Health Legislation Amendment (Improved Medicare Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025; In Committee

Opened the debate

Roberts questioned the necessity of new TGA powers, arguing existing section 19(1) already allowed approvals for shortages. Roberts expressed concern that the new provisions lacked parliamentary oversight and could allow pharmaceutical companies to bypass standard regulatory processes. Roberts argued that the TGA was unaccountable and funded largely by industry, necessitating stricter scrutiny. Roberts moved an amendment to require all such approvals to be made via legislative instrument to ensure parliamentary review.

Government response

McAllister defended the amendments, stating they allowed the TGA to act proactively before shortages occurred, rather than waiting for them to materialise. McAllister argued that the TGA relied on intelligence rather than rumours and that the temporary approvals would expire once shortages were resolved. McAllister rejected the claim that the TGA lacked oversight, noting its status within the Department of Health. The government opposed Roberts's amendment as unnecessarily burdensome and opposed Hanson's amendment to maintain easy access to healthcare.

Opposition response

Ruston expressed sympathy with the call for greater scrutiny of government actions, citing a lack of transparency. Ruston acknowledged the critical issue of drug shortages and the need for agile responses to ensure access to treatments. However, she did not support Roberts's specific amendment. Regarding Hanson's amendment, Ruston noted the intent to minimise fraud was commendable but criticised the government for misleading Australians about out-of-pocket costs and the necessity of only carrying a Medicare card.