Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

I want to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 today because I believe that it fundamentally affects the community, particularly women in our community. It is also one of those issues where I think we have to question the appropriate role of government and how much we do or do not want government and individual politicians to interfere with our lives. I strongly believe that, just as we do not want politicians in our bedrooms, we certainly do not want them in our doctors’ consulting rooms with us either.

The idea that the Minister for Health and Ageing, on each and every occasion that the drug RU486 is sought to be used, would make an individual, informed and appropriate decision based on proper technical expertise and the particular circumstances of each case is illogical, unrealistic and inappropriate. I am also deeply sceptical of the argument that ministerial responsibility for approving this drug adds an extra layer of scrutiny or accountability.

If only we could mandate such ministerial approval for the export of wheat, for ‘children overboard’ or for many of the other issues where the government has consistently refused to be accountable. I just cannot buy this as a legitimate argument being made by the Howard government. Even De-Anne Kelly, the former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, who skated through the regional rorts scandal by saying that it was all the department’s fault, was out there yesterday arguing for the fundamental need for ministerial responsibility. Please! Are we really going to take these sorts of arguments seriously?

Currently the minister is only accountable to the parliament if the decision is to make the drug available. He does not have to notify the parliament if he rejects an application for importation. This is exactly the kind of partial accountability that the Howard government so likes.

But the bottom line for me is this: government has no business interfering in the legal choices that people make about their health care. Our role is to ensure that we have a system in place to ensure that the drugs that are available are medically safe. That is why the TGA was set up. There are very few people in this House who are medically qualified to make that assessment, nor should we be called upon or expected to be experts in this field. Supporting the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005 will end the anomaly that has the health minister deciding on the safety and medical suitability of this particular drug.

It is not as if we are talking about some sort of ‘way out there’ drug. RU486 has been licensed for use in France since 1988, in the UK since 1991 and in the US since the year 2000. In European countries where RU486 has been available for some time, there has been no reported increase in the number of abortions performed overall, but there has been an increase in the number of early abortions. As we all know, the safety of an abortion is directly related to how early in the pregnancy it is performed, so this drug may in fact offer a better health option for some women.

So, despite claims to the contrary, this drug may prove a safer option for many women faced with a very difficult decision. But that safety assessment is for the TGA—not for me, as a non-expert politician, nor, I believe, for other politicians—to make. We are not leaving this decision in the hands of faceless bureaucrats, as some have suggested; we are putting the decision in the hands of our medical experts—an institution that was specifically designed to do this work. It will be in the hands of the TGA to decide whether this drug should be available and then in the hands of women and health practitioners as to whether it is suitable for them and whether they wish to use it.

Many of the speeches in the Senate debate focused on the morality of abortion, when really I think the onus is on those who oppose the bill to put the case as to why this drug should be treated differently to any other, given that it is a medical alternative to a currently available surgical procedure. In fact, we are not being asked to decide whether abortion should be legal or in what circumstances it should be available. It is wrong to talk about this debate in terms of whether it is supporting abortion or not. Whether we pass this bill or not, every abortion that currently occurs will be just as likely to occur in the future. We are being asked to vote on who should decide what medical methods of such a procedure will be available to any woman who is faced with this awful decision. And, frankly, I am not comfortable or confident that a minister—particularly the current minister, but any minister—should make this decision.

Senator Brandis, in the other place, has said that this is not a women’s issue. I challenge that. Of course, I accept that a decision to abort will often very acutely affect men as well as women, but it is primarily and undeniably a health issue for women. And, most significantly, the current debate is about restricting access to a drug whose consumers are almost exclusively women.

This bill is about who decides which treatment options a woman has available to her. For me, that falls squarely in the court of being a women’s issue. Many if not most women will consult their partners, their family or friends and their doctors but the decision ultimately should be theirs and all appropriate options should be open to them. For rural women, and for women from some ethnic groups for whom privacy is particularly important, the option of a medical abortion is critical if they are to be treated equally with other Australians.

In this debate I have heard a range of arguments about the safety of this drug, the deaths it has caused, its safety relative to surgical procedures and other medical complications. What this bill is asking is that these health and safety concerns be considered on their merits, without the rhetoric, hysteria, personal beliefs or political sensitivities of any parliamentarian. If, after thorough assessment by the TGA, RU486 becomes available, I have confidence in Australian women to make the right choice for themselves without the interference of politicians in an intensely personal and difficult decision.

Like many other members of this House, I have received a large amount of correspondence on this issue, and I do respect the firmly held and passionate beliefs of those who have contacted me. I particularly value that they have engaged so much in this process and in the decision we have been making over the last couple of weeks. The majority of correspondence I have received from my electorate has urged me to support this bill, although I appreciate that many others I represent will not agree with this position. However, the bottom line in these decisions is not about my view, or the views of many in my electorate; it is about individual choice. We must remember that the legality of abortion has already been determined and that each woman has their own body, their own conscience and their own circumstances to take account of. Just as we are having a conscience vote in this parliament, we should not seek to impose our moral judgments on others. We are the keepers of our own consciences—not everybody else’s. I do not believe that parliament should be some busy-body neighbour or social policeman in our community.

As I said at the beginning, I am strongly of the view that we do not want politicians in our bedrooms or in our doctors’ consulting rooms. Provided that proper medical screening is undertaken when new drugs become available, which the TGA is perfectly placed to do, it should then be left to the women who are contemplating this procedure, with proper support and advice, to decide what is best for them. It is for this reason that I support the bill.

See this speech in context