Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 bill has stirred significant debate in our community. Can I say at the outset that I respect all the views that have been put to me by constituents within the federal electorate of Casey. This is a bill about which few people have neutral feelings. I have received many phone calls, emails and letters from people strongly supporting the bill and from people strongly opposing it. I have read them all, and I thank each and every one of those people for taking the time to express their view to me.

This, of course, is a debate where each of us is called upon to deliberate and vote according to our conscience. This is not something to be weighed against electoral considerations—not something to be the subject of lobbying by members or senators in this place. It is simply something for each of us, on our own. In any conscience debate and vote, it is inevitable that every single one of us in this House and every single senator in the other place will disappoint some people and please others. But it is incumbent on us to weigh the issues involved, review the facts and evidence and make our best individual judgment. I have weighed the issues and considered a number of matters in detail.

Firstly, I have weighed the view expressed by many people that the passage of the bill will lead to a greater number of abortions in our country. The legal regime relating to abortion is governed by state and territory law and is longstanding. If RU486 were to be approved some time in the future, it would not extend those laws in any way. At issue is not whether someone has a termination but, rather, how they have one and, given that, I do not believe the provision of RU486 at some point in the future would lead to a greater number of terminations in this country. In this, we must examine international experience, as previous speakers throughout this debate have done, and we can see that there has not been an increase in the rates of termination in those nations that have had access to RU486.

Concern regarding the number of abortions is justified, but I do not believe fewer abortions will be achieved by seeking to restrict another option, or by endeavouring to reverse or restrict the current legal regimes in our states and territories. The current legal basis for abortion is about as old as I am. Even if one or two states or territories in the future were to restrict or change their position, there would still be six or seven other jurisdictions in Australia, as well as nearby nations such as New Zealand, where terminations would be performed. Instead, the path to fewer terminations in our country is to be found with continued attitudinal change in our community through education. Given the settled and longstanding nature of the law, the issue at hand in this debate is whether a second option is available within the existing framework. The issue then is the judgment on the health and safety of such an option. To this end, there have been many strong arguments put that RU486 is dangerous and unsafe. The fact that the drug has been in existence and widely available in the United States for nearly six years, as well as in much of Europe for a longer period, and our close neighbour, New Zealand, is compelling. I do not believe it would still be available in those countries if there were any doubt that it was dangerous. The US Congress has not overturned the United States Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug in September 2000, over five years ago.

Secondly, and most importantly for Australians, as many of my colleagues in the House and the Senate have pointed out throughout the debate, the safety issues would be determined by the Therapeutic Goods Administration which, as previous speakers have pointed out, comprises medical experts with the sole aim of assessing the safety and effectiveness of drugs. It is best able to determine the merits of the safety of RU486. Further, any provision of RU486 would be by way of medical supervision by doctors in Australia, who are amongst the very best in the world. I do not believe for a minute that Australian doctors want to do anything other than administer all drugs with the utmost care and supervision.

In recent days there has also been a great deal of discussion with respect to the need to maintain parliamentary oversight on policy matters such as this. I believe our parliamentary oversight is strong and enduring by virtue of this parliament and this debate. Parliamentary oversight exists for every agency. Parliament can delegate authority, modify a delegated authority or remove a delegated authority at any time, should it wish. The Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 itself can be amended or altered by this House and this parliament at any time. There is no act of the federal parliament which cannot be altered or amended, subject to the Constitution of Australia. For all of these reasons, I will support this bill. The member for Bowman has proposed an additional mechanism for parliamentary oversight which I will consider supporting. However, in the event that his amendment does not succeed, I will still support the bill, as I have publicly stated and for all the reasons I have outlined.

Can I say, as the Prime Minister and other ministers and speakers in this debate have rightly said, the passage of the bill is in no way a reflection on our Minister for Health and Ageing,  Mr Abbott, whom I regard as a friend, a fine health minister, and someone who through dint of timing is in a difficult position that either of the past two health ministers could equally have faced. I do believe he has been unfairly attacked on the basis of his personal position and his religion, which I find very regrettable.

I conclude where I began by thanking those who contacted me, including the many people whose counsel, friendship and understanding I value, who I know do not share my view on this bill—people with whom I agree on many other important issues in the building of a better Australia.

See this speech in context