Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. The bill seeks to remove the responsibility that is now in the hands of the health minister of the day, whoever that might be, to allow RU486 as a drug to be used for medical terminations. I respect the views of everyone speaking on this bill. It is terribly important, because we have all been given the opportunity for a conscience vote on this bill. A conscience vote takes, I would hope, the party politics out of the decision. So we are really all on our own, as it were, when it comes to deciding how we should vote with regard to this bill. In many ways that is very good for democracy.

I have had comments from members of my electorate. When people have particular positions, many say, ‘This is very good for democracy.’ It enables us all to go back to our electorates and seek a wide range of views. Many views on this subject have come unsolicited, which I have certainly appreciated. It allows you to make sure you keep in touch with the views of your constituency in relation to this conscience vote. I take the views of my constituents very seriously. A large number of people have contacted my office, both from within my electorate and—possibly more so—from outside my electorate. I respect all of those views. The views that have come to me from my electorate have been for and against. There is not a universal yes or no. So then it comes to me to use my judgment as to how I should vote on this subject.

This is not a debate about abortion. Some have said it is a debate about abortion. This parliament does not have the power to deal with the issue of abortion. Those laws are with the state and territory governments around Australia. They are not laws of the Commonwealth. That is why it is not an issue about abortion. Whilst the drug that is the subject of this bill would, if allowed to be available in Australia, bring about a termination, the bill is not per se about abortion. Nor do we in this place have any power with regard to the laws governing abortion. As I said earlier, they are the laws of the state and territory governments, not the Commonwealth.

This bill, if it is passed, will allow the Therapeutic Goods Administration to consider the safety and efficacy of RU486. A lot of people have used the word ‘bureaucrats’ when they talk about the members of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I want to use some time this afternoon to read into the Hansard who these people are. The people who make up the membership of the Therapeutic Goods Administration are in fact appointments of the Minister for Health and Ageing. They make up the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. It is a requirement of the law that the minister appoint core members to that committee. The regulation says:

• three must be eminent medical practitioners with at least two specialists in clinical medicine; and
• one must be a pharmacologist, or hold a degree in science, specialising in pharmaceutical science.

The associate members must include:

• at least one pharmaceutical chemist with recent manufacturing experience in therapeutic goods; and
• at least one toxicologist; and
• a medical practitioner in general practice.

They are hardly bureaucrats.

I have great respect for the people who are on the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. They are eminent people in their fields. The chairman is Professor Martin Tattersall of the Department of Cancer Medicine, University of Sydney. Other core members are Professor Nicholas Glasgow of the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute of the Australian National University; Dr Alyson Kakakios, Head of Department, Department of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, the Children’s Hospital at Westmead in New South Wales; Dr Geoffrey Herkes, Senior Staff Specialist in Neurology, Royal North Shore Hospital, and Senior Clinical Lecturer in Medicine, University of Sydney, New South Wales; Associate Professor Anne Mijch, an infectious diseases physician at the Alfred Hospital, a consultant physician at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre and Royal Women’s Hospital and a senior lecturer in the department of medicine at Monash University in Victoria; Associate Professor Duncan Topliss, who is the director of the department of endocrinology and diabetes at the Alfred Hospital in Victoria, and Chairman of the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee of the ADEC; and Professor Julia Potter, who is a pathologist in the Canberra Hospital in the ACT. The associate members of the Therapeutic Goods Administration are also very eminent people—doctors and professors.

I have read the names of those people into the Hansard because some members have been referring to them as ‘bureaucrats’. They are highly qualified and well-educated people who are all appointed to that committee by the minister to consider and evaluate drugs that come forward as to whether they should be made available in Australia.

I am not competent to judge the safety or the efficacy of any drug that we have available in Australia today. I am not competent to judge whether Ventolin is a safe drug. I am not competent to judge whether Nurofen should be under a certain classification that is available in Australia today—or antibiotics or other drugs that will improve the quality of life and be responsible for improving the health of Australians. I am not competent to do that. But, in this case, I do trust the minister’s appointments to—the core members of—the evaluation committee of the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

As I have done some research on this subject, I have also discovered that RU486 has been available in many countries overseas—in some of them, for more than 20 years—such as the United Kingdom, the United States of America and countries in Europe. Contrary to some of the media reports, I understand that it is available in China and Israel; that is the advice that I have.

I also understand that RU486 has purposes other than as an abortifacient. RU486 can be made available through a special access arrangement for some life-threatening diseases. It does have an effect for some people who suffer from inoperable meningiomas, Cushing’s syndrome, breast and prostate cancer, glaucoma, depression or uterine fibroids. It also has shown some promise in the treatment of HIV-AIDS, dementia and progesterone dependent uterine and ovarian cancer. As I understand it, if RU486 were available—rather than being available only through special access arrangements, as it is at the moment—it could certainly improve the life of many people who suffer those very serious life-threatening and debilitating diseases. But, as I have said, it is only available now through a special access agreement, which often takes time, which means that it is often too late to be able to provide that relief or support to those who suffer some of those forms of cancer or inoperable and life-threatening diseases. I certainly have faith in those who comprise the TGA and that they are competent to make the decision as to whether RU486 is safe to be used, under what terms it should be used and its efficacy.

I know that two amendments will be put before this place before the final vote is taken; they are the Laming and Kelly amendments. I have decided to support one of those amendments, in that it would allow the TGA to consider the safety and efficacy of RU486 and then make a recommendation to the minister. As I understand that amendment at this stage, that would allow the drug to be evaluated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. If the minister of the day then disagreed, he or she would have to lay before the parliament their reasons for disagreeing with the evaluation of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It would then become a disallowable instrument in this place. At that juncture, if the parliament disagreed with the minister, the drug would be made available—but that is only if the Therapeutic Goods Administration had made that recommendation and the conditions under which it could be prescribed for use in Australia. If those amendments do not get up, I believe that, on balance at the end of the day, I will give my support to this bill before the parliament.

In conclusion, this is a very difficult debate. As I said earlier, it is not about abortion; it is about which body is most competent to deal with the evaluation of this drug. I think I have outlined in my address that I have faith in the professionalism and the expertise of the core members of the Therapeutic Goods Administration to make that evaluation in the first place. I believe that, if the proposed amendments get up, the sovereignty of this parliament would be given the opportunity to consider any decision that the minister would disagree with, if the Therapeutic Goods Administration had made a recommendation for the availability of RU486.

See this speech in context