Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have been listening to the debate both in the Senate and in this place and I must say that it is of a very high level, and that is to be welcomed. We have seen this before in these areas that give rise to some emotional input. There has been a little bit of name calling, but I am fairly certain that everyone in this place is pro-life regardless of how we vote on this particular amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005; none of us want to encourage or in anyway promote termination of pregnancy or see those numbers increase.

There are consequences of going through an abortion. There are consequences emotionally and there are physical risks in any surgical or medical procedure. But the fact is that this should not, in my view, be a debate about abortion. Rather, it should be a debate about providing a process, and for that process to provide an alternative to a procedure that has been legal for many years. My colleague the member for Moore spoke before me, and I would like to restate what he said because I think it is very relevant. He said that currently this parliament sanctions and Medicare rebates surgical procedures with similar risk factors to RU486. I am paraphrasing him slightly; I have not gone through the whole of what he said. I think it is important to restate that point: this parliament currently sanctions and Medicare rebates this kind of surgical procedure that brings about a termination of a pregnancy.

As I said, it should not be a debate about abortion, but rather a debate about a process and about providing an alternative to a procedure that has been legal for many years, a choice that provides women with an alternative to surgical termination of pregnancy. Abortion is legally and safely available under legislation that varies from state to state. These debates went on for many, many years and many of us remember the tragedy of backyard abortions. I doubt that too many people would really seriously want to return to that situation.

This legislation provides the option for women seeking a legal termination to pregnancy to make a choice according to the best medical advice and according to their personal circumstances. Having access to RU486 also provides for a termination at an earlier stage of pregnancy—surely a better outcome than a surgical procedure. Women living in rural communities—and I speak to this because I have many women living in rural areas in my election of Pearce in Western Australia—are disproportionately disadvantaged under the current arrangements. It is sometimes difficult to access facilities and, at a time of personal crisis, these women often need to leave their families and communities and seek services in metropolitan centres, adding to the physical, financial and psychological difficulties.

I believe that in this place our responsibility is to make sure that under the current legislative framework women have access to best practice when they seek a legal termination. That responsibility can best be exercised by allowing the appropriate medical advisory agency, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, to rigorously test the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of abortifacients such as RU486. It has been argued that the TGA, when considering applications for the importation and administration of pharmaceuticals, does not consider ethical issues. However, all pharmaceuticals are subject to high-level scrutiny by independent medical and health ethics committees under the present application approval processes.

Much of the argument to date has revolved around risk, and we heard a lot about that from the previous speaker, the member for Lowe. As risk management is a key function of the TGA, and this agency is made up of independent, qualified and highly responsible individuals, then it must surely be best placed to make a decision. To be safe and comply with state laws, both medical and surgical terminations must have appropriate medical oversight and approval, including, in some states, undergoing physical and mental health tests. It needs to be made absolutely clear that what we are debating in this place today is not a decision about the legality or the ethics of abortion; it is about process, it is about whether or not to allow the therapeutic goods administrator to do its work unfettered by sectional interests and political consideration.

By continuing with the current policy, Australian women are denied options other than surgical termination. As I said before, this also disproportionately impacts on women and their families in rural areas. Women seek to terminate pregnancy for many different reasons, and that must be a decision for them, their families and their medical advisers to determine. Again, I would like to remind the House of the contribution by the member for Moore when he said that the reasons for abortions are unwanted or nonviable pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancy occurs in multiple situations such as foetal abnormality, serious maternal health problems and severe psychological and social problems to mention a few.

If we want to discourage the termination of pregnancy, and I am sure it is clear that many of us in this place do, including me, I believe we as legislators ought to examine some of the issues that give rise to women feeling compelled to go through a termination and what we can do to help women and couples avoid unwanted pregnancies at the starting point. We need to engage in a more robust debate about the kind of assistance we give to women who go through pregnancy unsupported.

Australians have had the debate about the legal status of abortion long ago, and they have supported legislation in our states and territories to allow the termination of pregnancy under certain conditions. Indeed, to look at the public record, one study which was conducted over 30 years by K Betts and published in a paper called ‘Attitudes to abortion in Australia: 1972 to 2003’ indicates that 80 per cent of Australians support a woman’s right to choose whether she goes through this procedure or not. I think it is very important to bear that in mind. There is plenty of other evidence in terms of public opinion and public polling, but overwhelmingly it all points to the fact that most Australians want women to be able to make these decisions along with their medical practitioners and perhaps their families. To continue to ban a medical procedure that has for years provided a safe additional option to surgical termination for women in countries such as France, Great Britain, Sweden and the United States, to name a few, is to neglect our responsibility to ensure that Australian women have this choice.

I believe that my colleagues the member for Lindsay and the member for Bowman are very well intentioned in bringing forward amendments to the bill and trying to find a way through, but I personally cannot support either of the amendments as I do not believe they progress this debate or help with that process of decision making. I have confidence that testing the safety, efficacy and appropriateness of this and other drugs can be safely left to the members of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and I intend to support the bill.

See this speech in context