Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I will keep my words reasonably brief to provide a chance to as many members as possible to speak. In commencing my remarks, I would say that the amount of correspondence and communication I have received on this issue and the broad range of opinions that have been put forward in relation to this debate have been amazing. I am also amazed at the number of experts there are, because the overwhelming majority of comments that have come through to me are from individuals professing to have quite a comprehensive understanding of the properties of this particular drug, when advocating or opposing its application.

As the previous speaker rightfully said, the debate has certainly focused on the issue of abortion and whether or not we should accept abortion in this country. But he is also right in saying that in fact legal abortions have been accepted in this country for some 30-odd years now and have been funded both by state governments and by Australian governments through our Medicare system. Of course the policy view is that the support is for safe and legitimate medical procedures.

I think the argument that accepting the TGA’s advice on this particular drug is going to lead to a massive increase in the number of terminations in this country is false. While personally I have an issue with abortion—it is not something I would advocate in my own circumstances or for family or for friends—I accept that at times there are circumstances where termination is considered and where it is sometimes necessary in saving a life. In my view, it is a decision that is never taken lightly. Some suggest that it is a convenient means of birth control. I certainly reject that argument. For those I know who have had to go down this road, the decision, once taken and once the procedure has occurred, is with them for the rest of their lives. So it is not something that is taken lightly. But, in relation to RU486, it is at the point after the decision is made between an individual and her doctor to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, that they start to consider what options are available in relation to that termination.

While the Therapeutic Goods Authority is an administrative authority and while there has been some argument that it is a faceless bureaucracy that is not qualified to make a decision in relation to whether or not this drug is suitable to be used by the Australian public, I reject that in so much as it is but one layer of an assessment process that examines all drugs. We have the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, which is in fact appointed by the minister. That committee is made up of a team of highly qualified experts, and their qualifications cover all areas of medicine. Their job is to provide independent scientific advice on any new drugs, within the policy framework of government. They look at the quality, risk benefit, effectiveness and access within a reasonable time frame of any drugs referred to them for evaluation and at medical and scientific evaluations of applications for registration of prescription drugs, new chemical entities, new forms of previously registered drugs and therapeutic variations to registered drugs. It is their responsibility, as experts, to evaluate these drugs and make recommendations to the minister. Quite frankly, once these experts have made these decisions and once they have given their recommendations, I do not believe there is anybody in this place who would be qualified to argue whether or not that advice is accurate.

We rely on this process for every other single drug that we have available to Australians in this country, and it is my view that this expert panel should also be used to make decisions about RU486. I recall correspondence suggesting that there have been nine deaths around the world attributed to the use of RU486. Those who argue very strongly on that basis do not provide statistics in relation to the number of deaths from other procedures for termination, nor do they provide any information in relation to the number of deaths from childbirth itself. I cannot take their point of view into consideration if it is argued without providing the rest of the information.

I have not made this decision lightly. Like many of my colleagues, I have had a huge amount of mail on this issue—probably equally balanced between those for and those against—and I have had to consider my own personal view. At one stage there was a suggestion that if this particular drug were to be provided in remote Aboriginal communities—in my electorate, for example—it would cause serious problems for women in those communities.

But the advice I have received about the application of this drug is that, if the decision is made to use it as a method of termination, it is not something that can be picked up on prescription, which is something that a lot of people believe. It has to be collected and administered by the doctor and, of course, ongoing medical support has to go with it. I see it as another option available to women who are facing a very difficult decision in their lives—one that many may choose not to take, but the option is there if they choose to have it available.

It is not available now; it still has to be evaluated. We may find, given the myriad information that is being provided to me, that the experts who are involved in the evaluation process—and I am sure that that information and more will be available to them—may decide that the drug is not suitable, and the debate may well be for nought. But I believe that it is critical that we maintain the integrity of the evaluation system that has served us so well for so many years, and I believe that a decision on which drugs are suitable for Australians should be taken by the expert committee. So I will be supporting the bill, and I will not be supporting the amendments that are being put up.

See this speech in context