Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the onset of my contribution to the debate on RU486 and the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, I need to state very strongly that this debate is not about abortion. The legality or illegality of abortion is determined by the states and territories. I find it very concerning that a number of issues have infiltrated this debate and a lot of false and misleading information has been put on the record. The issue we are debating here in this House today is whether the drug RU486 should be made available to Australian women. Currently, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Act 1996 delegates the responsibility for decisions in relation to the evaluation, registration and listing of RU486 to the minister for health. This has effectively banned the use of RU486 in Australia without a proper process and without the scientific rigour and scrutiny of the Therapeutic Goods Administration—scrutiny to which all other drugs are subject.

I find that quite concerning. As has been said by many other speakers in this House, this came about because of the Harradine amendment, which was passed on the voices. This was done largely to placate Senator Harradine. I, like the member for Stirling, believe that this was very bad public policy. This should not be the reason for a parliament deciding one way or another. It should not be decided to cater to one particular senator or one particular member just to get other legislation through the parliament. Good public policy is evaluating the information before the parliament, developing policies and putting in place a proper process. I think bad decisions are made by parliaments and politicians if we base those decisions purely and simply on our personal, moral and religious beliefs and values. I believe, when we are looking at whether or not a drug like RU486 should be available to women in Australia, it should be based on scientific and medical factors.

Paragraph 1.72 of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee report lists the groups that have formally expressed their support for RU486, and it is a very impressive group: the World Health Organisation, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Australian Medical Association, the Rural Doctors Association, the Public Health Association of Australia, the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the American Medical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US Federal Drug Administration and the Federation of International Gynaecology and Obstetrics—all experts, all bodies, that know about drugs and health and that have scientific information and medical knowledge. I am very, very impressed by that list of organisations that actually support the use of RU486.

That brings me to the question of who is best to decide whether or not a drug should or should not be supplied or available in Australia. When I consider that, I come to the decision that the Therapeutic Goods Administration should be that body. It is appointed by the Minister for Health and Ageing, and the people that sit on the TGA are highly qualified and eminent scientific and medical professionals—people that have made decisions about many new drugs and many new drugs that are dangerous if they are misused.

It has been said during this debate and in some correspondence that I have received that RU486 is a dangerous drug. I say that many drugs are dangerous if they are not used under supervision and if an adverse reaction is had to them. Many drugs that are utilised during chemotherapy can be very dangerous to the patients undertaking the treatment. One of the most common things that happens when a person undertakes chemotherapy is that their white blood cell count drops, and this makes them very vulnerable to infection. Drugs such as warfarin, a life-saving drug, can also be fatal. It is so important to monitor the use of these drugs. What I am putting forward to the House is that any drug can be dangerous if it is misused.

The information I have read about RU486 puts it into a much safer category than many drugs that are available now. But I am only a layperson and I am not qualified to make the decision. I believe the decision should be made by the TGA. If the drug is approved, if the TGA says that drug should be available in Australia, it will be up to the woman’s doctor, in consultation with the woman, to decide whether or not it is appropriate to prescribe that drug. It will not be a drug that is available over the counter. It will not be a drug that a person can take willy-nilly. It is a drug that will be prescribed by a doctor and administered with the doctor monitoring the reaction to the drug.

On the other hand, we have a situation where the Minister for Health and Ageing is making the decision as to whether or not the drug is safe. The current minister has a Bachelor of Economics degree and a law degree. He is a very qualified man. But he does not have the scientific and medical qualifications and knowledge to make a decision about whether or not RU486 is appropriate to be sold in Australia. The decision should be based on medical and scientific grounds, not personal beliefs. As I have already said, I believe the TGA has that ability.

The minister has argued in past debates that decisions cannot be left in the hands of politicians. I refer to the republic debate in the late 1990s when the minister argued very strongly that you cannot trust politicians to make a decision about the head of state. It is not a matter of trust. I do not believe that politicians are qualified to make a decision about whether or not a drug is safe on medical and scientific grounds.

It has also been argued in the amendments that parliament should make the decision. Once again, I would argue very strongly that I do not have the qualifications or the knowledge needed to make that decision. I know I have paraphrased the amendments that are before the parliament, but basically this is a decision that should be in the hands of the experts. I will be supporting the bill and opposing the amendments. I believe the TGA is the body that should determine which drugs should or should not be available in Australia. It is not appropriate to delegate that responsibility to a minister in this parliament. Ministers change and ministers have different beliefs. At the moment, the minister does not support the supply of RU486, but the next minister may. It is not an issue that should be determined on that basis. Rather, it should rest with the experts, and the experts are the TGA.

See this speech in context