Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 has produced very diverse and colourful contributions. At the outset I was prompted to reflect on the plight of people who are denied access to lifesaving drugs because of cost as distinct from not having access to a particular drug because it is in a restricted category. The breast cancer drug Herceptin is a case in point. There is no discretion for the minister to make a determination to allow a woman access to the drug at the PBS price where that drug is the only drug which, in the opinion of her oncologist, can prevent her death from breast cancer. The cost of a course of Herceptin is $60,000. In a recent case involving a constituent of mine, the only way a woman in need of that drug could access that drug was if her parents would mortgage or sell their house to pay for the drug to save their daughter’s life.

The answer to an inquiry to the office of the Minister for Health and Ageing, or indeed to the minister himself, is that he is powerless to do anything. It has to go through bureaucratic processes. So if you cannot raise the money in the case of a lifesaving drug, you die. Thus I would argue that the health minister needs more discretion, not less. I would like him to have the power to approve drugs to be cost effective to save the life of a life in being.

I know Tony Abbott and I consider him a friend. I believe he is a fine health minister and administers his department as a reasonable man. I accept his assertion that a vote in favour of the bill would amount to a vote of no confidence in him as it would say the House considered that he would exercise his discretion other than in accordance with the best interests of the Australian people. I do not believe this to be the case. I will thus vote against this bill. For the same reasons I will vote in favour of the Kelly amendment. I do not believe that the TGA is the font of all wisdom; for example, I thought its handling of the Pan Pharmaceuticals manufacturing scandal was very poor. I thought its handling of the investigations into Celebrex and Vioxx was equally poor.

In the course of debate on this bill I have listened to all the arguments and the opinions and considered the issues at great length. My office has received a large variety of communications, the most numerous being campaign material. Individual letters showing original thinking were very rare but valued. I found threatening correspondence contemptible. I would like to thank the people of my own electorate who took the trouble to write, to phone or to email me their thoughts. I am grateful for their wishing to participate in this discussion.

See this speech in context