Hi, this decision was made in October 2006; there's no record of reasons.
Why? Because it harmonizes with NZ through the trans-tasman agreement.
The trouble with this is that the original NZ decision to schedule piracetam was because
"it was primae facie a drug that ought to be prescription and was new."
New?
Ought to be prescription? is this the same drug one prominent researcher declared "safe as salt"?
For some reason the NDPSC seems to think that the trans-tasman agreement obviates the need for them to consider the headings under s52E of the TG Act when considering scheduling a substance.
In a further twist, post-meeting submissions were called for from the public "addressing the points in 52E" when commenting on the scheduling. Ummm NDPSC guys, I think you've got something a bit back-to-front here...52E was designed to act as a mechanism to mandatorily consult with before scheduling, not as a guide to how people should frame their objections to your arbitrary decisions.