Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Obviously the minister for health continues to want to throw these allegations around. As a woman I cannot even begin to comprehend why a woman would go around taking RU486 in an irresponsible way, and it only seems to be the case that the minister for health has that view. Studies in France, England, Wales and Sweden show that there was no increase in the incidence of abortions at all when RU486 was legalised. As for miscarriages, in about five per cent of cases where women have taken RU486, a minor surgical procedure is needed to complete the abortion. This is also the case with natural miscarriages.

RU486 is an alternative to a surgical procedure for the termination of pregnancy. It offers women a choice over how they undergo an abortion, not whether or not they have an abortion. Those who suggest that more women would be willing to have an abortion if it involved a pill should listen to women’s experiences first. Abortion has been a social reality for thousands of years, whether it is safe or unsafe. It is not something that hangs on the difference between taking a pill and having a surgical procedure. Approval of RU486 is not an advertisement for abortion, nor should it ever be portrayed as an inducement for abortion. The safety of RU486 or a higher incidence of abortions should never be code for questioning women’s access to safe surgical or medical abortions. The parliament has no role in meddling in decisions over which method a woman can use to terminate her pregnancy—that is for her and her doctor to decide together.

Finally, I want to emphasise that of course the Therapeutic Goods Administration is an accountable institution. Its board has ministerial appointees; it is governed by a rigorous act and a vast set of regulations. The TGA’s decisions are transparent and based on expert evaluation of evidence. The TGA also insists on continuous monitoring of new evidence, even after a licence has been granted. We, as members of the public, can hold the TGA to account through the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. It is certainly not the case that the TGA is some renegade fly-by-night operation.

If opposition to this bill is about lack of confidence in the TGA, then it is the parliament’s task to address those concerns. But the fact is that no-one is questioning its professionalism. If the TGA retains this parliament’s confidence then the TGA is competent to make a ruling on the safety, efficacy and conditions for use of RU486—just like it does for all other drugs. For these reasons I will also be opposing the amendments moved to this bill. The decision on the safety and efficacy of RU486 is for expert scientists based on evidence and safety.

Finally, I must make it clear that this bill is not about a vote of confidence in the health minister personally or in his government. If this bill is seen to be a personal vote of confidence in the health minister, he has no-one but himself to blame. The health minister’s actions alone have personalised this bill. A vote like this should not be an invitation for ministerial arm-twisting and cajoling, including on the spurious basis that a contrary vote would be a vote of no-confidence in either the minister or the entire government. So let us not have the minister for health distracting any further from the crux of this issue. The bill is about treating RU486 the same way that we treat every other drug in this country. Can I leave it up to experts to determine the safety and efficacy of RU486? And if they decide it is safe, can I leave it up to women and their doctors to decide the best way to terminate a pregnancy? My answer is yes. For me, they are the places where these decisions should belong.

See this speech in context