Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in this House to support the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I also want to make it clear that I do not support the amendment that has been moved and the amendment that has been foreshadowed in the debate so far. I know it has been said dozens of times in this debate already, but the simple fact of the matter is that this debate is not about the rights and wrongs of abortion. What we are being asked to decide tomorrow is the appropriate means by which this particular drug, RU486, is assessed for possible clinical use in Australia. The question is: should the decision to allow the use of RU486 in Australia be made by the Minister for Health and Ageing or should it be made, as it is for every other pharmaceutical product, by the Therapeutic Goods Administration?

In framing the debate in those terms, I know after listening to many of the previous speeches that I am not being terribly original. I am also not trying to be somehow disingenuous. I am not trying to put some kind of spin on the issue in order to avoid the sensitive topic of abortion. I have no reason to do that anyway. I have nothing to hide as far as my view on abortion is concerned. Indeed, I am on the public record in two of my local newspapers going back to the start of this debate in December as being an advocate of a woman’s right to choose an abortion if, after weighing up her circumstances, that is what she believes is right for her. If this did happen to be a debate about abortion, then my constituents already know where I stand.

However, as I said, this is not what we are being asked to vote on tomorrow. Instead, we are being asked to consider and ultimately to overturn the present arrangements dating back to 1996 which classify RU486—and, I note, only RU486—as restricted goods that, according to the Therapeutic Goods Act, cannot be evaluated, registered, listed or imported without the written approval of the Minister for Health and Ageing. Since it came into force, this scheme has acted as an effective ban on the importation and use of RU486 in Australia. Without ever having to provide reasons or explain his or her reasons to the Australian public, each of the successive health ministers has rejected any attempts to add RU486 to the 50,000 or so pharmaceuticals that are approved for use in this country.

The present health minister, Tony Abbott, has complained during the public debate over RU486 that people have unfairly concluded that he is blocking the use of the drug because of his Catholic faith. Of course, no-one should ever be criticised for their religious beliefs, but there is no getting away from the fact that, in the absence of a transparent process for making these decisions, people will jump to all sorts of conclusions about any minister’s motivations and personal biases when trying to understand his or her actions. This bill before the House today seeks to guarantee that future deliberations about RU486 will instead be transparent, unbiased and based on the best available scientific evidence. I believe that the best way to do that is to give the power to the Therapeutic Goods Administration so that it can subject applications relating to RU486 to the same rigorous evaluation that it applies to every other drug.

That brings me to another important point about this debate. Just as it is not about the availability of abortion, it is also not about allowing open slather for anyone who wants to administer RU486. Contrary to what many in the community seem to believe, this amendment, if it succeeds, will not in itself allow for the introduction of RU486 in this country. Rather, it will give the Therapeutic Goods Administration the authority to evaluate applications for the importation and use of the drug within Australia. Many of the emails and letters that I have received from constituents and others with an interest in this debate have referred to serious health risks associated with the use of RU486. On the other hand, submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry refer to its use in 35 countries around the world and the drug’s endorsement by respected bodies such as the World Health Organisation, the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists as evidence of its safety.

By voting for this bill today I am not accepting or dismissing any of those assertions. I am just not qualified to make that judgment. But the members of the Therapeutic Goods Administration are, and we trust them to exercise their professional judgment on our behalf in assessing the benefits and risks of every other drug that comes onto the market in Australia. The pharmaceutical scientists and medical practitioners who are given that responsibility have the expertise and experience to properly interpret the research and trials of RU486 and decide whether it should be made available for use in Australia and under what conditions.

So by voting for this bill I am not passing judgment on RU486. Rather, I am passing judgment on the lack of proper administrative process represented by the current system. Let the TGA submit the drug to its usual processes and make a decision on its safety. If the drug passes that test, then it does not, as some people have argued, give the green light to mass abortion. In fact, statistics from other countries where RU486 has been permitted show that there is very little effect on the overall number of abortions performed in the periods before and after the introduction of the drug. Rather, if RU486 becomes available then it simply becomes another option for a woman to consider with her doctor when she exercises her right to have an abortion—a procedure that is legal when performed under prescribed conditions in every state and territory of Australia.

In all the discussions here about who should be making decisions, it is appropriate for us to debate whether the TGA or the Minister for Health and Ageing should decide on the availability of RU486. One decision that I believe should be completely off-limits for any of us to restrict or pre-empt in any way is a woman’s decision when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Each woman in those circumstances should be free to act in accordance with the law and with appropriate medical advice and to decide what is best for her.

That is why I have a problem with the amendment moved by the member for Lindsay and the amendment foreshadowed by the member for Bowman. Those amendments, which make parliament the ultimate arbiter on RU486, would still leave us with the same flawed position we have now. The health minister does not have the qualifications or expertise to make a clinical judgment about the use of RU486, and neither do we as members of parliament. So, under either one of these schemes, when faced with the decision about whether RU486 should be available MPs would be back to relying on our own values and beliefs about abortion.

I have no doubt that values and beliefs play a big part in the decisions women make about whether to have an abortion, but they should not be the values and beliefs of any of us here. Our responsibility, when it comes to RU486, is to put in place and oversee a process that thoroughly tests the drug’s effects so that when women exercise their free will in accordance with their values and beliefs they know that they can do so safely. As parliamentarians we should not impose our moral views on women, and we should not allow those views to stand in the way of a woman’s ability to make her own decisions about something as personal as abortion.

If we do not pass the bill and allow an application for RU486 to be assessed on its scientific and medical merits, then we are making it harder for many women to have that freedom of choice. I am talking particularly about the situation of women in rural and even regional areas of this country. As a member representing a regional and rural electorate, I agreed with the Minister for Workforce Participation, Sharman Stone, when she raised the problem last year of women in her electorate having limited access to surgical abortion. The same situation applies in Queensland, where there are only three clinics outside the south-east corner. There is one in Townsville, one in Cairns and one in Rockhampton in my electorate. That means that the option of surgical abortion is difficult or even impossible for thousands of women living in rural and remote Queensland, far away from those services.

The other factor that impacts on the choices available to rural and regional women is the cost of surgical abortion in our parts of Queensland. In Brisbane and the south-east corner, the cost of an abortion is between $210 and $300. For a woman attending the clinic in Rockhampton, however, the rate is $450. Of course, that does not take into account the costs of travel and accommodation for those women who live far from Rockhampton or the other regional centres where this service can be accessed.

So, while the option of having an abortion is a legally available choice for women in my electorate, the reality often is that it is not a choice that they are able to exercise, for those practical reasons. A health professional in my region has told me of her concern that these practical barriers to accessing surgical abortion can lead women to take desperate and unsafe steps to procure an abortion, with great risks to their health. Each woman should be allowed to make her own decision and be guided by her own conscience and beliefs and her individual circumstances. If RU486 can be proved to the satisfaction of the TGA to be a safe alternative for a woman wanting to give effect to that decision, then it should be available to her.

Before I conclude my remarks, I would also like to acknowledge, as I have noticed many speakers have in this debate, the many people who have called my office or sent emails and letters letting me know their views and the way that they would like me to vote. Most of them do not agree with my position, but they have in the main put their case courteously and respectfully. I tried in each case to reply in a way that respected their right to have a strong view while being honest about how I would ultimately vote. I know that the way that I intend to vote on this bill does not have universal support in my electorate. Some people may be disappointed or even angry about the position I have taken. As I have said all along, I am voting for this bill because it promotes good governance and proper process and also because I respect the right and the ability of women to make their own decisions. Let the TGA decide on the safety of RU486 and let women decide what choices they make for their bodies and their futures.

See this speech in context