Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I enter into the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 with a very troubled mind, because what should be a debate on the approvals procedure for a drug has been turned by pro-choice and pro-life proponents into one on the broader issue of abortion.

I would like to place on record my appreciation to all who have made contact with my office. In most cases the views have been presented with passion and strong conviction. In all cases they have been presented through the prism of one’s values, morals, ethics or personal experiences in life—and so it is with us here in this parliament.

It is no secret that I have been raised as a Roman Catholic—how good a Catholic is a matter of conjecture; I am certainly very fallible. How much the doctrine of the church influences my decisions is a question that has been asked by some of my constituents. In the last conscience vote in this House, members of the church were disappointed with my stance on stem cell research. By being a member of a government with a border control policy which includes detention centres, I have been accused of betraying the basic principles of Christianity, an accusation that I strongly reject.

At moments such as these, I am reminded of a statement by one of humankind’s great intellects, Albert Einstein, who once said, ‘Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.’ In the end, as difficult as it may be, we try to enter into debates of this kind conscious of our values, experiences and beliefs, while at the same time determined to introduce good laws for our country.

The debate on the approval of a drug like RU486 is one that bears great complexity due to the moral and ethical consequences it raises. We cannot run away from the fact that we are elected into this place to at times make tough decisions—there is nothing tougher than questions encased in moral and ethical clothing. Abortifacients such as RU486 are not just any other drug. To claim it is strictly a therapeutic drug and that the TGA should treat it as they would any other drug is misleading; it is not a convincing argument. In fact, it is made more out of convenience and mistrust. To ban RU486 because it will lead to an increase in abortions is also not a convincing argument. As has been mentioned by a number of my colleagues, the passing or rejection of this bill will not in itself lead to one more abortion being carried out in this country. International experience with the drug attests to that claim.

I am not voting on an abortion bill; my colleagues in the state parliaments have that privilege. It is in their jurisdictions that the legality or otherwise of abortion is determined. The application of the state laws governing abortion still has precedence, no matter how we vote here today. If the community want those laws changed, I urge them to reopen the debate with their state representatives.

In my home state of Victoria, abortion is covered by sections 65 and 66 of the Crimes Act and its interpretation is covered by case law, a law otherwise known as the Menhennit ruling. In other words, an abortion is essentially lawful in Victoria if it is considered necessary to preserve the woman from danger to her physical or mental health. This position has stood since 1969 and it is one that I certainly strongly support.

The question I therefore need to consider today is who is best able to determine the approval process for what I consider to be a non-therapeutic drug that has undisputed ethical and moral consequences—the minister for health, the parliament or a body of well-credentialed, well-meaning scientists and experts?

What sets this parliament and our great democracy apart from sham democracies or even totalitarian states is the fact that we are accountable to the people for our decisions and the laws we pass. The TGA, as well meaning as it may be, is not directly accountable. It considers the scientific facts, including the safety and efficacy claims of the pharmaceutical company. I appreciate that, if the evidence is such that a drug either is found to not deliver on its efficacy and safety claims or receives community-wide disapproval, we can always revisit the TGA decision by passing another law.

However, today we have an opportunity to put into place a number of amendments that will uphold our parliamentary responsibility on laws which have undisputed strong moral and ethical consequences, while at the same time making full use of relevant bodies such as the TGA.

As law-makers, we turn to the experts for advice on so many tough decisions, be they in Treasury, defence, health, foreign affairs or communications. We do not turn to these professionals to make the decisions, and certainly not decisions that have undisputed ethical and moral consequences. If we abrogate our responsibilities on these matters to bureaucrats, then what are we doing here? Are we not simply giving greater currency to the poor perception of members of parliament which already exists? If we are doing it because it is convenient or we are fearful of the dilemma it places us in, then perhaps we are in the wrong job. To say that passage of the amendments will mean that we may have to face these decisions again in the future can only be a weakening of our democratic process. We have the responsibility as elected representatives—not the bureaucrats.

The relevance of the claim that pharmaceutical companies may not seek approval for fear of running the parliamentary gauntlet also eludes me. Pharmaceutical companies comprise some of the most powerful and influential organisations on the planet.

With the progress of science, it is only a matter of time before new, non-therapeutic drugs enter the market and, like RU486, throw up complex moral and ethical dilemmas. Passage of this legislation would set a dangerous precedent and signify a serious abrogation of our responsibility to represent the Australian people.

Issues of this kind do cause sleepless nights. They cause us to reflect on our own beliefs, values and experiences. That to me is not such a bad thing to do from time to time as representatives of the people. I will be voting for the amendments proposed and, if the amendments fail to get up, I will be voting against this bill.

See this speech in context