Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to make a very short statement on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 to put my position on the public record. I start by thanking the Prime Minister for responding to the suggestion I made, when I was the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues, that we be allowed to have a conscience vote on this bill. That was important and it was one of my contributions in this debate.

I know that I will disappoint some people in the way in which I will be responding on this bill. The people who were surprised by my vote on the euthanasia bill, when I voted to oppose euthanasia, most probably would have thought that I would automatically vote on this bill in a similar way, but I have always been an issues person who tries to take each issue on its merits and evaluate it in that way. That does not always mean that I end up with what some people would see as a consistent response. So be it. I have never claimed to be right. In any of the conscience votes, I believe that I have always done my best to evaluate the situation and make a decision using my limited intellectual ability to come to a conclusion. We always anguish over the conscience votes because they are always tough and there is no right answer. It is a matter of degrees and a matter of trying to weigh up all the arguments.

This bill is not about the legality or otherwise of abortion. I regret that that is the way in which some of the debate has proceeded. There has been an avalanche of mail. If you ever want to privatise Australia Post, I would suggest that one way to actually increase its shares would be to raise an issue like this, because I am sure Australia Post has done a lot of business. I want to thank all the people in the sorting room downstairs for the mammoth task they have undertaken in the last few days. But it is good to see that the public are involved and interested. Although the response has been overwhelmingly to vote against the bill, there have been some letters that have thoughtfully—as have the others—put their proposition and point of view. But it is not about abortion, and some of the arguments have muddied the waters in this debate.

We all know that we had this debate 30 years ago. The states and territories have legislated in relation to abortion and currently, in accordance with the relevant state and territory laws, a woman can access abortion legally in this country. I grew up in the inner city suburbs of Sydney. As a young person, I remember leading a patrol of guides and being at a camp site with one of the girls whose mother was a backyard abortionist and hearing the stories that she as a young person related to us, with our ears wide open, about her mother’s activities. I can think of only some of the outcomes of those backyard abortions that that person performed while she sent her kid off with two shillings to buy a milkshake down the street while she ‘fixed the girl up’. Many of those girls ended up in atrocious conditions, with septicaemia and other terrible outcomes.

We have had the debate. The states have legislated on abortion. Personally, I—as I am sure most, if not all, who are voting in this chamber on this bill—would prefer that there were fewer abortions; in fact, none if possible. We would want to see more done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, whether it is teenage pregnancies, pregnancies of people entering into new relationships or pregnancies of people who have been partnered for significant periods of time who do not think they can afford a child. I think every one of us would want to see fewer unwanted pregnancies. However, if we want to face up to the situation, however much we would prefer not to see an unplanned or unwanted child being conceived, I think we are wishing for the nirvana.

I have been interested in the RU486 debate as it has progressed and nobody I have seen has discussed the fact that over time we have moved from one form of surgical abortion to another. One method was used and now medical practitioners prefer another method of surgical abortion. We never had a health minister who had the responsibility of saying, ‘We will not give a Medicare item number for this form of abortion versus another.’ A clinical decision was made by doctors that a different form of surgical procedure was better for patients. The second form is now used more frequently. It is never to be vetoed by a health minister; it is a clinical decision made by medical practitioners undertaking what is legal in each legislation. If it is not legal then the states have a lot to answer for. If they are not enforcing their laws, the states should be looking to enforce their laws. As I said, there has not been a call for the health minister to have the right of provision over a Medicare item number for one form of surgical abortion over another.

People have come in here and said that RU486 has been used by thousands of women, and so on. There have been various arguments. I do not feel competent to stand up and argue for RU486. That is not what I am doing in supporting this bill. I am saying that I do not have the competency to assess RU486. We have a process for assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used in Australia, and that is the process that should be used. Passing this bill does not guarantee that RU486 will be deemed safe or made available. It may be, but it may not be. Passing this bill will mean that, should a sponsor apply to market the drug, the TGA will evaluate the drug on its merits, as it does for every other drug which is not an abortifacient.

Had a company written to me when I was the health minister and sought to have RU486 evaluated, despite my keen interest in things medical I do not think that I would have had sufficient expertise to make the decision not to allow the TGA to evaluate the drug. I would have sought the advice of the expertise of the TGA. And if the drug to be administered needed a Medicare item number, I would have sought the advice of the Medical Services Advisory Committee. I do not think the decision to allow or prevent the TGA from evaluating this drug should depend on the view of the minister of the day, whether it was me two years ago, Tony Abbott today or somebody else in the future. I believe we have a process and that is the process that ought to be followed.

I believe the best course of action is for the same procedure to be used as is used for every other class of drug which is not an abortifacient, and that is for the TGA to assess whether the drug should be available in Australia. Then it is up to the clinicians to make a decision, knowing their patients, as to which form of abortion is appropriate, whether it be surgical or medical. They will do that, as they have done with changing from one form of surgical abortion to another.

As I indicated, the Medical Services Advisory Committee may be involved if a separate Medicare item is required. I do not know whether it is, but, given the need for RU486 to be delivered in a way in which more supervision is required than for other drugs, it may be. We do have measures for other drugs—for example, some arthritic drugs—where we have special Medicare item numbers and special requirements in the delivery of those drugs. So it may not just be the TGA. But I believe that we have a process. If we do not think the TGA is up to the task then it is up to us to change the TGA. But we have a process. I do not believe it should rest in the hands of the health minister.

One journalist asked me the other day where I was in 1996. I had done a lot of research on RU486 in 1996. I do not actually remember the debate, which surprises me because I had done a lot of research on it. I may have been away in the Antarctic; I do not remember, and I have not had time to go back and see where I was. But in 1996 we did not know enough about this medication. I think there is enough known now for a proper, professional assessment—whatever that may be. I am not arguing for or against RU486. What I am saying is that it should be evaluated appropriately and a decision made, and then doctors should be left to make decisions on a clinical basis. But woe betide doctors who misuse any form—surgical or medical—outside the law. The states ought to be making sure that their legislation is upheld to the letter of the law.

This is a major issue. As I said, I do not claim to be right. All I have done is use my understanding and ability to think an idea through as far as I possibly can. I regret that hundreds of people who have written to me will be upset, but I have been elected here to make a judgment as best I can, given the information I have got. I will not always satisfy everybody, but in this instance I believe it is appropriate for the TGA to make the decision and I will be supporting the private member’s bill.