Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to discuss the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, I acknowledge that this is probably one of the most difficult debates that we will have in this House—as was the last conscience vote, on the embryonic stem cell debate. The interesting thing is that, in looking at this debate and at the contributions, the Australian public can see that politicians are people. Politicians are painted in a very negative light in the media. They are pilloried for being colourless. They are pilloried for not having values. They are pilloried for not having principles. But we have seen a very strong demonstration of those qualities in this House during this debate over the past two to three days. It shows that when we have the capacity to debate these issues we can show who we are as people and who we are as politicians. They are inextricably linked. You can be a person and a politician at the same time.

We have a debate, in my view, that has been characterised in several ways. Some have put forward the view that the debate is about a matter of process. Some have put forward the view that this is a debate about religious values and principles. Some have put forward the view that this is a debate about abortion. I think it is a debate about all of these things. Regardless of whether or not we use the term ‘process’, we as members of parliament are debating here whether or not we believe that approval for a particular drug and the power to determine whether or not that drug is released into the Australian community should be delegated to a body like the Therapeutic Goods Administration or whether the decision about the release of this particular good should be made by this parliament.

I have been very much taken aback by the level of response that I have received from members of my constituency about this debate. There is some level of discussion about a disengaged electorate, a disengaged population, but on this issue I have had one of the strongest responses that I have ever received—not through pro forma emails and letters from religious groups and otherwise but from individuals who were prepared to leave their name, their telephone number and their address. These individuals were prepared to talk about their experiences as a father or a mother or about their experience of having had an abortion. They were prepared to share their lives with me. I cannot take those considerations lightly, whether they have argued for this bill or against it. But I can say to this House that in my electorate, which has a very large number of families, the overwhelming level of response that I have received has been that I should not support this bill. That has been argued passionately and strongly.

This is not an easy debate to have, because it is inextricably linked with abortion. I do not think we can say that it is not. The drug that we are debating is a drug whose end process is to cause abortion. The question that we as parliamentarians have to ask is whether, when such a drug comes into this country or there is an application for a drug like this to come into this country—not just an abortifacient, which is what this drug is, but other potential next-generation drugs—we are going to allow the enormous responsibility for its approval to be carried by a body like the TGA or whether we are going to say that we have a right to make a decision on behalf of the Australian people, taking into account the Australian public’s views.

One of the great things about this debate at the present time is that an enormous array of views has been provided. That is what makes Australia a great democracy and it is what makes this parliament a great democracy. We are going to get divergent views about this issue. But we are having a debate about this matter because parliamentarians put forward their point of view that the present minister should be stripped of his capacity to regulate against a drug or to regulate whether or not this drug should be allowed in this country.

In reflecting upon this, my view is this: as a parliamentarian who has been elected to this place to make responsible judgments on behalf of the community, I believe that abrogating my responsibility by passing on responsibility for a drug like this or any similar next-generation drug would be a failure of my duty to the Australian people. A bond is made in a contract with people who elect you to this place.

In the responses that I have received from people, they passionately want me to advocate their particular point of view in this place. As I said, it is a huge issue within the community. To say that issues like abortion and similar issues such as embryonic stem cells are not issues that we should actively debate in this parliament in my view is wrong.

One of the contributors said that in America this issue has been dealt with—that the drug has been approved, that it is on the market. But I have received a letter—I think a number of parliamentarians have—from Roscoe Bartlett from the US House of Representatives, who is saying that they want to have the capacity to debate this issue again. Those who say that this issue will not come back on the table again if this bill is approved are wrong. These are issues of great social impact and moment.

I am not just talking about this particular drug as an abortifacient. There are other gigantic issues. It is the inexorable march of science versus a society which has values and principles, opinions and ethics. This is the clearing house. This is the place where decisions of that magnitude must be made. They cannot be made by an unelected body.

I am not here to contest that the Therapeutic Goods Administration is scientifically qualified to be making a judgment about whether or not this drug has the efficacy required or minimal side effects. I am not going to debate that in the House. These people are more qualified than I am to make that decision. But I am here to say that we, representing community values, principles and ethics, should be the ones who should make a decision about whether a drug that causes the level of unease and debate within the community should be released into that community. I will fight to the end of my political life to ensure that that principle remains.

My belief is this: a minister duly elected and appointed by the government does have a right to make a decision about whether goods of this nature—restricted goods; and, as I said RU486 is one example of a drug that could come onto the market—should be allowed to be brought into this country. I believe that both of the amendments are somewhat imperfect but well intentioned. I signal to this House that I intend to support those amendments and vote against the bill.

I want to mention one of the contributions I heard. The person was talking about pharmaceutical companies not wanting to apply—as though pharmaceutical companies are small backyard operations. Pharmaceutical companies are multibillion dollar industries. They have enormous clout. They have enormous lobbying power. We see their lobbyists strolling in the corridors. These are not backyard operations manufacturing drugs; they are organisations with enormous power and influence.

For some time I have had some concern about the value of some of the scientific research that has been paid for and funded by some of these pharmaceutical companies. Some people use the argument that, because there is unfettered scientific research that is presented to the TGA, the TGA should be the ultimate body that makes a decision. But bodies like the TGA can be wrong, particularly on issues like this. We cannot just say that the TGA has a divine right to make proper decisions and right decisions all of the time. I reject the idea that the TGA is a body that makes a perfect decision every time. We cannot say that. What happens if we have a new-generation drug—which could, for example, be grown out of embryos or something like that—where the drug company funds the research that there are no side effects and then 15 years later we see that there are. Then we are going to blame the TGA.

In essence, when a drug inspires community debate to the level that RU486 does and evokes the level of community response that this drug has, we cannot abrogate to that particular body our responsibility to make decisions about whether or not that drug should be released. The members of the TGA were not elected to contemplate the moral, ethical and values based reasons as to why a good should not be released.

I feel very strongly about this point. I was very heartened by the comments of the Prime Minister about ministerial accountability and responsibility, about elected officials making decisions. I look forward to seeing a further application of that in some other issues that we will debate. On issues of our time, issues that cause huge social impact, that resonate strongly in the community, that affect large sections of the community and run against people’s faith, values and principles, this is the place to make a decision. This is what we were elected to do. As a duly elected representative of Holt, on behalf of my constituents and exercising the principles that I enunciated, I will not support the bill but will support the amendments.

See this speech in context