Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Hansard source

I want to start my contribution to this debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 by thanking the people in my district who have taken the time to contact me about the issue. On both sides of the debate, views are deeply and passionately held, and that has been evidenced in the emails, calls and letters that I have received—as well as in a personal representation in Parliament House today from a constituent who is here in the gallery.

At the end of the day I cannot speak for all of you. I have one vote and only one conscience which I can exercise in this parliament—my own. The question that the bill asks is quite specific: should the drug RU486 be approved for entry into Australia by the TGA or should it remain a special case and only be approved by the Minister for Health and Ageing? By extension, the question is: should RU486 be treated differently from any other drug? This debate, therefore, should have been a very narrow one about whether RU486 is so dangerous it should be treated in an exceptional way. But the debate has developed into a debate about the morality of abortion.

The opponents of this bill have put forward two main arguments. The first centres around the safety of the drug and its impact on women’s health. The second says that abortion is morally wrong and that women should not have access to it at all. On the first argument, regarding the safety of the drug, it is specifically this issue that the TGA has been set up to determine. No drug or surgical procedure is without risks. The evidence presented to the Senate inquiry on this bill outlined extensively the risks associated with this drug. There would appear to be significant difference in the interpretation of that evidence, but on my reading the risks of this drug when used under proper supervision appear minimal when compared with those of other drugs. But again I would assert that it should not be me who makes that decision; it should be the qualified professionals at the TGA who make this final assessment.

The AMA, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Rural Doctors Association all endorse the use of RU486 for medical termination of pregnancy. I do not in saying this wish to diminish the fact that there have been deaths from this drug. In some cases, the causal factor of these deaths is still somewhat uncertain. In others there are clear indicators that the drug should never have been prescribed. In the 15 years that this drug has been in use in other countries we have learnt a great deal about the safety of RU486 and the circumstances in which it can be prescribed.

People opposing this bill have said that even one death is too many. Of course this is true, but there is no medical or surgical procedure without such a risk. Even drugs in common use such as headache tablets containing paracetamol contain risks and have even had a substantial number of deaths attributed to them. It is for exactly this reason that we should be charging the TGA with the responsibility to assess and monitor the use of RU486 in Australia—that is what the TGA does.

I do not, as some opponents of this bill have argued, want this drug to be made freely available, and it will not be. There should be no less regulation with this drug than there is with surgical abortion, but it is best left to those qualified to assess the safety of the drug and to professionals to issue and supervise recommendations for its correct use. If those opposed to the use of this drug and its possible side effects are serious about their objections to the safety of RU486, they should make sure that evidence is available to the TGA and its Australian Drug Evaluation Committee for assessment.

To date, the TGA has overseen the evaluation of over 50,000 drugs and therapies in Australia. It has access to counterpart bodies throughout the world, including the FDA, and access to the most up-to-date information on the use of therapeutic goods worldwide. It is in the best possible position to assess the available evidence on this drug, and we should let it do its job.

I note that some opponents of the bill have sought to argue that this drug does not have therapeutic value so it is not like any other drug and that, as it has social and ethical dimensions, it should not go to the TGA for assessment. However, we need to be very clear that ‘therapeutic good’ is specifically defined in the TG Act, and the term is not necessarily used in the same way that we use it in common speech. The TGA assesses many drugs that have social and ethical implications—for example, Viagra, birth control pills and medications involved in IVF.

The second main argument from opponents of this bill is about abortion. It is unfortunate that the debate has become one about the morality of abortion, as it has given many in the community the misleading impression that this parliament has the power to amend laws affecting the legality or otherwise of abortion. We do not. State and territory parliaments are where that power rests. The only powers we have in this place are to make it more difficult for women who decide to have a termination. We can make it more expensive; we can make it more difficult to access; we can limit the methods available; or we can place conditions on access.

Opponents of this bill would be happy, I suspect, if we did some, if not all, of those things. But I say to those people: our own history shows us that the only thing that this does is drive women to seek unsafe, unregulated abortions, and that would be a very dangerous thing to do indeed. Illegal abortions performed prior to 1971 were second in the five main causes of maternal death for Australian women. In 1965, in Australia, there were 45 maternal deaths due to abortion. Restricting access to surgical or medical abortions will not protect women’s health; in fact, the opposite is true.

Given that the debate has, as I said, become a proxy debate about the morality of abortion, there are a number of things that I would like to say. Some of the proponents of the anti-abortion debate describe members such as me as ‘pro-abortion’. There is no such thing. Their notion that I think abortions are terrific and that I go around advocating more of them is absolute nonsense. I desperately want to see fewer abortions in Australia. I hate the fact that women and their partners are faced with this terrible choice. For many, it is the most difficult decision they have ever faced and will ever have to face.

As a pro-choice woman, I am just that. We should not be encouraging people to have abortions, nor should we be seeking to make decisions for women who are uncertain about what to do. We should be making sure that they have access to supportive environments, adequate information and services through which to make their choice. I respect women enough to know that they have the ability to decide for themselves what is best for them. They are, after all, fully capable of moral choices. It is and should be their decision.

But if we are genuine about giving women choices then we have to be prepared to provide the support that would make it possible for them to continue with the pregnancy if that is what they want to do—support like providing paid maternity leave and flexible, affordable and accessible child care; ensuring there are workplaces that respect the needs of working parents; eradicating poverty and taking financial pressure off low- and middle-income families; keeping teenage mothers engaged in education; and supporting sole parents, rather than hounding them into the work force by reducing their pensions. If we are genuine about reducing the number of abortions, we should be funding better family-planning and counselling services, better sex education and contraceptive choices.

I think one of the unfortunate aspects of the debate is Tony Abbott’s proposition that it is a debate between people of religious faiths versus the rest of us. Frankly, as someone educated in Catholic primary and secondary schools, I found Kerry Nettle’s T-shirt both unnecessary and unhelpful. It was offensive at worst and juvenile at best. But, more than that, I find the notion that somehow those of us supporting the bill have less belief or faith than those opposing it deeply offensive.

It is from my Catholic upbringing that I get my deep sense of social justice. I would not have become a member of parliament without it. I am Catholic. I know there is an official Catholic view about RU486 and against abortion, but I do not think that all Catholics share this view, just as I do not think they all share the official Catholic view on contraception. Even where Catholics do support the official position against abortion, I am not convinced that they universally believe that public policy decisions should be dictated by our religious beliefs. If this puts me at odds with the church, I suspect it will not be the first or last time.

Finally, one of the other statements made by the opponents of this bill is that we will see increases in the abortion rate if RU486 is allowed into the country. But there is absolutely no credible evidence to say that this is the case. There has been no associated increase in abortions in the countries where RU486 is allowed. Women do not take these decisions lightly, and I just do not believe that, by making RU486 available, more women will suddenly choose to terminate their pregnancies.

Life is complex. We do not control our fertility all of the time. As flawed human beings, we make mistakes. We fall pregnant when we do not want to or are without the support to look after a child. We can try desperately to have a child and not be able to. We can lose a child through miscarriage or after they are born. All of these things and more can happen to us.

On matters such as this, in the end, I can only follow the dictates of my own conscience. This may put me at odds with some people in my own electorate. I ask that they respect my decision, just as I respect their right to hold an alternate view. A decision such as this is not taken lightly, and it is taken in full awareness of the awful responsibility placed on those of us in this place. I will be voting in favour of this bill, unamended.

See this speech in context