Division Description Changes — Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 — In Committee — 9th Feb 2006

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
senate vote 2006-02-09#4 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:21:08	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate Guy Barnett] and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful. These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".(Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm. ) ~~This division was a [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree conscience vote], meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines.~~ ~~''Background to the bill''~~ The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].) The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1) introduced by Senator [Guy Barnett](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate) and Senator [Gary Humphries](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means they were unsuccessful. These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".(Read his full explanation and the related debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2), following 3:46 pm. ) This division was a [conscience vote](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree), meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines. _Background to the bill_ The bill was introduced to amend the [Therapeutic Goods Act 1989](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/) in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [RU486](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486) from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [Therapeutic Goods Administration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration). This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [abortifacients](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients) such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf) (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494).)
senate vote 2006-02-09#4 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:53	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate Guy Barnett] and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful. These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".[1] These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".(Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm. ) This division was a [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree conscience vote], meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines. ''Background to the bill'' The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.[2] ~~''References''~~ * [1] Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm. * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here]. The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].)
senate vote 2006-02-09#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-06-19 15:53:22	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate Guy Barnett] and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful. These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".[1] This division was undertaken as a [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree conscience vote], as demonstrated by the split in Liberal and National Senators with some voting 'aye' and others 'no'. This division was a [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree conscience vote], meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines. ''Background to the bill'' The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.[2] ''References'' * [1] Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm. * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].
senate vote 2006-02-09#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-06-19 15:49:00	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate Guy Barnett] and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful. These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".[1] This division was undertaken as a [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree conscience vote], as demonstrated by the split in Liberal and National Senators with some voting 'aye' and others 'no'. ''Background to the bill'' The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.[2] ''References'' * [1] Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm. * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].
senate vote 2006-02-09#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-06-19 15:46:06	Title Description The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator Guy Barnett and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful. The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate Guy Barnett] and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful. These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".[1] ''Background to the bill'' The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.[2] ''References'' * [1] Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm. * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].
senate vote 2006-02-09#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-06-19 15:45:32	Title ~~Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 — In Committee~~ Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 - In Committee - Amend the current process Description <p pwmotiontext="moved">That the amendments (<b>Senator Barnett’s and Senator Humphries’</b>) be agreed to.</p> The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator Guy Barnett and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful. These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".[1] ''Background to the bill'' The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.[2] ''References'' * [1] Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm. * [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].

Change

Division

senate vote 2006-02-09#4

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:21:08

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate Guy Barnett] and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful.
These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".(Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm. )
~~This division was a [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree conscience vote], meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines.~~
~~''Background to the bill''~~
The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].)
The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1) introduced by Senator [Guy Barnett](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate) and Senator [Gary Humphries](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means they were unsuccessful.
These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".(Read his full explanation and the related debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2), following 3:46 pm. )
This division was a [conscience vote](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree), meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines.
_Background to the bill_
The bill was introduced to amend the [Therapeutic Goods Act 1989](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/) in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [RU486](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486) from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [Therapeutic Goods Administration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration). This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [abortifacients](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients) such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf) (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494).)

senate vote 2006-02-09#4

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:53

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate Guy Barnett] and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful.
These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".[1]
These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".(Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm. )
This division was a [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree conscience vote], meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines.
''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.[2]
~~''References''~~
* [1] Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm.
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].
The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.(Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].)

senate vote 2006-02-09#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-06-19 15:53:22

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate Guy Barnett] and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful.
These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".[1]
This division was undertaken as a [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree conscience vote], as demonstrated by the split in Liberal and National Senators with some voting 'aye' and others 'no'.
This division was a [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree conscience vote], meaning that senators were not required to vote along party lines.
''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.[2]
''References''
* [1] Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm.
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].

senate vote 2006-02-09#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-06-19 15:49:00

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate Guy Barnett] and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful.
These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".[1]
This division was undertaken as a [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/faq.php#rebelandfree conscience vote], as demonstrated by the split in Liberal and National Senators with some voting 'aye' and others 'no'.
''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.[2]
''References''
* [1] Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm.
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].

senate vote 2006-02-09#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-06-19 15:46:06

Title

Description

The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator Guy Barnett and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful.
The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Guy_Barnett&mpc=Senate&house=senate Guy Barnett] and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful.
These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".[1]
''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.[2]
''References''
* [1] Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm.
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].

senate vote 2006-02-09#4

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-06-19 15:45:32

Title

~~Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 — In Committee~~
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005 - In Committee - Amend the current process

Description

<p pwmotiontext="moved">That the amendments (<b>Senator Barnett’s and Senator Humphries’</b>) be agreed to.</p>
The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2006-02-09.104.1 amendments] introduced by Senator Guy Barnett and Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Gary_Humphries&mpc=Senate&house=senate Gary Humphries], which means they were unsuccessful.
These amendments opposed the main purpose of this bill, which is to remove ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486 and related medicines. Instead, the amendments would have made some changes to the current process but fundamentally kept it in place. In other words, ultimate responsibility for approving RU486 would remain with the Minister. Senator Barnett explained that the amendments were "designed to improve the process for approving an abortifacient or other drug on the restricted goods list".[1]
''Background to the bill''
The bill was introduced to amend the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tga1989191/ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989] in order to transfer the responsibility for regulatory approval of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486 RU486] from the Minister for Health and Ageing to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_Goods_Administration Therapeutic Goods Administration]. This will make it possible to evaluate, register, list or import [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacients abortifacients] such as RU486 (i.e. medicines intended to induce an abortion) for use in Australia without the approval of the Minister.[2]
''References''
* [1] Read his full explanation and the related debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2006-02-09.98.2 here], following 3:46 pm.
* [2] Read more about the bill in its [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/JTOI6/upload_binary/jtoi64.pdf;fileType=application/pdf bills digest] (342 KB). More information, including its explanatory memorandum, is available [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s494 here].