Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset I must state my respect for all my colleagues in this place and the honourable and forthright way in which this debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 has been conducted. The issue of abortion, which has some relevance in this debate, is an emotive one. I am conscious of the strong and deep convictions of many here in this place, many people across Australia and of course many in my own electorate of Hasluck. Those convictions, I feel, have been well represented in this debate in the Australian parliament. I have received many phone calls, emails and written submissions on this issue. I do very much appreciate the effort those who have contacted me have made to share their views and their experiences in order that I can make an appropriate and informed decision.

I must confess that my position has wavered many times over the course of recent weeks, before I have been able to stand in this House to speak on this private member’s bill. In coming to my final position on this issue, I took great comfort from a submission from UnitingJustice Australia, an agency of the Uniting Church. I quote from their letter:

It is our view that the current campaign against RU486 confuses medical, moral and political issues. As the Uniting Church understands it, the issue is whether or not this particular drug is safe to be released for use in a country where abortion is legally available. This is a decision that should be made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration using sound medical evidence and advice.

It is our belief that RU486 should not be made an exception from this independent process purely due to its application as an abortifacient. Termination of a pregnancy is legal in Australia, however fraught politically or morally.

I also quote from a Uniting Church media release:

The decision to have an abortion is not just a moral issue but a social one. While the current debate attempts to pass moral judgment on the act itself, it ignores the many emotional, physical, financial and social issues that often create a situation where a woman is forced to consider an abortion.

I rise to speak in favour of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, and I do so after carefully listening to the debate, both here and in the other place, to my constituents and to my family. Prior to my election I said that I would represent the constituents of Hasluck without fear or favour. Unfortunately, on this occasion, I know that a number of my constituents will feel that I have let them down. However, I feel that in leaving the decision on the use of RU486 in the hands of the executive we are confusing the method of abortion with the legality or availability of abortion.

Abortion, by and large, is legal, under varying circumstances and conditions, in all states and territories of Australia. This is, and always has been, a matter for state parliaments. Through Medicare rebates, the Commonwealth government funds surgical abortions in this country, rightly or wrongly. In light of these facts, I do not see how we can justify special conditions for the approval of abortifacients. These drugs are classified as restricted goods under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Abortifacient drugs are the only type of drug classed as a restricted good. Evaluation, listing, registration or importation of restricted goods requires written approval from the minister for health. That approval must then be put before each house of parliament within five sitting days. Every other drug merely applies for approval to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which evaluates the drug and regulates its use. The minister is not involved in this process for non-restricted goods.

The TGA is a respected organisation, recognised internationally for its standards and competence. It is the equipped authority to make decisions on the safety and appropriate use of therapeutic goods and for monitoring and reviewing the long-term effects of those same goods. The TGA does not operate in isolation, as the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee carries out an oversight role on the activities of the TGA. This group of independent experts is appointed by the health minister and includes highly qualified medical practitioners, pharmacologists, toxicologists, manufacturing chemists and others. Through the minister, this committee ensures an effective level of public accountability. The Drug Evaluation Committee is part of the regulatory framework and risk management approach approved by parliament. The TGA has so far evaluated more than 50,000 therapeutic goods. It has earned the trust of the Australian parliament and the Australian people. Surely it can be trusted to impartially assess products such as RU486.

This should not be a debate about abortion. The question really is: what is the best and most effective way of assessing the safety of drugs in Australia? The medical experts at the TGA are surely the most experienced and qualified to do so. I do not say this to reflect negatively on the Minister for Health and Ageing, who is an excellent minister and an honourable man. My opinion is that any health minister, whoever they may be, should not be the gatekeeper for the approval of any drug or product. This should not be a political decision. The decision to approve or not approve a drug should be made by qualified medical professionals. Ultimately, we, as members of the Australian parliament, will be held accountable by the people of Australia.

The oft-repeated argument that faceless bureaucrats should not be making this decision is weakened by the fact that the decision to approve every other drug is made by those so-called faceless bureaucrats. If we are so concerned about this process, why have there been no calls to bring the approval of other classes of drugs within the purview of the minister? There is no shame in parliament legislating for an independent body of experts, with general oversight by government, to make decisions regarding particular matters. This has happened in Western democracies for hundreds of years and it is an effective way of ensuring that complex matters are given the due consideration they deserve rather than being reduced to sometimes trite simplifications of political debate.

Our Australian society is divided in its opinion on abortion. There is no clear consensus on this issue. While I am sympathetic to those with alternative views, I must err on the side of personal choice. I believe that parliament must also respect the individual’s right to personal choice. I personally believe that there are far too many abortions in Australia. It is a sad and traumatic event for any woman who makes the decision to take this action. I do not believe that anyone takes this decision lightly. I am sure that everyone in this place—indeed, everyone in this country—would prefer to see fewer or no abortions performed.

The reality is that we live in an imperfect world; abortions are legal. However, this debate is not about increasing the incidence of abortion but ensuring that Australian women, in consultation with their medical practitioner, are able to choose the best method. Given the very unfortunate circumstances where individuals need to make such a choice, is it not appropriate that, with medical advice, we ensure that a full range of medical procedures and choices are available? Rather than, as I see it, artificially limiting people’s options to deal with their situations, we should be providing greater resources to help people make better decisions and to help them be aware of the consequences of their actions.

In this regard, young people are particularly vulnerable. The abortion rate is highest in women aged between 20 and 24. By putting in place better information and education programs, we can inform young people more effectively about contraception and sexuality, provide them with better life skills and teach them about parenting. When our young people have full and frank access to this information and the support of their parents and communities, we will see a reduction in abortion rates. A blanket ban on RU486 does not reduce the abortion rate; it just reduces the options available to Australian women. Indeed, it has been shown in respected and thorough research in many of the countries where RU486 is used that the introduction of RU486 has not triggered an increase in the rates of abortion.

At the end of the day, we should subject RU486 to the same scrutiny as any other drug—that is, the rigorous independent expert evaluation of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. If RU486 is approved for use by the TGA, access to this drug will be subject to the normal safeguards provided by consultation and counselling with a doctor. It will also mean that patients can make a fully informed choice, knowing in detail the effects of the drug. I am in no position to make a decision about the safety or otherwise of RU486; I humbly suggest that very few members of this parliament are. That is why I support this bill to move approval of RU486 to the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

See this speech in context