Releasing the official advice on allowing pharmacists to prescribe the oral contraceptive pill would be ‘against the public interest’, apparently.
Victoria’s state government is refusing to reveal the health advice it received prior to allowing pharmacists to start prescribing oral contraceptives – a decision that has raised even more red flags for the RACGP.
“When it comes to a matter such as making a decision about use of medicines, that information, I believe, would be quite straightforward,” RACGP Victoria chair Dr Anita Munoz told The Medical Republic.
“There would be medical advice, and I don’t understand why it would not be in the public interest to hear what that advice was, unless that advice contradicts or conflicts with the decision that a government took.”
Premier Jacinta Allan announced the expansion to the existing Chemist Care Now program in early March, with a start date of 1 July.
According to Ms Allan, pharmacists would be required to undertake a “thorough consultation” with the patient prior to prescribing, outlining any risks and providing information on long-acting reversible contraceptives.
In mid-March, the state’s Legislative Council passed a motion from Liberal MP Georgie Crozier to produce any documents provided to the premier by the health minister or department of health relating to expert medical advice on the safety of pharmacists initiating supply of the pill.
“What the motion essentially is asking for is the health advice that the premier received when she made this announcement just a couple of weeks ago,” Ms Crozier said at the time.
“In my motion I talk about the TGA and the various concerns that they had. What the motion essentially is asking for is the health advice that the premier received when she made this announcement just a couple of weeks ago. In my motion I talk about the TGA and the various concerns that they had.”
Ms Crozier’s motion was backed by Greens MP and former GP Dr Sarah Mansfield, who said she was “quite curious” to see the evidence that informed the premier’s decision.
“This is not a five-minute consultation that you can do at the desk of a pharmacy,” she said.
Related
“It is quite different to something like emergency contraception. I will even accept that a repeat prescription of the pill is a lot more straightforward.
“Initiating contraceptives is actually quite a complex thing, and it is the bread and butter of general practice; it is what you train for. The comments that were made that this somehow frees up GP time – to do what? This is the stuff we want to be doing. This is the good stuff.”
The government responded to Ms Crozier last week.
While one relevant document dated 10 September 2025 was identified, the attorney-general opted not to release it.
“Disclosure would be against the public interest as it would: reveal confidential legal advice provided to the executive government, or otherwise jeopardise the necessary relationship of trust between a Minister and public officials [and] reveal high-level confidential deliberative processes of the executive government,” the official response said.
Ms Crozier told TMR that it was “unreasonable that the advice provided to the primer not be made public available”.
“That’s all I was asking for, and she’s refused to provide that,” she said.
“I think there is a real issue around transparency.”
The fact that the advice was withheld suggested that the government did not obey it, the RACGP’s Dr Munoz said.
“When it comes to the health of the public, I think that the public does have a right to know what advice government is given and how they came to the decisions that they made, particularly if there is a concern that a policy may be putting women at risk in terms of being prescribed a pill in an inappropriate setting,” she said.
“The fact that the information has been withheld, I think, raises questions about why. If the advice that was given was consistent with the decision that the government took, then it follows that there would be no issues at all with releasing that advice.”
The position of the college, Dr Munoz said, was that women’s health was being used as a “political football” and as leverage in preparation for elections.
“We have a moral imperative and a social contract with the community to create policies that don’t then result in harm occurring … to people’s health,” she said.
“If a government … has been given advice that a policy may result in harms, and they choose to enact that policy anyway, then that signals to me that the motivation to deliver for political purposes has trumped the obligation to keep the community safe.
“And when that starts to happen, that bodes very poorly in terms of political decision making and the social contract that politicians have with their communities.”
