Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to address my remarks to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005. First, I would like to thank the majority, thankfully, of speakers who have come into this debate before me tonight, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who has just completed her words, and also the member for Jagajaga and the member for Murray. I had the pleasure in both cases of hearing most of their deliveries in this debate.

The bill is really all about the ability for the Therapeutic Goods Administration to make the determination in relation to the provision of a drug in this country rather than to have a political process do that. My one major critical comment would be that I have been really sorry to see the levels of hysteria that have been coming into the debate in part. I understand that this is a very controversial issue for some, and I respect that. But I do not believe that the injection of hysteria helps anybody. I believe it confuses the issue. It does not help those who are still attempting to deal with it within themselves. Over the last few weeks we have seen people raise issues which have had, frankly, nothing to do with the bill before us.

Most members who I have heard speak have said—and I agree—that this is not actually a debate about the right to abortion. That is a debate we had a long time ago, and that is not what we are here to discuss, although I agree with the previous speaker that many people are seeing it through that prism. The debate, in my view, is really about one thing and one thing only: who should in fact decide on the safety of the use of this medicine in that technical sense. That is where the debate basically begins and ends for me. On that basis I believe that the debate is really fairly straightforward. I strongly believe that medical experts should assess the safety of the drugs that come before us in this country, not us as politicians.

I have had the pleasure of being in this House now for almost 10 years. Over that time there has been many an occasion when people, sometimes in their tens and sometimes in their thousands, have written to people in this place, including me, seeking our assistance in lobbying hard for the provision of a medical drug of one sort or another—to get it onto the PBS, to get it accepted into the country in the first place—for particular use. Some of these treatments have been for chronic illnesses like Alzheimer’s disease and arthritis. There has been a long list of them. It is very tempting in cases like that to get bound up in the emotion of it, to want to help influence that process for the approval of those drugs into this country and to see yourself as helping people with those chronic illnesses who are desperate to find a solution to their health issues. However, I have always supported the current system in Australia, where the safety of and the access to those drugs is determined by medical experts through the Therapeutic Goods Administration and not through us in here.

When some people have written to me in the past on questions like this, I have done the right thing as a local member supporting their views and forwarded their submission on to the minister concerned at the time, knowing full well that the minister’s response will always be: ‘This is not a determination I make but a determination for the experts to make.’ Politicians are not those medical experts. We are not given that job to do. We do not currently decide which of those drugs could be available in this country, and I do not see why this one should necessarily be treated any differently. Medical experts currently decide how safe a particular drug is and whether it should be available in this country. That process should be consistent for all drugs—and, to date, that has been the case.

Many myths have been brought into this debate. As I said a little earlier, I have been saddened and a bit frustrated by the level of hysteria that a small number of people—nevertheless, loudly—have been trying to bring into the argument, confusing many people who have very sincere and deeply held views. We have heard the comments made last night and today by the member for Hughes and I will not go over them again. We have also heard the member for Lindsay—I think it was—begin to debate the issue of adoption of children from China while asking a question about the comments of the member for Hughes and about this discussion generally.

We know, as the member for Jagajaga and other members in this House have said, that the Minister for Health and Ageing has said that the use of RU486 will lead to ‘backyard miscarriages if unscrupulous doctors prescribe these drugs for desperate women’. I find that particularly offensive. Doctors have no more reason to be irresponsible with this drug than with any other drug. I think it also reflects adversely on women, in whom we need to place some trust.

Those who want to see the authority for this drug remain with the minister—particularly some of those on the government side—have argued, in respect of the amendments, that government accountability is paramount and the only way to maintain that principle is for the Minister for Health and Ageing to maintain his role with this particular drug. I do not mind if we have factually based arguments or debates in this regard, but I do mind desperately when we start to hear what I would call nothing other than hysterically funny comments. Comments have been made about the faceless people who run the TGA, as if it is some secret society, and that the only way we can have accountability is for the Minister for Health and Ageing to have his hands on this particular process.

Here in my electorate in Canberra, we have been screaming out for government accountability to, in fact, remove some faceless people from procedure. The National Capital Authority comes to mind immediately, where the minister for territories has been absolutely hopeless in making certain decisions on behalf of this town, saying, ‘It’s the NCA who do it; the NCA has the decision’—and that is the end of the line. There is a certain hypocrisy in running an argument when it suits you and in ducking out of it when it does not. The government continually slide away from accountability, pushing everything in front of public servants—and anyone else, for that matter—but some of them still stand up and run this argument in relation to this particular question. I find that just so hypocritical.

I want to finish with two comments. I want to thank very sincerely those people from my electorate who have contacted me by email, phone and letter with their views on this issue. There have been many of them and their views have come from all different sides of the debate. I have to say that the majority have been in support of what I am about to do, but I want to thank all of them. It is part of our democratic process and to all of those people I intend, where at all possible, to send a reply, explaining to them, regardless of their stance, the decision I have taken and why I have taken it.

I reject the two amendments that have been put forward by the member for Bowman and the member for Lindsay. I support and endorse the bill in its entirety. I hope that, at the end of this process, all in this place will continue to hold regard for each other, which will enhance the democratic process in which we find ourselves. I hope that those who decide to inject some unwanted hysteria into the debate cease to do so once the vote is taken, no matter what the outcome is, and that we can get on with doing the best we can for our communities accordingly.

See this speech in context