Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Hansard source

Many earlier contributors have indicated to the House the capacity in which they speak to this very important bill, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005some as Christians, some as politicians, some as medical practitioners, many as people who have been touched by the issue of abortion in the past and, while not admitting it, some as hypocrites. I approach this debate both as a legislator and a father who understands the importance of choice.

I noted that the member for Watson indicated to the House that this is the fourth occasion on which he has been required to cast a conscience vote. It caused me to think, and it reminded me that this is my third. The first occasion was during the debate on euthanasia. When I voted in support of the bill to overturn the Northern Territory’s right to sanction legally the option of euthanasia, many people thought I did so because of my Catholic faith. While that might have influenced my thinking, they are basically wrong. I did so because I believe in choice. On that occasion my fear was that if we shifted from the current system to a strict sanctioning of the use of euthanasia then people would lose a choice—they would feel pressure, as a burden on family and loved ones, to take the euthanasia option. That is the basis on which I opposed the proposition of the legal sanctioning of euthanasia.

My second experience was on the issue of stem cell research. I supported that proposition, again because I wanted people to have choice—on that occasion, the choice to live and the choice to access modern medical science, the sort of science which provides them with the opportunity to live. On this occasion I am also backing choice: a choice for women and a choice for their health practitioners. That is what this bill is about: the right of women to choose other options. It is not about abortion, a matter which has been determined by popularly elected governments in every state and territory in this country in decisions we should not seek to overturn by using the power we have to regulate pharmaceuticals.

Throughout the course of the 1990 republic debate, the member for Warringah consistently and aggressively argued that you could not trust politicians. ‘I wouldn’t trust politicians to choose my wife. Why should I trust them to choose my president?’ he told one of the many forums he attended advocating the idea of retaining the Queen of England as our head of state. The member for Warringah’s analogy no doubt reflects where he ranks women in our social structure and hierarchy. It is also entirely inconsistent with the arguments that he has been relying upon in the current debate over the abortion drug RU486—that is, politicians are best placed to decide whether women should have access to an alternative termination option. But the member for Warringah’s musings at least help us to focus the debate on the issue currently before the parliament—that is, whether the Minister for Health and Ageing should decide whether an alternative method of termination should be available to the treating doctor or whether it should be a matter for the health experts to determine.

All medicines available in Australia have to be approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and they are approved only for specific uses. Some drugs are approved for certain uses but not for others. Mifepristone is the only drug that needs the additional approval of the Minister for Health and Ageing. Under current law, the minister is not required to tell the parliament if he has rejected an application, nor is he required to give his reasons. He is only required to tell the parliament if he has approved an application. Again, he is under no obligation to tell the parliament why, nor can the parliament reject his decision. So much for his argument that the existing system provides for greater public scrutiny and accountability.

No drug company has made an application to introduce mifepristone to the Australian market because such companies know that Tony Abbott will reject it, regardless of what the medical experts say about its appropriateness and whether or not it is safe to use. This stems from his total opposition to abortion. Yet, as I said earlier, in this country this issue has been legally settled well and truly. His position will not reduce the number of terminations taking place in Australia, of course; it will only reduce procedural choice. In the meantime, his determination to block the drug is also denying the many who seek hope in RU486 for the treatment of a range of other ailments, including those that fall under the banner of what we know as cancers.

RU486 has been approved for use in 35 countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, much of Western Europe, Russia, China, Israel, India, New Zealand and Tunisia. Surveys in those countries show no increase in the number of terminations since the drug’s introduction.

Having studied closely the evidence submitted to the Senate inquiry, I will be supporting the bill to remove the minister’s power of veto. I will also be opposing any amendments to extend the parliament’s role in this important issue. I believe that this matter of choice is a matter for the experts.

The current debate, again, is not about whether abortion is right or wrong; we all find it troubling. It is not about whether it should take place in Australia. That, again, is a matter that has been settled by each of the state governments in every jurisdiction, where already termination is readily available in cases where a GP or specialist is of the view that continuing the pregnancy is not in the woman’s best interest.

I support the views of the member for Murray, as a member of this place who represents a rural electorate, that we must strive to give rural women better access and, therefore, greater choice in the determination of their lives and their health and wellbeing. In a country where the law is settled on the legality of abortion, women who face the distressing prospect of terminating their pregnancy should be able to choose the procedure that is least distressing in their circumstances and best for their physical and psychological wellbeing.

See this speech in context