Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise tonight to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I have given a lot of consideration to the matters contained within this bill. I have also discussed them extensively with both my constituents and my colleagues. Many people whom I respect have come to see me about this bill. I have received more correspondence and phone calls about this issue than any other since I entered parliament in 2004. I thank all of those people, particularly my constituents in Stirling, who took the time to contact me about their views and for making the effort to do so. There is no doubt that emotions on this issue run high, although it is fair to say that I have been contacted by far more constituents who oppose this private member’s bill than who support it. Of course, I would never make the mistake of assuming that that necessarily reflects the majority of my electorate. But, at the end of the day, after all the correspondence and phone calls, I am called upon to vote on this issue according to my own conscience, and I will be supporting this bill and the amendment to it moved by the member for Bowman.

I do so with some reservations, but on balance I believe the Therapeutic Goods Administration is the most appropriate body to make the decision about the safety of RU486 and that the parliament and not the individual minister should retain the ultimate power whether this drug or any particular drug should be made available. There are several reasons I take this position. This is a very complex argument and it has been conducted on many different levels: pro- and anti-abortion, the safety of RU486 and the effect that it can have on women’s health, issues of process and issues of the proper place of this parliament in relation to the bureaucracy. I will try and touch on them all, although I am mindful that many members rightly wish to speak on this bill, and I will try and be as concise as possible.

Many members in this debate have stated that it has nothing to do with abortion. I cannot fully accept that, and I think we will see a lot of people make a decision on this bill based on how they feel about abortion. But we need to remember that the Commonwealth government does not regulate abortion. As members know, it is regulated by the states, and every single state allows abortions to be performed under certain circumstances. Considering that this is the case, the issue is whether as a parliament we should force people to have a surgical abortion as opposed to a chemical abortion. I do not believe that is a reasonable position for us to take. If abortion as regulated by the states is legal, then we should not deny the people the option of having one in a way that they, in association with their medical practitioner, deem to be the safest for them. I have noted the views of members about the safety or otherwise of the RU486 drug. I understand that many members believe that this drug can damage the health of women. I note that many members have also dismissed these concerns and declared the drug to be safe. Correspondence to my office has similarly expressed strong views about the safety or the danger presented by RU486. I do not feel that I am in a position to adjudicate between these differing points of view. I am not a doctor or a medical scientist, and I do not see how we as parliamentarians without this specific expertise can decide whether this drug, when properly administered, is safe.

That is why we have experts on the government payroll to advise us on these matters. The TGA is better placed than parliament to advise on RU486’s safety. As parliamentarians, we often call upon the various arms of the government to advise us on matters on which we have no particular expertise. It is appropriate that as a parliament we can delegate responsibility to agencies to advise us on these decisions or, in certain circumstances, delegate the power to make these decisions based on the available evidence. If the TGA were to deem this drug unsafe, then that to me would be the end of this issue.

My personal morality sees me very uncomfortable with the number of abortions that are performed in Australia. There is no question that this represents a terrible tragedy. But I accept that I personally will never need to face the choices that a woman faces with an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy. I do not feel it appropriate for me to marshal the power of the state to impose my personal morality on my fellow Australians. I passionately believe that we must give individual Australians as much control over their own lives as we can. I do not seek to be a parliamentarian who increases the role of government, and I certainly do not seek to make decisions for people that are best left to their own personal morality. So, although I feel distinctly uncomfortable with abortion, I do not seek to impose my views on others. Individuals are best left to make these decisions on a private basis.

This brings me to the issue of the proper role of parliament in this debate. I have listened very closely to colleagues who have argued that parliament must remain supreme over unelected officials, in this case the TGA. I agree that it is vitally important that parliament, which is directly accountable to the Australian people, maintain its position as the supreme decision-making body in Australia. I therefore see a lot of merit in the amendment that has been circulated by the member for Bowman allowing parliament to disallow approvals that have been made by the TGA. I take his point that RU486 may not be the only drug which it would be appropriate for this parliament to deliberate upon. With medical science evolving at such a rapid rate, it is very possible that occasionally new drugs will bring new ethical dilemmas, and it is the parliament that is the most appropriate body to settle the policy settings appropriate for these new drugs or not. Every member of parliament is forced to account, and needs to account, for the decisions that they make to the people within their own electorates.

That is why it is the parliament and not the executive or an individual minister that should rightly control and debate the ethical parameters for the use of controversial drugs. The issues raised by the rapid advances in medical science are only going to get more complicated, and we need the collective wisdom of the parliament—speaking as individuals and not as members of specific parties—to adequately resolve them.

There is no question in my mind that the parliament, today, yesterday and probably tomorrow, is displaying all that is great about Australian democracy, and I have listened carefully to the vast majority of the contributions that have been made in this debate. Notwithstanding that, there have been points made both in this chamber and outside the House in the lead-up to this debate that I personally find grossly offensive. Senator Nettle’s ill-advised T-shirt has been roundly condemned, and I hope that she will listen to this advice from her peers on the offensiveness of wearing a T-shirt that shows contempt for large numbers of Catholic Australians. I have also been pretty surprised by suggestions that the Minister for Health and Ageing, because of his faith, is an inappropriate choice for that particular ministry. That really is the most outrageous bigotry, and I am surprised that in 2006 anyone would express such a view.

My choice to support this bill is in no way a reflection of the current minister’s abilities or views. Mr Abbott has been a first-class health minister who has advanced the interests of my constituents in Stirling and of the Australian public in general. This debate is not about a particular minister but about what is an acceptable process for RU486 to be evaluated. The present process was the result of a compromise between Senator Harradine and the government in relation to other issues. What emerged, in my view, was not good public policy and could result in this policy arbitrarily changing based on the differing views of successive health ministers. I believe that the proper process is for the TGA to advise on the safety and the efficacy of RU486 and for the parliament to be the final arbiter of the ethical and moral framework for the use of this particular drug within the community.

See this speech in context