Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I, like the Minister for Education, Science and Training, support the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I do not support the amendment that has been put forward. I do acknowledge, like all speakers in this debate, that it is a difficult and an emotional issue. I think all of us as parliamentarians can attest to that, because all of us in one way or another have been lobbied in relation to it. I am very conscious that there are people of goodwill on both sides of this parliament who hold very strong views and beliefs that have shaped their decision in relation to how they will vote.

I acknowledge the contribution to this debate in the parliament not just from the Minister for Education, Science and Training, who has just spoken, but from the mover and seconder of the motion to bring this bill before the House for debate, the member for Moore and the member for Lalor. It is also appropriate in the context of the bill that is before us to acknowledge the cross-party promotion of the bill in the Senate by Senators Allison, Moore, Troeth and Nash. The opportunity for both sides of the parliament to get together to present common positions is very welcome whenever it occurs in this place.

Of course we should be examining the issue calmly and objectively when we come to make a decision. I do not think it helps to have slogans and simplistic messages displayed around the parliament. I do recognise the calm and rational way in which most members of this House have spoken so far and the way in which they have contributed to the debate. I also recognise and respect the very personal feelings and experiences that some members and senators have introduced into this debate.

There is a conscience vote associated with this bill. That, in itself, is a rare occurrence in this chamber. It does bring with it a different tone. It brings with it a lot of soul-searching, a lot of personal experiences—people grappling with competing arguments. In many cases this has been a difficult and agonising process of personal reflection and consultation with friends and family, with organisations, whether they are in our constituency or of a national nature, as well as with specialists and medical experts.

Like all other members in both chambers, I have thought long and hard about this issue. I have been reading as much as I can about the medical, moral and ethical aspects of the matter. I am also very grateful for the advice and comments I have received from many of my constituents on the matter. I have received a large number of representations from the people of Hotham in relation to this issue. I respect their views. I always have and I always will. Interestingly, they have divided almost equally on each side of this issue.

We are being asked to decide who should decide on the importation of the drug RU486 and other drugs of that class of abortifacients. Should it be the minister for health or the Therapeutic Goods Administration? Ten years ago, when the parliament had to consider this issue, it decided in favour of the minister. Ten years on, medical knowledge has advanced significantly. Speaking to medical experts, as I have, different treatments and new drugs have clearly become available and are continuing to be developed. I have the very strong view that it should be the medical experts and not the minister for health who should determine whether or not they are appropriate for use in particular circumstances.

This is not a debate about abortion or about the personality, character and beliefs of the current minister for health. Nevertheless, it is a debate that raises difficult moral and medical issues. Because of that, all parties have decided that there should be a conscience vote in relation to it. A conscience vote means just that—that members should be permitted to vote according to their consciences. I have said before that I know views differ on this side of the House, but I respect the honesty and the depth of feeling that are behind those views. Labor’s policy as expressed in our platform does not specifically deal with RU486, but it does say that Labor will:

... support the rights of women to determine their own reproductive lives, particularly the right to choose appropriate fertility control and abortion.

I agree with that position. I think that matters of reproductive health and of abortion should be matters for a woman and her doctor. As to whether or not a particular drug should be made available, that should be a matter for the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the statutory authority established by this parliament which determines access to all kinds of other drugs, including drugs that may well be dangerous or addictive if misused. It should not be a matter for a politician to veto—one person with his or her own views who may or may not seek appropriate expert advice. Here we are talking of a conscience vote determining the deliberation of this bill but, the way things stand, one person’s conscience can veto whether or not tests can be conducted.

Since 1996 we have had an effective veto on RU486. The requirement for ministerial approval has been such a disincentive that since 1996 RU486 has not been imported for research or clinical use. Labor supported the amendment in 1996 that required ministerial approval for the importation of RU486. We did so then in recognition of the sensitive nature of the issue and the undoubted community concern about it. We also supported the amendment in 1996 because at the time there were concerns about the long-term health effects of RU486. There is no doubt that community concern still exists about it today, but we now have far greater knowledge about RU486. Ten years on, there have been huge leaps in the understanding of it. In 1996 we did not intend the amendment to constitute a ban on RU486, but that is what it has become.

My fundamental position on the specific question of the availability of RU486 is that the decision should be made by the expert body, the Therapeutic Goods Administration. That is why I support this bill. We entrust the TGA with decisions on other drugs, drugs that can be dangerous or addictive if misused. We should entrust it also with this class of drugs. I do not accept the argument that the TGA is somehow unaccountable and the minister is more accountable and should make the decision. It was interesting to hear the minister for education in her contribution point to all of the bodies that have to be associated and the way they have to be publicly accountable.

If it were the case that the minister must always override, why have expert bodies? Why have those expert bodies make decisions on anything? Why not just leave it to the minister? Clearly, that is an absurd proposition. There is always the need to delegate responsibility to expert committees where matters of a technical nature and matters of health and safety are clearly concerned. As to the pressure that is being put on people to vote in a certain way, possibly by pressure groups or by the views of the Prime Minister or the minister for health or by the result of the vote in the Senate, I am confident that the members of this House are sufficiently independent and honest to make their own decisions.

This is not a no-confidence vote in the minister or in the parliament—that is a ridiculous proposition. It is a vote of confidence that members and senators can weigh up the evidence, examine their own consciences and come to a decision which they can justify to their constituents and to themselves. This is not a debate about abortion either. It is not a debate about whether or not abortion should be legal. The courts have decided that in certain circumstances it is legal. Given that it is legal in certain circumstances, the medical advice must be based on providing the best possible solution. That must be a decision for the experts. Currently the experts cannot prescribe the drug because of a ministerial veto. This bill is about ending that veto and leaving the consideration of a woman’s health to medical experts.

What we are debating is who should determine whether this drug should be made available. This is a conscience vote, and each member will be voting according to their conscience. It is ironic that, if this bill is not passed, the matter will continue to be determined by the conscience of one person: the Minister for Health and Ageing. I believe that it should be a decision for medical experts and not for the minister for health. That is why I support the bill.

See this speech in context