Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to urge support for the amendments moved by the honourable member for Bowman and to plead with those people who voted to give the bill second reading approval to consider that the amendments of the member for Bowman actually incorporate what they principally want to achieve through the passage of this bill. The first part of the explanatory memorandum points out that this bill is designed to repeal ministerial approval and to leave approval with the Therapeutic Goods Administration over access to RU486. It goes on to say:

The purpose of this bill is to remove responsibility for approval for RU486 from the Minister for Health and Ageing and to provide responsibility for approval of RU486 to the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

The amendments currently before the House pass that responsibility to the Therapeutic Goods Administration while also reserving to the House the opportunity, were the House to agree, to disallow that determination by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. These amendments enable honourable members on both sides of this debate to vote for them with a great sense of confidence and a great sense of comfort, knowing that the situation which will result in the event of the enactment of these amendments will be much better than the situation were these amendments to be defeated. Similarly, those members who opposed the second reading of the bill could vote for these amendments with confidence, knowing that the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia will have a right to debate, if the parliament so desires, a determination of the Therapeutic Goods Administration with respect to RU486.

I believe that the member for Bowman’s amendments are worthy of consideration, even by people who were very strong proponents of the bill in its unamended form. I plead with people who support the bill in its original form to consider that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Bowman enact what they want to see while still reserving to the people’s representatives in both houses of the parliament the opportunity of expressing a view.

The people of Australia elect us to make decisions on their behalf. I would be the first to admit that, as elected representatives, we cannot be technically expert in every aspect of medicine or every aspect of law. The proposal put forward by the member for Bowman recognises the primacy of, I suppose you would say, the scientific knowledge of the Therapeutic Goods Administration while also reserving to us, the representatives of the people, the opportunity to pass a view in the event that either house of the parliament might not agree with the decision of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I commend the amendments to the House.

See this speech in context