Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Irrespective of the outcome of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, the debate has highlighted a very significant issue that I think this parliament should reflect on a little more: the issue of when members of parliament are given some degree of freedom in the way they vote. They do take it seriously. An enormous amount of research has been conducted by members on both sides of this issue, and I give credit to them. I think that is something that the executive government should pick up on as well. People are not sheep, if you like, in the major parties; they can think for themselves and express themselves very well on key issues before the parliament. I congratulate those people on the work and effort they have put in.

I support the legislation before the parliament today. I will not be supporting the proposed amendments. I see this vote as very much a vote about who determines the use of a drug. I do not see it in the light of the abortion debate. I have personal views on abortion, but this is not a debate on abortion. It is a debate about the assessment and regulation of a drug that is available in some parts of the world and may or may not become available in this part of the world. If this legislation is passed, it will not necessarily mean that RU486 will be available to the Australian population. It will mean that a medical process will take place to assess the safety risks.

I take on board the comments that the member for Calare made, and I understand some of those concerns—I think most people do. All drugs carry risk. This drug may carry risks as well. But I do not believe, as some people do in relation to the amendments to the bill coming before the parliament, that I have the technical skills to make decisions about this drug. I do not believe I have those skills in relation to other drugs. If we open up the debate that members of parliament should suddenly become experts on the use of and safety measures for drugs, we will have a whole range of drugs before the parliament asking for similar consideration. So I believe that the TGA, the medical experts, should be the ones who make the decision on the use of RU486.

We have heard the differing views within the parliament. There are medical practitioners, two of whom I listened to quite intently. I regard them as men of high esteem. They had differing views on this drug, and they are trained in the use of drugs generally and in patient care. A number of people in my electorate, as within all electorates, have raised concerns on both sides of the debate. I thank those people for the information they have transferred to me. I have to say that I thought many more constituents would have raised this issue, because on many other issues there has been much greater concern and personal interaction. I note that some of the members of parliament have done mini polls of their constituencies or have counted up letters for and against and come up with some indication of where their electorates are taking them. It is interesting to see that they do that, and I would encourage them to follow that particular line on other issues. I note that quite a lot of them did not bother to follow the so-called instructions of their electorates on some other important issues that have come before the parliament in recent months.

I listened quite intently to the Treasurer’s contribution this morning. The Treasurer spent some time talking about the personal dilemma that he faced in consideration of a termination some years ago in his life. I know that in my family we also have been touched by this issue in years gone past. I took on board the concerns that the member for Riverina raised—and I do not want to verbal her—about her not wanting to be put into the situation where she would have to make that decision. I think she made a valid point: it would be a hard decision to make if you were placed in that position. Unless people have actually been there they really cannot know what that sort of decision process is about.

In saying that I think we really must respect the choice that women of varying ages have to make—they might be young girls or they might be women in their 40s. It is not an easy choice. I personally do not feel that I want to be in the position of removing a particular choice about how a legal abortion can take place. Abortion is legal on the state statutes, and I do not want to be in the position of deciding how that process can be conducted. Some regard has to be taken of the process that the TGA will use in its assessment of this drug. In supporting this bill I am not supporting the use of RU486; I am supporting a legitimate medical process to determine whether this drug is safe and whether it should be assessed as suitable for treatment within Australia.

I am not a medical person, and so I do not have the expertise, but there may well be certain restrictions that could be placed on its use in relation to distance from medical facilities. There may well be some restrictions about the clinical use of the drug. There may be recommendations that if you live in certain areas this drug may not be as safe as having a surgical abortion. One thing is for sure: if the TGA does legitimise the use of this drug, there will be pressure on the recommendations of GPs for its use and on the relationship between patient and doctor. Real pressure will be put on those people to make sure that some of the things that have been talked about here—for example, picking up the drug and just wandering off into the bush and carrying out an abortion at home—cannot occur and that there is close contact between the medical practitioner and the woman concerned.

There are a couple of other issues that I would like to raise. I think most of us have seen from time to time that one of the worst things we can do is have people having unwanted children. There are two issues here: the woman concerned and, obviously, the foetus. We have too many unwanted children in Australia now for whom we are trying to pick up the pieces and patch together their lives. The last thing we really should be encouraging is for women to be mothers who do not want to be mothers, irrespective of their age, and not being given the choice of being able to terminate that pregnancy.

I conclude by reiterating that the safety issues that the member for Calare and many others have spoken about really do have to be discussed both within this place and within the processes of the TGA. Proper protocols need to be put in place so that a lot of concerns that many people within the parliament have in relation to this issue can be alleviated.

I would highlight, particularly to my constituents who have concerns about this debate, that most of the letters I have received—and, as I have said, I have not received a great number of them—that are opposed to the legislation or are suggesting that I should vote against RU486 or the TGA being the determining body for the usage of it have essentially talked about the issue of termination of pregnancy rather than the issue of who makes the determination as to whether the drug in question is used. As I said at the start of my contribution, I will be supporting the legislation before the parliament, and I will not be supporting the two amendments that are being proposed.

See this speech in context