Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Let me begin by thanking the many people from both my electorate and way beyond who have made the effort to contact me with regard to their views and feelings about the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. As early as November last year I was responding to constituent interest in this subject by outlining my thinking. This accountability to my electors has enabled people to focus on my thinking and respond to or challenge the considerations that have shaped my view.

A few local people specifically responded to my replies and my views as published in local newspapers, but overwhelmingly the large numbers of letters, faxes and emails from both sides cited widely circulated and now familiar arguments. I may not agree with many of those who have written to express their opposition to the bill in its original form, but I respect their views and their right to express them.

Despite the intense emotion—and, in some cases, hysteria—surrounding this issue, it is vital that as elected representatives we remain focused on the question to be determined. This bill, in its original form, is very specific. It does not represent an ideological struggle between pro-life and pro-choice, nor is it about a question of one’s faith. Although, in reality, it was inevitable, it has not been helpful that the RU486 bill debate—which is essentially about the governing processes attached to the approval or disapproval of a class of drugs—has been used by some as a Trojan Horse to recontest broader questions concerning abortion law and the availability of termination services.

This is not about fighting a new war against abortion; this is about whether the law should be changed to remove the need for ministerial approval before the Therapeutic Goods Administration can carry out its statutory responsibilities to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a medicine before it can be registered for use in Australia. With supporting scientific evidence, the TGA may conclude that a medicine is safe for use and has the clinical characteristics that are claimed. Current law prohibits the evaluation of a category of medicines called ‘restricted goods’ unless the minister approves of the TGA doing its work. This bill seeks to remove this restriction.

The TGA is well resourced within the Australian government’s Department of Health and Ageing. Crucially, its regulatory framework centres on a scientifically supported risk management approach—a task that it has been given by this parliament. It is my firm view that the TGA is the best-equipped body in this country to make informed medical judgments as to the suitability and safety of medicines. Its Drug Evaluation Committee consists of eminent medical practitioners, including a pharmacologist, a toxicologist, a pharmaceutical chemist with recent manufacturing experience and a general practitioner. This is hardly ‘just a bunch of bureaucrats’, as some would like to have us believe. The TGA is also empowered to play an important ongoing role of vigilance once a drug is approved and made conditionally available to the public. This includes investigating reports of problems and the laboratory testing of products on the market to ensure ongoing compliance and safety.

Yes, RU486 is an abortifacient drug, but, no, this argument is not about the lawful availability of abortions in this country. The lawful basis for abortions has long been settled by state law and judicial precedence, with the test—which I support—being risk or danger to a woman’s mental or physical health.

Let me state for the record that I am strongly opposed to the use of pregnancy termination as a routine form of ‘after the event’ contraception for reckless personal behaviour. Personal responsibility on the part of men and women for their sexual conduct and for the consequences of their actions must always be emphasised and encouraged. Health Insurance Commission data about Medicare services suggests that the number of abortions in our country has declined over the past 10 years, despite steady population growth. I welcome this trend.

In my community of the greater Frankston-Mornington Peninsula region, known as Dunkley, there has been a dramatic reduction in teenage birth rates over the past two years, from 6.6 per cent to three per cent, as the result of a remarkable program called Core of Life. This education, awareness and support initiative, which was started by Peninsula Health midwives Debby Pattrick and Tracy Smith, has since gone national, thanks to an Australian government grant of $615,000.

Governments and communities must support these types of preventative initiatives that draw out clearly for young people the profound implications of pregnancy and the need for proper care and mature conduct when they become sexually active. Any intervention to lawfully terminate a pregnancy needs to be most carefully considered and only made available with appropriate physical and emotional support for the woman involved.

When I first learned of the push to overturn what is effectively a ban on RU486, I was puzzled by the media reports of calls for the drug to be made widely available in rural and remote areas, on the basis that the medical and emotional support required for a surgical abortion was not readily available. I found this to be an odd argument, as RU486 represents an alternative to current lawful surgical methods of abortion. If approved, having been found safe and efficacious by the TGA, it would be subjected to regulated availability. The method of termination in no way diminishes the legal constraints, including clinical risk management and the need for proper physical and emotional support for the woman involved in such an invasive medical intervention.

Nor do I believe that women who find themselves in the terrible position of having to resort to a lawful abortion should be forced to endure the added hardship and trauma of being obliged to go through a surgical procedure, when a potentially less painful and less traumatic alternative process exists. Do the opponents of RU486 in all good conscience believe that forcing women to endure a more traumatic surgical procedure acts as some kind of deterrent? These same people emphasise the enormity of a decision to terminate and point to the risk of long-term physical, emotional and spiritual harm.

Yes, it is a truly profound decision to proceed with an abortion—one in which thankfully I have not been involved. But to restrict the potential availability of a medicinal alternative just means that some of those women confronted with the need for a lawful abortion simply endure an even more traumatic experience. If at some time in the future a safe and acceptable medicinal alternative becomes conditionally available, accompanied by the appropriate physical and emotional support and follow-up, then I firmly believe that it should be put forward as an alternative therapy to invasive and traumatic abortions.

The last thing I want to do is to encourage any unnecessary terminations, and I would not be supporting the unamended bill if I believed that that would be the case. I personally have not seen any convincing evidence that suggests that the number of abortions in this country would increase as a result of the regulated availability of RU486. Given the above reasoning and the assessment of the arguments put and the information available to me, I plan to vote for the unamended bill before this House and reject the amendments that are also on the table.

See this speech in context