Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

As a member of this House, I believe my vote on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 should be decided not only by the scientific, safety and procedural considerations around RU486 but also by fundamental ethical principles concerning what is best for the health and wellbeing of the mother and the rights of unborn children. As community decision makers, we cannot ignore the emotional debate surrounding this vote. Australians are people who hold values dear. It is very sad to see Senator Nettle denigrating these values by cheap, T-shirt sloganising. The responsible way to deal with this emotion is to feel confident in ourselves that we have soundly examined all these values and made our decision by considering the arguments on all sides in a measured, mature and ethical way. It is crucially important to have freedom of discussion and respect for other points of view. This is the mark of how a civilised society faces challenges and moves forward.

There are good and well-meaning Australians who argue that life begins on day one of conception. There are other good and well-meaning Australians who adhere to the belief that embryonic cells do not constitute a human life—that is, that they are not yet a child. There are good and well-meaning Australians who anguish over the principle of justice: how do we reconcile the rights of the mother with the rights of the unborn? How do we determine the value of one life over the other? There are also good and well-meaning Australians who believe in covenantal integrity—that is, that conception carries with it an obligation to nurture a potential child. Other good and well-meaning Australians see this as a much more complex issue involving the future quality of life of the mother, the family and the potential child.

While all of these values and principles are faithfully held by the various communities having a voice in this debate, and while all of them should be heard, considered and understood by us in this chamber, in the end our debate is not about a decision to terminate. Our vote is about what options are available to a woman and her medical practitioner after the decision to terminate has been made. It is invasive surgery exacerbating the anguish the woman is already suffering or a medication which, if appropriately prescribed, can potentially, to some degree, lessen the suffering and anguish.

RU486 is a medical treatment option. Among other treatments, it can also constitute a procedure to terminate a pregnancy. But by the time a medical practitioner comes to consider whether it is an appropriate option for treatment in this regard, a decision has already been made, under and within Australian laws, for legal and valid reasons, to terminate the pregnancy. While we cannot ignore the emotional tidal wave that the debate over the use of RU486 has triggered—we would be poor representatives if we did—we cannot forget the crucial point that, by the time the medical practitioner comes to consider procedural options, the decision has already been made. RU486 is the only pharmaceutical drug in Australia that is not regulated by medical and pharmaceutical professionals from the Therapeutic Goods Administration. We rely on these professionals to administer the availability of a range of other medications, some of them potentially harmful or addictive. They carry out this role in an unbiased and knowledgeable way. Personal beliefs do not come into it, nor should they.

And that brings us to the ethical dilemma. When addressing the parliament in 2002 on embryonic stem cell research, I made reference to the conclusions of a committee established by the House of Lords to examine embryonic research. The view of that committee asserted that, in the initial stages of development, embryonic cells do not constitute a human life even though they are alive in the biological sense—that is, that they are not yet a child. I stated in 2002 that I am convinced by the conclusions of this committee. I do, however, believe that the highest respect and most stringent regulation should be applied to interventions during the early stages of embryonic development.

These decisions must be governed by the law of the land, by a medical consultation between a woman and her doctor and by consultation between a woman and her family. As a father of three luckily healthy children, and as a non-Catholic father in a Catholic family, I can only guess at the trauma a woman must suffer when faced with this choice. No-one takes decisions such as this lightly—no-one could—and I regret some of the more outrageous sloganeering and dismissive language that has crept into what is one of the most difficult and sobering debates we could be involved in.

The federal Labor caucus has agreed to a conscience vote on RU486, which I believe is appropriate for an issue such as this. Australians are fortunately people of conscience. We are fortunately people who care for our fellow citizens and we are people of compassion. I will vote in favour of this bill. I will do so having listened to all sides of this argument. I will do so understanding the well-meaning contributions made to it by people on all sides who hold principled values and beliefs. I will do so because I believe it is not appropriate for the personal values and beliefs of a minister for health, of whatever persuasion, to dominate over the scientific, safety and medical considerations inherent in how the use of all other drugs is regulated in this country. As a member of the House, I respect the views of all those who have contacted me on this issue, regardless of whether they align with or are contrary to my own view. That is my custom as an MP and it will continue to be so.

In addressing RU486 and examining its regulation in the context of all these arguments, I am also mindful of the overseas experience with this drug. In the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Canada, RU486 has been available for some 20 years as an alternative to surgical termination. Despite claims to the contrary, it is also available in China. Research and monitoring has found that the drug has not replaced surgery as the most common method of termination. In France it is used in only around 10 per cent of terminations. The availability of the drug has not impacted on the number of terminations in these countries.

There is nothing ‘DIY’ about terminations involving RU486. As in the case of surgical abortions, they require medical oversight and approval. And, contrary to recent claims, it is not a special drug unlike any other: there are a number of pharmaceuticals used in Australia and registered by the TGA that can end human life, and it is not the only medicine capable of causing miscarriage. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has stated that ‘there is a substantial body of literature establishing the safety and efficacy’ of this drug. RU486, like every other pharmaceutical, should be dealt with by independent medical experts at the Therapeutic Goods Administration who can be relied on to make decisions about safety in an unbiased and knowledgeable way. Such decisions should not be made on the basis of the personal beliefs of the minister, whatever their personal opinion may be.

On this occasion my vote is made on the basis of evidence that there is no valid reason why availability of this drug should be regulated differently to any other, that there is no evidence that this drug will significantly impact on the number of legal terminations and that RU486 is one of the options available to a woman and her doctor after a very difficult decision has been taken. This difficult decision will need to be taken under and within Australian laws, regardless of the availability of RU486. If its availability can make the procedure which follows that decision a little easier on the woman involved, why would a caring, compassionate and values driven society like ours not take that path? I support the bill.

See this speech in context