Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, let me say that I am opposed to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I see the current situation as being the most desirable situation. However, I would be prepared to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lindsay and, were that to fail, I would support the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Bowman.

I oppose this bill on a number of grounds. Firstly, I believe that the drug RU486 is medically unsafe and unproven. Secondly, I believe that as elected representatives we do have an obligation to play a role in making decisions on issues of great moral importance. Thirdly, on a personal note, I am opposed to abortion.

I congratulate all of those honourable members who are participating in this debate, regardless of the position they are individually taking, because by having a conscience vote on an important issue such as this we are proving that the parliament of Australia is working and that we are able to come along here and think through the issues. While we might on occasions—and undoubtedly we will on this occasion—reach differing views, I think we are all being honest. The Australian community would expect each of us to be honest, to think through the various issues and the ramifications of our vote and to make a decision accordingly.

The issue of RU486 has been described as a number of things. It has been described as a moral issue, as a religious issue and as a policy issue. At this stage in the debate I have been extraordinarily disappointed by how some members have been targeted because of their religious faith. The Minister for Health and Ageing  is a person of very high principle, as are others on both sides of the House. I do not believe that contributions to this debate or how one is going to vote ought to be publicly based on whether or not one is a member of the Roman Catholic Church. This drug, RU486, is a life and death issue and for that reason the power to approve the drug in Australia in my view should remain with the minister for health. It has been this way since 1996 and no-one objected when Minister Wooldridge had that responsibility nor when Minister Patterson had it.

Statistics from those countries that already allow the use of RU486 show that between one in 20 and one in 12 women who are administered the drug will require urgent post-abortion care. Common side effects include considerable bleeding, surgery and, in some cases, the need for blood transfusions.

But there should be more concern over the number of deaths of women as a direct result of taking RU486. There has been a figure mentioned of five fatalities around the world as a direct result of taking RU486. From research on the internet, it appears that there have been deaths in Britain, France and the United States since the drug first became available some years ago. Personally, I wonder if the actual death rate could be higher.

Once taken, RU486 must be followed up two days later with a second drug, Cytotec, commonly known in Australia as misoprostol, which is the clean-up drug. A story under the headline ‘No Magic Pill’ on the US website National Review Online noted:

... when taken alone, RU-486 causes a complete abortion only about 60 percent of the time, leaving a patient vulnerable to serious infection and hemorrhaging.

The follow-up drug, misoprostol, triggers contractions in the uterus, with the specific purpose of expelling the baby to be aborted, thereby reducing the chance of deadly infections. But this drug also comes with a significant risk of complications. This drug was never designed to be part of a ‘killer couple’ in chemical abortions. This drug was actually designed to treat stomach ulcers. Side effects of misoprostal can include reduced blood flow to the uterus, possible rupture of the uterus—requiring surgery to repair the damage or even a hysterectomy—severe pelvic pain, retained placenta, severe genital bleeding, shock and, in the worst cases, death. It is no wonder that the silent partner of RU486 in this debate comes with the following warning from its manufacturer, Pfizer:

We would not recommend use outside TGA-endorsed indication and at this stage that just involves stomach ulcers.

That is a quote from the Australian of 31 January this year. Perhaps there should be an investigation into the availability of this drug to aid the abortion of unwanted babies. With regard to the deaths resulting from infection caused by the unsuccessful use of RU486, one commentator noted that they may go down in the records as being unrelated to the drug itself. I quote nationalreview.com of 26 September 2003:

... RU-486 did not cause the septic shock which killed a woman taking part in Canadian drug trials. And that’s technically true, of course. The infections are caused by dead human embryos or parts thereof which are not fully expelled.

It is difficult to ignore the emotion associated with this issue, because it involves the termination of life. I personally believe that life begins at conception. That is a personal view that I have. The predominant argument by those supporting the provisions of this bill has been that the approval of such a drug should not be left in the hands of a politician—that the decision on what is essentially a medical issue should be left up to those with medical expertise, such as those in the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The opposing view—the view I hold and that I enunciated a moment ago—is that those who are elected to parliament are thereby given a mandate to make tough decisions. This is particularly important given the type of risk documented in chemical abortions using RU486 and misoprostol in combination.

The minister for health does not make decisions based on whim. He would receive advice from the professionals involved in the Therapeutic Goods Administration and other sources before he would ultimately come to a decision. It is wrong to say that the minister is not qualified and that he does not act on advice. He certainly would never make a decision without taking into account all the advice before him.

It is important that elected members listen to their constituents and take the public’s views on board before making a decision on how they will vote. This is a very interesting issue. Like other honourable members, I have received a number of letters and phone calls at my electorate office regarding this issue, and overwhelmingly people have expressed their views against the legalisation of the RU486 drug. The people in my electorate office tell me—and I scrutinised and questioned them very closely—that we have not received one letter, email or phone call from a constituent in support of this bill. I find that amazing but it is actually the case. We have received no indications of support from people in the community. The majority of constituents express their stance based on moral grounds; others base their reasoning on both moral and medical grounds.

If I were to base my vote solely on the opinions of those constituents who have taken the time to contact my office about this issue, I would have no choice but to vote against this bill, because this bill would work towards the legalisation of RU486 in Australia. As I said, however, I have looked very carefully through the provisions of this bill. I have looked at the two amendments before the House. RU486 is a matter of life and death. The final decisions should be left in the hands of those who are in a position to balance the many varying opinions with the scientific facts, in order to come up with the right decision. I believe that the current situation is the ideal one, but I see the position advocated by the honourable member for Lindsay as being an acceptable compromise. The minister would make the decision; he would continue to receive advice from the Therapeutic Goods Administration; he would have to receive written advice from that administration prior to giving approval or refusal; and his decision would be subject to disallowance by each house of the parliament.

I respect everyone who has expressed views similar to mine and in opposition to mine. This is a very healthy debate. I plead with my colleagues in the chamber to either reject the bill or support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Lindsay.

See this speech in context