Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I would like to say from the beginning that I have found this debate to be deeply troubling at a personal level, as the whole issue is a very difficult and complex one. It is an issue that leads me to examine my most fundamental beliefs. And it has been difficult not just for me. The issue has, understandably, generated considerable debate relating to a broad range of issues around this subject.

I want to make a few points that are important to me and which will, I sincerely hope, make a worthwhile contribution to the debate. But, before I do, I would like to say that I do not like abortion. In fact, I find abortion very disturbing and most uncomfortable. I believe that there are far, far too many abortions in Australia and that we—‘we’ being governments at all levels—together with community organisations should work earnestly to support and help people who need assistance and guidance when they find themselves in a situation where the question of an abortion arises. I believe there may be and are particular circumstances or situations where, regrettably, abortion is the only option—an option of last resort. When and if this terrible situation occurs, in the end only the people involved can make the decision that they believe, based on their own beliefs or their own unique circumstances, is best at the end of the day for them.

Another important and absolutely fundamental point I would like to make is that, regardless of who approves what with regard to RU486, if this drug is assessed in Australia to be dangerous and unsafe in any way I do not want anyone or any authority approving RU486 for use by anyone—full stop. If this drug is found to be unsafe, based on the accepted rigorous analysis and evidence based evaluation that exists for all drugs in our country, it should be banned totally.

I also would like to say today that my position should in no way be taken as a reflection on the current Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott. He has been, is and will continue to be an outstanding health minister serving the people of this nation. Having said that, it requires me, as a matter of responsibility, to turn my mind to what is actually being asked in the bill that is now before the House. I make the point about what is ‘actually being asked in the bill’ because, regrettably, there has been an enormous amount of misinformation disseminated in the community from all quarters about what we are being asked to decide upon in this bill.

On this point I would just like to say how disappointed I have been in the misinformation relating to this important issue. Whilst I can appreciate that both individuals and organisations will seek to influence debates, I have been alarmed at what seems to be almost the deliberate skewing of information to suit one agenda or the other. We as members of parliament are being asked to decide whether it is appropriate that in the case of one drug, and one drug alone, RU486, written approval is required from the Minister for Health and Ageing before this drug can be evaluated, registered, listed or imported into Australia. As a result of what is actually in the bill, I have reached the view that this is an issue not about abortion; I believe it is an issue about what is the best and most appropriate governance process relating to this important discussion.

In considering the issues I have just mentioned there are many, obviously, who are divided on what is the best approach to take to answer the questions I have outlined above. Many people are happy with the status quo because they believe it restricts the drug in our country—that is, they like the idea of the minister of the day having the right of veto. It seems to me, however, that these people—those who support the status quo—might hold a different view if, in their opinion, the minister making the decision was likely to approve the referral of the drug to the TGA. And I suspect the same would apply to those who wish to see the minister’s power of veto removed. Would they be waging a campaign against the ministerial veto if they were confident that the minister making the decision was going to give them the decision they want?

Therefore, as I have said before, I hold the view that what we are actually being asked to decide upon here is very much a governance and procedural issue and should be considered on that basis alone. That is, let us set aside the ideological question and the personal biases from all viewpoints and consider it as a question of governance and appropriate procedure. In reaching my decision, I have thought about this issue for many hours. I have thought about whether my logic is right. I have thought about whether I have approached this issue in the right way—that is, that my logic is sensible and that this is not a matter about abortion but, rather, a matter of governance and process. I hope my thinking proves correct. In the end, one day I will know, but it may not be in this life. It has been very difficult. However, my thinking has led me to a decision to support the bill that would allow the TGA to assess this drug in line with the procedures for all other drugs in our country.

Two of my colleagues have moved or foreshadowed amendments to the bill. I understand that there remains some clarification needed to ensure that these amendments would actually work as they are intended. I believe that the amendment circulated by Mr Laming, the member for Bowman, can potentially allow for an appropriate process that may meet my concerns. As a result, if it will work as it is intended then I would be happy to support this amendment, which would allow the TGA to evaluate this drug but allow their decision to be disallowable by the parliament. However, I want to stress again very strongly that if, after assessment, this drug is deemed to be unsafe then under no circumstances should any person or any authority approve it.

Some people may be aware that I am a member of the Uniting Church in Australia. Furthermore, many people are aware that I very often—and I stress: very often—do not agree with the views as expressed by my church on a whole range of issues. However, I do believe that the president of the church, the Reverend Dr Dean Drayton, does offer some wise counsel on this issue. Dr Drayton said in his media release:

The Uniting Church hopes that those engaged in this debate do not lose sight of the complexity of the issues.

I do think this is wise counsel because it is a complex and profound issue.

As I stand here today and express my views on this issue, I must admit that I remain most uncomfortable and most uncertain about whether my thinking on this matter is appropriate and indeed right. I remain uncomfortable as to whether or not it is right according to what we are called to do for the good of all people. I can only hope that people will accept, while maybe not agreeing with me in total, that I have, with the very best intentions, arrived at my decision sincerely and only after a great deal of soul-searching.

See this speech in context