. It needs to consider that self-regulation of itself is not something that will be effective in many areas.

There is no more important area in this country than the public health system. I include in that the pharmaceutical industry, which provides medicines to the community. If the government cannot understand that in areas of health, as in other areas, it needs to look at proper regulation—regulation independent from industry—then we have a serious problem. The Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2002 does go some way to rectifying some of the problems but it fails to go the whole way. But that is not surprising.

The TGA should not be condemned so much as perhaps sympathised with, as clearly there are not sufficient resources in that administration to provide the necessary regulatory oversight that it should be able to use in this area. The government has failed to properly provide resources for the TGA. The TGA has perhaps failed, but in the end the government has to be accountable for some of the failures of the TGA.

Clearly, one of the things that has been raised in this debate has been the fact that the TGA sought to defer any prosecution against Pan Pharmaceuticals because it wanted to have nine critical breaches. Those breaches included: the manipulation of data; the deliberate substitution of products; deficient raw material and product controls; not being able to identify the source of raw materials; failure to clean equipment; unsatisfactory mechanisms, particularly with respect to documentation and compliance with such documentation. Each and every one of these breaches should be sufficient for a regulatory body to take issue with a company that may be in breach. It should not take nine separate, distinct breaches of law for a government body to act in order to ensure that a company supplying and manufacturing medicines is brought to account.

It seems to me that the regulator, whether in conjunction with the minister or not, has failed to act in the public interest to protect the consumer in order to collect, it would appear, more breaches than it had already discovered. In effect, it gambled on consumers' health in order to ensure that it found further breaches before it actually moved. If the government regulator has delayed prosecuting Pan Pharmaceuticals for this reason, then it clearly is failing the public and is failing consumers of pharmaceuticals. If indeed it failed to act because the company has a reputation for being litigious, then again it has failed to act in the public interest. Government regulators, particularly, I would argue, in relation to matters concerning public health, must err on the side of protecting the consumer first and not the manufacturer or supplier of goods and services.

As I said, this government has become, however, very defensive about its failure to regulate. It fails to regulate directors' bonuses, even when they are paid to company directors who are overseeing failing companies. It has failed to regulate in these areas. It has failed to regulate in areas where the community is crying out for some regulation. This failure to regulate does not seem to apply, however, to the lowest paid. During the last sitting, it managed to regulate the wages of the lowest paid in our community and it seems to forever invent ways to apply prescriptive laws to those `awful' organisations, trade unions. But, generally speaking, it regards regulation as an anathema—as something it has to get itself out of if it wants to protect the consumer in these important areas.

I did not have a particular interest in this area. I suppose I have come late to the debate in some respects. But I have had so many calls and conversations in recent weeks with both small businesses in my electorate and consumers who were concerned that I thought it was critical to involve myself in debate on this bill. I will refer to a number of local businesses that have raised concerns with me about the way the recall will affect not only them but their customers, my constituents. Herb and Sandra Tindall from the Healthy Shack in Sunbury have had to remove, as have many businesses, many products from their shelves. That has affected their business. They believe that their customers will remain loyal to them because they provide a good business, but it will certainly mean a shortfall in their profits and it may have an effect that will go beyond the next few months. Indeed, Herb Tindall indicated that he believed that there would be a major effect on the business and that it would possibly lead to long-term insecurity if the saga continued.

The staff at the Woodend pharmacy indicated in the Sunbury Macedon Ranges Leader that:

... many people, particularly older residents, had brought in non-prescription medication, which they had been taking for months, to see if it was safe.

So there was some confusion. Having spoken to some of the pharmacists and natural health store proprietors, I think they are doing a very good job of ensuring that fears are allayed wherever possible and that people are properly dealt with, despite the anxiety that this recall crisis has caused. Natural Health Sunbury owner Charles Gaal said, also in the Sunbury Macedon Ranges Leader, that:

... up to 30 per cent of his shelves were empty, and the customers he had seen this week had all returned, not bought, goods.

Earlier the member for Bonython mentioned some other issues about alternative health care that will have to be considered in the longer term. I think that is for another time. However, I think it is important that he introduced the issues of the efficacy and integrity of the alternative health-care system into this place. Indeed, many people rely upon these products, and I think it is important that they be provided with some guarantee that the products are beneficial and there for their use.

I spoke to Charles Gaal this morning to find out how his business was going since his comments in the local media. He indicated to me that there is more control and a little more certainty now. However, he said that many of his customers are looking to be reimbursed but have had to provide receipts for reimbursement. Unfortunately, not everyone has kept receipts, so there is an issue there. I understand that the main suppliers have allowed the replacement of alternative medicines. So, if someone were to have the product but not the receipt, they could swap the product with one that was not on the list of recalled products. Again, this has not always been satisfactory, but I suppose it goes some way to ensuring that, in this debacle, the consumer is not adversely affected by what has gone on.

I think it is important to indicate to the government that, if they want to make sure that these things do not happen again—whether in this area or in other areas of public health—they really have to focus on the need to properly regulate. They need to ensure that regulation is vigilant and that there is sufficient funding to ensure a continuous review and proper regulation of this area and other areas.

The member for Bruce indicated that there is a Complementary Healthcare Consultative Forum, which met on five occasions prior to the last election. Its job is to facilitate consultation, and examine complementary health-care research needs, regulation, quality, safety, auditing of manufacturing processes, recall procedures and so on. But there has now been a failure of this forum to meet for all of this term—almost two years—and I think the government has to look at that. If it is going to have another committee—this time a committee of experts—let us hope that they are, firstly, experts and that they are there to serve the interests of the consumer, not the government. Let us assume for a moment that we do have a committee of experts. That committee must be properly funded and resourced and it must have the proper expertise. Also, it must meet—unlike the health-care forum which, as I understand it, has not met for just under two years now.

There is no point placing committees in legislation—or enacting provisions to enable prosecution against companies that are in breach and have placed the community's health at risk—if the government do not enforce the provisions and if the prosecuting bodies are too timid to prosecute companies or are not sufficiently funded to engage in big legal battles. So, along with the goodwill and the sensible provisions proposed by the government, I think there has to be a greater understanding of the need to provide resources and not wilt under the pressure of companies or be fearful about taking companies on. I know people think that big business is a friend of the Liberal government—and I am sure that many big businesses would say that they were—but I think that the government have to take on big business when it hurts the consumer. That applies whether it hurts working people and families or the consumer of its products. The government have to be brave and honest enough to represent the interests of the community against the self-interest of a rogue company.

I conclude by saying that I do support the provisions. I do not think they go far enough, and that is why I also support the amendment proposed by the member for Bruce. I think that the government should learn from this disaster. They are at the helm and they have to take some responsibility. I have not heard one utterance of responsibility to date. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it. This bill goes some way, if not all the way, towards rectifying some of the problems. I hope that the government can ensure that, along with the provisions, they provide the wherewithal for the regulatory bodies to enforce the provisions. I support the bill and the amendment moved by the member for Bruce.