All changes made to the description and title of this
division.
View division
|
Edit description
| Change |
Division |
|
representatives vote 2014-02-11#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-10-09 15:29:56
|
Title
Description
The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-02-11.88.2) introduced by [Melissa Parke](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Melissa_Parke&mpc=Fremantle&house=representatives).Ms Parke explains that her amendment would have expanded the scope of the [Therapeutic Goods Administration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration)'s oversight and protective function in relation to three categories:- therapeutic goods;- biologicals, i.e. a product involving human cells or human tissue; and- medical devices.(Read Ms Parke's full explanation and the related debates [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-02-11.88.1).)Because the majority voted against the amendment, it was unsuccessful._Background to the bill_The bill was introduced to to strengthen regulation and improve the operation of the _Therapeutic Goods Act 1989_.(Read more about the regulation of therapeutic goods more generally [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_therapeutic_goods). ) For example, the bill:- enables the minister to specify products that are taken not to be therapeutic goods;- enables the secretary to remove products that are not therapeutic goods from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; and- The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-02-11.88.2) introduced by [Melissa Parke](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Melissa_Parke&mpc=Fremantle&house=representatives).
- Ms Parke explains that her amendment would have expanded the scope of the [Therapeutic Goods Administration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration)'s oversight and protective function in relation to three categories:
- - therapeutic goods;
- - biologicals, i.e. a product involving human cells or human tissue; and
- - medical devices.(Read Ms Parke's full explanation and the related debates [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-02-11.88.1).)
- Because the majority voted against the amendment, it was unsuccessful.
- _Background to the bill_
- The bill was introduced to to strengthen regulation and improve the operation of the _Therapeutic Goods Act 1989_.(Read more about the regulation of therapeutic goods more generally [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_therapeutic_goods). ) For example, the bill:
- - enables the minister to specify products that are taken not to be therapeutic goods;
- - enables the secretary to remove products that are not therapeutic goods from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; and
- - clarifies the secretary’s powers to approve product information for medicines accepted for registration in the register.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd042). See [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5156) to read a summary of what the bill does and its explanatory memorandum.)
|
|
representatives vote 2014-02-11#2
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:21:35
|
Title
Description
The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-02-11.88.2 amendment] introduced by [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Melissa_Parke&mpc=Fremantle&house=representatives Melissa Parke].Ms Parke explains that her amendment would have expanded the scope of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]'s oversight and protective function in relation to three categories:* therapeutic goods; * biologicals, i.e. a product involving human cells or human tissue; and* medical devices.(Read Ms Parke's full explanation and the related debates [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-02-11.88.1 here].
)Because the majority voted against the amendment, it was unsuccessful.''Background to the bill''The bill was introduced to to strengthen regulation and improve the operation of the ''Therapeutic Goods Act 1989''.(Read more about the regulation of therapeutic goods more generally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_therapeutic_goods here].
) For example, the bill:* enables the minister to specify products that are taken not to be therapeutic goods; * enables the secretary to remove products that are not therapeutic goods from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; and * clarifies the secretary’s powers to approve product information for medicines accepted for registration in the register.(Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd042 bills digest]. See [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5156 here] to read a summary of what the bill does and its explanatory memorandum.)- The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-02-11.88.2) introduced by [Melissa Parke](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Melissa_Parke&mpc=Fremantle&house=representatives).
- Ms Parke explains that her amendment would have expanded the scope of the [Therapeutic Goods Administration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration)'s oversight and protective function in relation to three categories:
- - therapeutic goods;
- - biologicals, i.e. a product involving human cells or human tissue; and
- - medical devices.(Read Ms Parke's full explanation and the related debates [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-02-11.88.1).
- )
- Because the majority voted against the amendment, it was unsuccessful.
- _Background to the bill_
- The bill was introduced to to strengthen regulation and improve the operation of the _Therapeutic Goods Act 1989_.(Read more about the regulation of therapeutic goods more generally [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_therapeutic_goods). ) For example, the bill:
- - enables the minister to specify products that are taken not to be therapeutic goods;
- - enables the secretary to remove products that are not therapeutic goods from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; and
- - clarifies the secretary’s powers to approve product information for medicines accepted for registration in the register.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd042). See [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5156) to read a summary of what the bill does and its explanatory memorandum.)
|
|
representatives vote 2014-02-11#2
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:57
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-02-11.88.2 amendment] introduced by [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Melissa_Parke&mpc=Fremantle&house=representatives Melissa Parke].
- Ms Parke explains that her amendment would have expanded the scope of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]'s oversight and protective function in relation to three categories:
- * therapeutic goods;
- * biologicals, i.e. a product involving human cells or human tissue; and
* medical devices.[1]- * medical devices.(Read Ms Parke's full explanation and the related debates [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-02-11.88.1 here].
)
- Because the majority voted against the amendment, it was unsuccessful.
- ''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to to strengthen regulation and improve the operation of the ''Therapeutic Goods Act 1989''.[2] For example, the bill:- The bill was introduced to to strengthen regulation and improve the operation of the ''Therapeutic Goods Act 1989''.(Read more about the regulation of therapeutic goods more generally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_therapeutic_goods here].
) For example, the bill:
- * enables the minister to specify products that are taken not to be therapeutic goods;
- * enables the secretary to remove products that are not therapeutic goods from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; and
* clarifies the secretary’s powers to approve product information for medicines accepted for registration in the register.[3]''References''* [1] Read Ms Parke's full explanation and the related debates [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-02-11.88.1 here].* [2] Read more about the regulation of therapeutic goods more generally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_therapeutic_goods here].* [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd042 bills digest]. See [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5156 here] to read a summary of what the bill does and its explanatory memorandum.- * clarifies the secretary’s powers to approve product information for medicines accepted for registration in the register.(Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd042 bills digest]. See [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5156 here] to read a summary of what the bill does and its explanatory memorandum.)
|
|
representatives vote 2014-02-11#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-05-23 12:53:13
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-02-11.88.2 amendment] introduced by [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Melissa_Parke&mpc=Fremantle&house=representatives Melissa Parke].
- Ms Parke explains that her amendment would have expanded the scope of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]'s oversight and protective function in relation to three categories:
- * therapeutic goods;
- * biologicals, i.e. a product involving human cells or human tissue; and
- * medical devices.[1]
- Because the majority voted against the amendment, it was unsuccessful.
- ''Background to the bill''
- The bill was introduced to to strengthen regulation and improve the operation of the ''Therapeutic Goods Act 1989''.[2] For example, the bill:
- * enables the minister to specify products that are taken not to be therapeutic goods;
- * enables the secretary to remove products that are not therapeutic goods from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; and
- * clarifies the secretary’s powers to approve product information for medicines accepted for registration in the register.[3]
References- ''References''
- * [1] Read Ms Parke's full explanation and the related debates [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-02-11.88.1 here].
- * [2] Read more about the regulation of therapeutic goods more generally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_therapeutic_goods here].
- * [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd042 bills digest]. See [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5156 here] to read a summary of what the bill does and its explanatory memorandum.
|
|
representatives vote 2014-02-11#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-05-23 12:52:15
|
Title
Bills — Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013; Consideration in Detail- Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013 - Consideration in Detail - Scope of TGA's oversight
Description
<p class="speaker">Craig Kelly</p><p>(   In accordance with standing order 133(b), I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier by the honourable member for Fremantle on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Fremantle be agreed to.</p> - The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2014-02-11.88.2 amendment] introduced by [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Melissa_Parke&mpc=Fremantle&house=representatives Melissa Parke].
- Ms Parke explains that her amendment would have expanded the scope of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]'s oversight and protective function in relation to three categories:
- * therapeutic goods;
- * biologicals, i.e. a product involving human cells or human tissue; and
- * medical devices.[1]
- Because the majority voted against the amendment, it was unsuccessful.
- ''Background to the bill''
- The bill was introduced to to strengthen regulation and improve the operation of the ''Therapeutic Goods Act 1989''.[2] For example, the bill:
- * enables the minister to specify products that are taken not to be therapeutic goods;
- * enables the secretary to remove products that are not therapeutic goods from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; and
- * clarifies the secretary’s powers to approve product information for medicines accepted for registration in the register.[3]
- References
- * [1] Read Ms Parke's full explanation and the related debates [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2014-02-11.88.1 here].
- * [2] Read more about the regulation of therapeutic goods more generally [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_therapeutic_goods here].
- * [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1314a/14bd042 bills digest]. See [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5156 here] to read a summary of what the bill does and its explanatory memorandum.
|