Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I do not intend to canvass the scientific debate surrounding RU486. Others have already done so. Nor do I intend to take up the issue of how the Therapeutic Goods Administration is structured and functions. Others have done that, and I commend to the minister and others in this debate the contribution of the member for Curtin, because of her analysis of the role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the way in which drugs are approved in this country, the transparency of those arrangements and how they are reviewable as a result of the decisions which have been made.

Those of us who, like me, are supporting this legislation are simply seeking to rectify a very poor decision taken by the parliament in 1996 when it passed the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 1996. Even then, it was just a political fix, a means of buying off Senator Harradine in exchange for his support for other government legislation. Let us be very clear about it. That was the purpose of the amendment in 1996: to satisfy a political need of the government at the time.

This bill will have the effect of normalising the evaluation of RU486 for use in Australia, by giving to the Therapeutic Goods Administration the responsibility to evaluate the quality, efficacy and safety of the drug and ultimately to approve or not approve the use of the treatment in Australia—as the TGA does with all other drugs—and removing the responsibility for approval from the minister. I will come to the minister’s contribution a little later.

This is not a difficult concept. It is not a debate about the issue of abortion, much as the opponents of this bill are trying to make it so—and just as the Minister for Health and Ageing tried to do a moment ago. Of course, they and others have geed up interest groups to prosecute that debate as if it were about that issue. With respect to those who hold this view, it is misguided and it ought to be rejected.

Let me say also that I accept absolutely that the views that I am expressing will not necessarily be shared by all of my constituents, some of whom have communicated their views to me, and on occasions those views have differed from mine. I have enjoyed that process of communication. The views expressed to me have been sincere, considered and generally well argued. However, there could be no argument, in my view, which could justify the Minister for Health and Ageing, or any other minister for that matter, having the responsibility for giving approval for the use of or making judgments about the efficacy, safety and quality of any medication, let alone RU486, which may be used for medical procedures that are otherwise legal in this country.

I am particularly concerned that those who oppose this legislation may share the view that patients, in concert with their doctors, are unable to make informed and appropriate judgments about the procedures that they may contemplate using. Of course, this is particularly important in relation to RU486 because of its potential to be used as an alternative to surgical terminations. As others have said, terminations are legal in Australia.

Despite what the minister said in his contribution, and as much as we abhor and are concerned about the issue of abortion, there is no evidence from overseas experience that there will be any increase in terminations as a result of the introduction of this drug. All that this legislation will do is change the procedure for the approval of RU486. If an application is made and approval is given for its use, it will provide a treatment option for patients and their doctors. This is potentially of great importance to Australian women, particularly those who live in rural and remote areas whose treatment options are currently very limited.

I am strongly of the view that we should be able to recognise and trust the ability of doctors and patients to make judgments, including about risk factors, treatment and medication. If this treatment were being contemplated for use in a remote location, then clearly there would need to be consideration given to supervision, including the proximity of hospital and other emergency services. I know many medical practitioners who practise in remote communities. They clearly understand the limitations of access to these types of services—they deal with them every day.

I know that in my electorate there will be many who will see the potential availability of RU486 as an option which, with proper supervision and monitoring, will provide an alternative to a surgical procedure which would require them to travel a long way from home. Fundamentally this is what this debate is about: the potential availability of a new treatment not just as a means of achieving terminations but for other medical conditions such as brain tumours or serious endocrine conditions and certain types of breast cancers and ovarian cancers. We know that RU486 has already been authorised under the TGA’s Special Access Scheme to treat some of these conditions.

Much has been said about the appropriateness of the TGA to make an assessment of RU486, because of the moral implications of the use of the drug. In the contribution from the minister we heard words to that effect. This is simply a furphy, and it is being used as a rationale to mount an argument against terminations and to deny women a choice—in consultation with their doctors—of treatment options.

I reject also the sensationalist and extremist positions that have been adopted by some of those who oppose this piece of legislation. Some of the comments of those who should know better have been wrong and misleading and have been designed to intimidate and frighten—for example, statements from the minister for health that refer to ‘an epidemic of abortions’ and ‘backyard miscarriages’ and ‘pop and forget pills’ or his consistent claim, which he repeated this afternoon, about there being ‘up to 100,000 abortions per year’, when he knows that this claim is patently false. Then, of course, there was his asinine statement in the Daily Telegraph on 10 February:

If the vote goes to strip me of this particular responsibility I think there are many commentators who will say this is effectively a vote of no confidence in the capacity of the Health Minister to make a rational decision, which is not a position a politician likes to be in.

The minister should step down from his high horse. This is not a debate about him, as much as he might like it to be, although his various statements are evidence enough of why this parliament should remove from the minister the responsibility for making determinations on RU486 or any other drug.

I am amazed that others have sought to admonish those who have attacked the minister for his position on the issue of RU486. Let it be very clear that the minister is big enough, as you have seen this afternoon, and ugly enough—as we all know—to look after himself. The fact that these ministerial supporters have been waving the Abbott banner simply provides further evidence of why the TGA and not the minister should be responsible for the evaluation and approval of RU486 and all other drugs. I wonder what these flag wavers would say if a very pro-choice person was the minister. You can imagine what would be going on if there were an application for the approval by the minister of RU486. You can imagine the political pressure that would be put on such a minister by these flag wavers who currently support the minister’s position.

I want to pick up on a point made by the minister. This debate, as well as not being about abortion, is not about faith or the worthiness of those who will vote for or will not vote for this legislation. In particular, despite what some have sought to portray, this bill and those advocating it are not attacking the Catholic Church or any other church. That view is mischievous and just plain wrong. Let me make it clear that in debating this legislation today the parliament is making an informed, conscious and responsible decision about how it believes this drug should be dealt with. It is right and proper for the parliament to take this decision. That is why we are elected to this place.

The minister, much as he may argue to the contrary, is not accountable when it comes to making decisions about RU486. The minister is a single person exercising sole discretion. He is not accountable to the parliament for the decisions he makes on RU486, and his decisions are not reviewable by the parliament. In terms of the amendments that have been put, I would counsel those wanting to support this legislation to oppose both amendments.

In closing, I want to make mention of the contributions of others on both sides of the debate. I particularly want to thank the member for Moore and the member for Lalor for the way they articulated the logic and merits of the case for supporting the legislation.

Before I sit down, I want to make one other observation. The minister, when he made his contribution, talked about the question of faith. He referred to religious people, people who ‘take their faith seriously’. Let me make it very clear to the minister that there are people on this side of the debate who have a contrary view to the minister about this particular subject who are also religious and who also take their faith seriously. I take it as an absolute insult, as someone who practises as a Catholic, to be told by the minister that somehow or another I am less of a person than he is because I am adopting the position that I am adopting.

Let me say whilst I am on it that I read the comments by Cardinal Pell where he referred to the sectarian anti-Catholic attacks by parliamentarians. I understand he may be concerned about the contribution made by a particular senator in the other place and the wearing of a T-shirt, which I think was way out of order. But let me make it very clear to him and any other persons who are observing this debate that this is not a sectarian debate. This is not about religion. This is not about whether or not I have a strong sense of faith or strong religious convictions. This is about the procedures for the approval of a drug to be used in Australia—nothing more and nothing less. I commend the legislation to all people in this parliament.

See this speech in context