Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. Yesterday afternoon in the Main Committee in the debate upon the appropriations, when I thought that I would not have this opportunity, I made some brief comments, and I welcome this chance to expand upon them. Through my duties in the chair, I have sat through three hours of this debate, a debate that I think gives great credit to this chamber. Members have taken this opportunity of a debate where their views are based upon their consciences and have done so with great thought and great deliberation. I think that that has characterised the way in which this issue has been handled in both chambers of the parliament.

I would only have criticism of the actions of perhaps two of my parliamentary colleagues. The wearing of an offensive T-shirt in support of a position did not help the tenor of the debate. Whilst I defend people’s rights to sloganeer, I think that when we get to this level we have to be very careful about the way in which these gestures are construed. And I regret that the member for Hughes has made comments that are so widely open to interpretation. Five per cent of those in my electorate are Muslim. They are great contributors to my electorate. They are great contributors to the community in which they live. Given that, on balance, the views shared by those people are shared by people of wider and different religious views, I do not think that those comments added anything to the debate.

The comments that I intended to make in this place when I was being driven into the house this morning have actually changed, partly because of what I have heard over the last hour and partly because Father Eugene, a former constituent of mine, is in the gallery today. He knows that we have different views. But I say to Father Eugene that I have always appreciated the way he has approached me, in a non-threatening way, and how he has always challenged me to make a decision on the matter before me based on the values that I have grown up with, acknowledging that there are different views. I never thought that I would say this but I have missed his guidance over the last few days, even if I will have failed him yet again.

I can say to Father Eugene that I have been approached by his former parish, which has consistently put similar views on these matters of conscience. I have tried to be consistent as well. His successor as parish priest said to me in a letter that ‘Catholics are copping it’. I would hope that that was not how this debate was being seen, because that would be a regrettable perception.

The people that I represent are from a variety of backgrounds. Ironically, when I was first elected a number of decades ago, I represented the electorate in the Australian parliament that had the greatest percentage of Catholics, with 44 per cent. They were mainly from Italian and Maltese backgrounds but, in the same way that Australian migration has changed, Catholics from all parts of the globe have come together on the basis of their faith. St Francis of Assisi parish in Mill Park is an example of this.

Muslim Australians in my electorate and people of various faiths make a great contribution to the community lives of those I represent. I am always heartened that people will come to me to discuss these issues and that they will give me the opportunity to defend my position. Whilst the representations that I have received might be modest in number compared with those of other members of parliament, that is the wont of my electorate. I understand that they represent a deep body of feeling, so I do not discount them on the basis of that modest number.

Why have I come to my conclusion? In part, it is because I have had the opportunity in this place to see how the TGA and the pharmaceutical industry work and how the approval of drugs has been undertaken in the past. Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason that RU486 should be treated in any special fashion.

This morning I was heartened by the member for Mackellar’s logical extension of the argument that this power should remain in the hands of the minister, which is that the minister should have this power with other drugs. That is the logical, consistent outcome if you believe that the present system should continue, and I do not believe that that should happen. I believe that it should be treated like the tens of thousands of other drugs.

Other contributors have discussed some of the literature about the safety of RU486. If we went through the literature on a number of the other 50,000 drugs that have been approved, I would be certain that you would find similar safety issues. However, we are not expert enough to make judgments on those matters, and it is not as if we as elected officials have abrogated our responsibility. The TGA operates under a legal and regulatory framework set by this parliament to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of drugs, including those of higher risk. I would expect the TGA, as it has done in the past with other drugs, to take on board evidence that has been presented to the United States Food and Drug Administration and other bodies.

This debate is not about the approval of the drug; it is about the process that might be used for that approval to go forward. To discuss it in the context that we think there is finality decries the TGA’s opportunity to go about its business. Given that RU486 can be used not just as an abortifacient but for other purposes that I think people would not debate—for instance, as an anticancer drug—let us remember that what we are asking the TGA to consider is the safety and efficacy of this drug in a process that is legal, and that this piece of legislation does not in any way go to the legality of abortion or otherwise.

As I said in the Main Committee yesterday early afternoon, the fact that the member for Warringah is the minister at this particular point in time does not sway me on this bill. I regret that he would think that the passage of this bill is a vote of no confidence in him.

See this speech in context