Division
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.)
House of Representatives, 2014-02-11. negative: ayes 51, noes 87.
Question
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.)
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.