Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Hansard source

The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 before the chamber tonight is clearly a controversial and sensitive matter. Its controversy and its sensitivity lie perhaps less in what the bill seeks to do and more in the broader debate the bill has ignited. It is a broader debate that has its roots in the contrasting and deeply held beliefs within our community. I respect that some of my colleagues and many of my constituents hold views different from those I hold. I hope that we in this chamber and in the community can conduct this debate with respect for each other’s different views and without personalising the discussion of the merits of the issues.

I recognise that many of those opposed to this legislation are so because they are more generally opposed to abortion either because of their faith or ethical framework or for another reason. However, as has been discussed before, and it is a point that has been made by previous speakers, this is not a bill to legalise or outlaw abortion. In this country we have already come to a position where a woman can legally terminate a pregnancy. That is a matter that has been debated, that has been discussed within the Australian community over many years and each state and territory has arrived at what is the status quo. In fact, it is an issue that continues to be debated and discussed. What we are debating here tonight is not whether abortion should be accessible but whether the body that this parliament has determined should assess the safety of therapeutic goods, of drugs and of medicines should be permitted also to assess the safety and appropriateness of this particular drug. I believe it should.

There are two primary arguments against this legislation that I wish to address. The first is the issue of safety and the second, and what I think is a more important argument in many ways, is the ethical considerations associated with this drug, which those who oppose the bill suggest require more than the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s approval. For this reason they suggest it should remain within the purview of elected persons, in this case the minister.

I turn firstly to the issue of safety. I want to emphasise that I believe there must be a scientific and evidence based assessment of whether this drug is safe and, if it is safe, on what basis it can be used. However, I do not believe that this chamber is the place in which such an assessment would be properly undertaken. The need for such assessment to be undertaken by relevant experts is one of the reasons the TGA exists at all—to ensure that the Australian community has the benefit of impartial evaluation and proper assessment in relation to drugs. If we have believed that the TGA is competent to assess and monitor the some 50,000 drugs Australians currently use, then I ask: why not this drug? If this drug is not safe then, as with any other drug, we in this place assume that the TGA will do its job and that this drug will not be available in this country.

Those who support this bill do not argue for RU486; we do not argue for this drug. We argue for its assessment by the TGA. If those who oppose it believe the TGA cannot properly assess the safety of this drug, do they also argue therefore that other drugs should not be assessed by the TGA or do they argue for the abolition or reform of that body? In general, they do not. Generally, the debate in relation to the TGA’s involvement has been the criticism that the TGA will not take into account the ethical considerations associated with the use of this drug rather than the issue of safety.

Turning to this second issue, I agree that ethical questions should not invariably be determined by scientists or experts. That is why we have debates within this parliament and within our community as to the ethical boundaries of things such as medical research. It is also why the availability and accessibility of abortion has been and continues to be debated at length by the Australian community. But I want to make a number of points in relation to this. If the ethical issue at the core of this bill is whether or not we should allow abortions in this country, the community has already discussed that issue—albeit that there are those who vehemently disagree with the status quo. What we are debating here is in fact not that issue; what we are debating here is a method of terminating a pregnancy, not whether or not a woman can do so.

The second point I want to make is this: I fail to see how requiring ministerial approval meets the call for ethical consideration in any event. Ethical consideration of the competing views within the Australian community will not be adequately or comprehensively dealt with simply through ministerial approval. If the health minister happened to be somebody who was avowedly pro-choice, would those opposed to this bill believe that she or he could adequately weigh their views or that ministerial consideration in those circumstances would be sufficient ethical consideration of all the issues associated with the use of this drug?

I also voice my disappointment at the way in which our current health minister has handled this debate. I believe he has demonstrated his inability to objectively consider the arguments for and against this drug. His interventions into the debate, such as his suggestion that unscrupulous doctors would prescribe drugs for desperate women, are misleading and arguably inflammatory and they do nothing to convince me—and, I am sure, many others—that he is in fact the appropriate person to make the assessment as to the availability of this drug.

As I said at the outset, the ethical issue at the core of this debate is really whether or not abortion should be available. That is the way the public debate has occurred, even if—and I emphasise this, as others before me have emphasised—that is not the matter before the chamber in relation to this bill. The passage or failure of this bill does not actually affect the availability or otherwise of abortion in Australia.

It seems to me that the decision to terminate or not terminate a pregnancy is an intensely personal issue and an issue of conscience. I do not believe that anybody benefits from the politicisation of these personal and conscience based decisions. I believe that there should be limits on the extent to which any of us impose our personal moral views upon others, particularly when one is a parliamentarian. That is a difficult issue, because there is an ethical and moral dimension to so much that we consider in this place. But it seems to me that we as parliamentarians should be cognisant of certain boundaries, of the extent to which we as legislators have the right to impose our own moral position onto others. We cannot, nor should we, do so with impunity. Sometimes I fear we do it in this place without articulating it clearly or discussing it.

We should ask ourselves this question: is this something that I as a legislator should be imposing upon my fellow citizens? Is it appropriate to impose one’s own view about the right ethical choice onto others in the context of such an intensely personal and difficult decision as the decision to terminate a pregnancy? I do not believe it is, and for that reason I describe myself as pro-choice. It seems to me there should be in this place a distinction between what our personal choice might be or what our own conscience might tell us and what we as legislators should impose upon others.

I will be supporting this legislation. I am cognisant of the views of many of those who have written to me from my home state of South Australia who obviously feel very strongly about this issue. I want to place on record my thanks to the committee for the way in which they have dealt with this matter and the enormous workload that they have had in presenting the report to the Senate. Perhaps more importantly in this context, I want to place on record my thanks to the women from the cross-party group who are sponsoring this legislation. It is unusual in this place to have such a thing occur, and it is good that there are occasions when our different political beliefs and our membership of different political parties do not prevent us from pressing an issue that we regard as important for the benefit of women in Australia.