Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 and, in doing so, wish to acknowledge the sincere and measured contributions of many members on both sides of the chamber who have preceded me in this debate. I wish to acknowledge, also, the many constituents who have expressed their views to me in this matter. While those expressed views have in the nature of things been conflicting ones, they have been honestly expressed and have been important in developing my position on this bill. I thank also members of my party in Corio for their input and wise counsel, as well as community and religious leaders who have taken time to discuss this matter with me.

I have not declared a public position on this legislation in the media, as I believe that it is right and proper as an elected representative to hear all views from those who have wanted to express them to me, including those of my colleagues, and to declare my intent on the floor of this House. This is the third conscience vote I have participated in since being elected to this parliament in 1993, and I welcome the opportunity on this occasion. While the process of decision making has been extremely difficult—and it has not got any easier over the time I have been in this parliament—my primary responsibility in this matter has been to my constituents and to this parliament and not to anybody else.

This matter is a sensitive one, and I regret the actions of some of my parliamentary colleagues who have attempted to cloak this debate in emotive and sometimes intemperate language and rhetoric. This has definitely not assisted the process of careful and rational consideration by others of this important matter to Australians. I, like many others in this parliament, have found this issue a most difficult one to consider, given the quite powerful and logical arguments that have been mounted on both sides of this debate. But I have given this bill my best shot—my close attention, thought and consideration—and, although the decision I have reached may not coincide with the views of some, it has been honestly reached, is balanced and, I believe, is in the interests of the community and this parliament.

In the 13 years that I have sat in this parliament, I have strongly advocated the primacy of the role of the parliament in ultimately deciding matters of great moment that arise from time to time in our society. Parliament here is the ultimate clearing house of views, positions and sentiments of the Australian people. I have watched the primacy of this place be constantly challenged by the executive and the bureaucracy and its authority eroded. Against this backdrop, it is important to distil the central issue at the heart of this private member’s bill, which is a proposed change in the evaluation and approval process relating to the pharmaceutical drug RU486, which may be and is used as an abortifacient.

In the course of this debate many members have articulated their own personal views on abortion, and that has been the substance of an important part of the correspondence and phone calls I have received from constituents and others in the Australian community. Given the nature of this debate and the conscience vote on this bill, it is entirely appropriate that members express their views on the abortion issue. The reality is, however, that in relation to the issue of abortion and pregnancy termination the legislative framework is determined by state governments. My views on abortion are known to my community: I oppose it. But, as a male who will never find himself in the same intimate and intense position as a woman in making the enormous decision on the future of a pregnancy, I have never arrogantly presumed to dictate my own personal view to a woman faced with that decision. Rather, as a former educator who has dealt with the situation with several families, I have approached the issue with all the sensitivity and compassion I could muster to ensure that the best and full range of counselling services and advice was made available to the individuals and their families in confronting their momentous decision. One’s personal views on the issue of abortion are obviously important to some members more than others, given the fact that the drug RU486 is an abortifacient.

But the real task I believe we face as legislators in considering this bill is to legislate a process of evaluation and approval which, on the one hand, is rigorous, has inherent scientific integrity and is capable of providing expert advice on safety and efficacy considerations and, on the other hand, provides a viable process for synthesising the ethical, moral and general community viewpoints to provide a societal overview of the matter. Therefore, I see a critical role for both the TGA and the parliament in the process. In describing a role for the TGA and the parliament in this process, I am mindful of the emotional debate generated by RU486, and I acknowledge the powerful arguments advanced by those who are supporting this bill.

But there are two matters I would like the House to weigh heavily in its deliberations and in developing its legislative, procedural and structural response. The first relates to the safe use of RU486. While the drug is in widespread use in some 30 countries, there is a mounting body of evidence that its use carries significantly higher health and mortality risks for some women. I note the recent actions of the American Food and Drug Administration in initiating an inquiry into safety aspects of the drug and similar moves in other countries to examine this matter more closely. It would be prudent, therefore, to ensure that the best available scientific and medical advice is available to decision makers, be they in the TGA, the executive or the parliament, on these important considerations. I see an important role for the TGA in providing this expert advice, notwithstanding the serious reservations I have about the culture that has grown up inside the TGA, which is commented on in various Audit Office reports and private consulting reports that are now a part of the public record. I refer here to its closeness to the powerful pharmaceutical companies operating within our health system.

The second matter I would like this House to weigh heavily in its deliberations is the inherently contentious nature of this and other restricted drugs under the act, the widely divergent and conflicting views sincerely held by many Australians on their use, and the societal and community impacts of their use. This necessitates, in my view, the input and oversight of the parliament in consideration of these matters.

As the clearing house for views and sentiments throughout this nation, it is appropriate that this parliament and its members figure prominently in the structures we establish to deliberate and consider this issue and others like it in the future. Imperfect as we all might be as individuals, we ought to put our faith in the collective wisdom inherent in genuine democratic processes and structures.

Regrettably the time allocated for individual members to debate this bill has been curtailed, as I would have appreciated additional time to explore the many issues and arguments that are important and inherent in this debate. I will not be supporting this particular bill, but will support the amendment proposed by the member for Lindsay, which I think most closely approximates my view on providing an appropriate role for the TGA, the minister and the parliament in these matters.

Should the amendment not find favour with the House, I will support the amendment proposed by the member for Bowman which provides for parliamentary oversight of these TGA processes. I do not favour these momentous issues being wholly considered within a bureaucratic process and structure such as the TGA’s or giving this minister sole responsibility and discretion in this matter. I would urge members to consider and support the amendments that insert them, as the elected representatives of this parliament, directly into the consideration of this matter and the processes and structures that will be established as a consequence of this debate.

I do acknowledge and appreciate that the views that I have expressed here tonight may not coincide with those of some members of my own party and indeed some members in the Geelong community, but I can assure all members of this House and my electors of Corio that I have laboured long and hard in my consideration of this matter. It has not been an easy matter for me nor, I think, for any other member of this House to consider, to deliberate on and to reach reasonable conclusions. I have been heartened by those in this debate who have been measured in the way that they have expressed their views. I brook no truck with those who have sought to extract political advantage and to impose their emotive and extreme views on others, either in the parliament or outside it.

I hope that through this great democratic process that we are engaged in here the best solution for all Australians will be reached, one where we can have a scientific and medical examination of this particular drug which is expert but which also inserts into the process the elected representatives of this parliament. I think that is very important to this debate.

See this speech in context