Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to make three simple points in support of the Laming amendments. The first is that I believe, for those who wish to maintain the status quo, they should support these amendments because they preserve the sovereignty of parliament. On the alternative side, for those who would prefer change—and I respect and actually agree with the position outlined by the member for Lalor that the essential question in this debate is whether or not a new class of termination be made available to Australian women, that is, the class of medical termination—these amendments do not prevent that. It means that the ethical decision we take is not before the TGA makes its decision, which is what we are doing if we vote yes now, but afterwards.

Why is that important? It is because the TGA (1) sets out its medical opinion, which I think it is consistent for this House to look at, but (2) sets out conditions for use. As somebody who supports the extension of the right to medical termination through the use of RU486, I believe that the appropriate time for the parliament to make the ethical decision is after the TGA has provided its information and set out the conditions in which it would apply. On either account, we are making an ethical decision, because if we decide yes now we are making the ethical decision that we give in-principle support for medical termination, if the TGA agrees. Alternatively, we would also be making an ethical decision but an ethical decision which says, ‘Given that the TGA has made its decision, we now give our ethical support but we do so on the basis of the best advice in Australia and the available conditions.’ So I respectfully disagree on that point.

The final point on which I wish to respectfully disagree with all three speakers who have spoken against the amendments is the ‘time after time’ proposition. That is the notion that we would face a series of disallowance instruments over coming years. With great respect, that is a misconstruction of the bill and contrary to the information I have. It is a misconstruction because we would be called to decide not upon the circumstances of individual applications but upon a generic TGA application. The best advice I have is that, on the pipeline of abortifacients and their likelihood of being brought to Australia, this chamber is likely to face one disallowable instrument over the coming five years. I repeat: on the best advice I have available, it is not a question of ‘time after time’; it is one decision that is likely to be faced over the next five years because none of the other possible drugs is likely to be brought before the TGA for an application. For those reasons, I strongly support the Laming amendments.

See this speech in context