Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few short comments to contribute to the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Poisons Standard) Bill 2008. The opposition supports this bill. As the Minister for Health and Ageing said in her second reading speech, this bill was made necessary because of consequences which flowed from the Federal Court decision in Roche Products Pty Ltd v National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee, handed down on 30 August 2007. The court held that decisions taken by the committee are legislative in character. This means that the Poisons Standard and its amendments are legislative instruments. It has been policy for many years that the Poisons Standard is not treated as a disallowable legislative instrument for the sensible public policy reason that the standard operates through a joint arrangement with state and territory jurisdictions, and disallowance in one legislature would potentially disrupt that arrangement. The regulation of poisons is rightly a matter which all governments take seriously. This bill includes retrospective provisions to preserve the status quo of the Poisons Standard up to the Roche decision and, while the coalition has long held as a principle that retrospective legislation is generally to be avoided, it is necessary in cases such as these where protection of the public should be paramount. The opposition supports this bill.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Prime Minister for Social Inclusion) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Colbeck for his contribution this afternoon and for reminding the Senate of the purpose of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Poisons Standard) Bill 2008. As he said, it does make a number of amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and addresses the legal consequences of that recent Federal Court decision. It does have some retrospectivity to it which, of course, is not necessarily always a good thing but in this case is a very important factor. I thank those who contributed to the debate and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.