Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is a need in this debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 to counter a range of misrepresentations about the history of the use and about the safety record of the drug RU486. There has been an enormous amount of debate in the House on this issue and there will continue to be. Some of it will be enormously repetitive. Unfortunately, that is the nature of this debate.

This debate is concise in its intent. It is to determine if a member of parliament—a single member of parliament of any political persuasion—should decide on the safety of a drug or whether the TGA, the body that assesses all other drugs, should be the responsible determinant. There is an important significance in separating politics from decisions on the safety and efficacy of medicines and decisions on the establishment of selective criteria and guidelines for the use of medicines. All decisions regarding medical evidence and safety measures et cetera on any drug should be made on the basis of expert evidence, not on a possible political agenda. This does not mean that the current minister’s capabilities are at all in question here. I personally happen to think that Minister Abbott is one of the best health ministers that the parliament has ever had. I have been consistent in advising him of this. But what would happen should Minister Abbott not be the health minister? Imagine having a rampant and pro-choice health minister from any side of the parliament who could make such a drug available without a clear and transparent scientific assessment process. I suspect that we would then face calls from our constituencies right across Australia to have an independent authority that is charged with the responsibility for the assessment and approval of this drug.

Since 1989 the TGA has fulfilled all of its roles in assessing and monitoring over 50,000 serious drugs. Some of these drugs are very toxic and they are made available to all Australians. With improper use they can be detrimental to people and can certainly cause death. The TGA has also responsibly refused some of the applications to make drugs available, due to its rigid and strict assessment and public health protocols. I have certainly been involved with the TGA processes in my quest to have a naltrexone implant trialled and made available for those people who are addicted to heroin. A naltrexone implant should have its safety and efficacy proved or not proved, rather than a decision being based on the hype and emotion about the possibility that a death which occurred in trials some time ago may have resulted from taking an oral naltrexone tablet.

We as a government have relied on and accepted the TGA’s advice on all other contentious pharmaceuticals. We have accepted their rigorous process. We have accepted that their scientific analysis and evaluation is a right and proper process, yet we do not accept it for this drug. One thing that should be discussed in this debate is just how an evidence based evaluation of a drug’s safety can put women at risk. This is about an evidence based evaluation, and I do not see women being put at risk by an evaluation process.

The question is just why we should not be entitled to have the weight of medical evidence considered so that we have a factual judgment about the risks associated with a drug, rather than the ill-informed, emotional, misrepresented hype that we are currently experiencing. I can honestly say, as others have said in this House, that I have never before been exposed to so much misinformation on any issue that I have had to make a decision upon. I do not blame the people who are relying on this misinformation, because they simply do not have access to factual accounts. They are being substantially influenced by this misinformation and propaganda campaign, and this is very unfortunate.

I am not at all asserting that people would agree with this bill if they were aware of the real facts. Of course they would not, as it is clearly for many an issue about the abortion factor of RU486 and their genuine objection to abortion under any circumstances or by any means. I, for one, respect the right of all of these people to hold this view. However, I do not believe that we are debating the rights or wrongs of abortion.

I understand that many people in the Riverina will be bitterly disappointed—they are bitterly disappointed; they are advising me of that—with my decision to support the bill as it stands before us. That saddens me—not because I am worried about my votes at the next election, because I absolutely accept any decision at the ballot box. If I am voted in, I will always give 100 per cent effort. However, if I am not voted in, I have a wonderful life to lead, with a wonderful husband, children and grandchildren, and some day I look forward to leading that life. Yet I do still feel sad, because I genuinely care very much about the many views of the constituents across the Riverina. To know that many will feel that I have not done the right thing in this debate does fill me with sadness. But, as I said, it is not because I am seeking their vote; it is because I genuinely would like to do the best that I can in my representation on their behalf.

Of course, there are those who are making personal judgments on my morality, and this I absolutely object to. There has been so much hype and emotional blackmail fired at me that is totally out of line and unacceptable, and I feel that I have exercised great tolerance of the accusing abuse, simply because I can understand why people get upset on an issue that may see a woman making the decision to terminate a pregnancy. But I do not feel that anyone has the right to judge me for doing the job that I was put here to do—that is, to weigh up all of the factual evidence I can, to make a decision and then to have the courage to stand here and be counted.

So, if you believe that I have taken the wrong stance and because of that you have no confidence in my representation on all other areas to do with the Riverina and its issues, I accept that. I absolutely accept that, and I have no argument, nor do I have any defence. However, I do not believe that anyone has the right to judge my morals. There is only one maker that I am answerable to, and I have no concerns about that day.

I will make reference to my view on abortion, lest it be said that I tried to hide from this issue by asserting that this debate is not about abortion. I do support a woman’s right to access a termination if she finds herself confronting a situation that, by the grace of God, I have never had to face. I have so much in my life to be grateful for, and this is one decision that I have been spared from making. I have seriously thought about it over the last few months, and I have asserted that it is a decision that I could not personally make. But, in a conversation yesterday, it became apparent to me that I could not say that, because I would not know the decision that I would make until I had actually been placed in that position.

It is obvious that my age means that I will never have to make that decision, but I will certainly not make judgments for those who may make this decision. What I will do is cast a vote to put the assessment of the safety and efficacy of RU486 into the appropriate place, in order that the rigorous analysis that the TGA employs on all other drugs can be applied. Should that assessment pass health and safety tests, then it is up to others to determine for themselves whether they will ever access that drug. I would hope that the decision to terminate a pregnancy would be a last resort and the very last choice that any woman, her partner and their families have to make. However, I firmly believe that, whilst it should be the last choice, nonetheless it should be a choice.

I would like to dispel another misunderstanding by the people who are claiming to me that RU486 is a do-it-yourself abortion procedure that will see the purchase of RU486 over the internet and almost without question. They are absolutely wrong. Medical abortion is not a do-it-yourself option. The facts are that you need to comply with the abortion laws of the state where you reside and that, whether it is a medical or a surgical termination, it requires medical oversight and approval. If a state requires the satisfying of mental health or physical tests or any other reason for a surgical termination, the same conditions will have to be satisfied, should this product be proven, available for the market and able to be utilised for a termination.

Another factor that needs to be considered in respect of RU486 is the benefit it brings as a treatment for inoperable tumours and cancers, including breast cancer and prostate cancer. Whilst there is a claim that RU486 has claimed lives, and that is true, it must also be said that RU486 can save lives, and that is also true. It has been stated in correspondence to me that RU486 is currently approved by the TGA for those illnesses but, factually, that is not correct. The Secretary to the Department of Health and Ageing acknowledged only last year that only a very small number of cancer patients had gained any access to RU486.

I again remind the House that, although I feel compelled to address the issue of abortion in this debate, simply because the debate has been hijacked towards this area, I am only charged with making one decision. That decision is about the correct procedure for all drug assessments in Australia. I assert again that my vote is nothing to do with a vote of no confidence in Tony Abbott, the Minister for Health and Ageing. In fact, it is a vote of no confidence in the procedural position that we have found ourselves in.

I have been emotionally hit by the contributions of member after member, who have stood in this parliament and emotionally outlined their justification for doing the job they were put here to do. This issue has had members reaching into their past, their present and their future. Members have questioned themselves—many to the point of exhaustion at times—and it has hit me that there are far too few people out there in voter land who really have any idea of the difficulty in terms of commitment that members of parliament face. I am proud of each person who has stood in this parliament on this debate, no matter what decision they have come to, because I know that each of them has put themself through a personally confronting process in order to come to their position. This is what true democracy is all about. I support the bill as it stands in the parliament.

See this speech in context