Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Hansard source

I begin my remarks on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 by congratulating the members of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on their report—and I do mean all members on both sides of this issue. I particularly congratulate the chairman, Senator Humphries—and, in doing so, commend him on his contribution to the debate and say that I endorse everything that Senator Humphries has said and I share his view on this matter.

Despite my regard and respect for the proponents of this bill, I am not at all persuaded personally to support the bill—and I do hope that a majority of senators are not persuaded to support this bill. I do not believe that there are convincing arguments available to us to support a change in the current arrangements regarding approval processes for RU486. I do prefer that the authority for the question of approval should remain with the Minister for Health and Ageing. The minister—whether of a Labor or Liberal government or whatever—is, by virtue of the office and by virtue of being a member of a duly elected government, publicly accountable for his or her actions. They are accountable to the public and the parliament for whatever decisions he or she may make. I do think that it is arguable that support for this bill is an abrogation of the role of the executive government and the parliament and its responsibility—and, in the case of this particular drug, I think that that would be a very grave mistake.

I agree with Senator Humphries that this is not just any old drug. The great flaw in the proponents’ case is that we should just treat RU486 like any other drug that the Therapeutic Goods Administration deals with. As a member of the cabinet, as Minister for Finance and Administration, I obviously have much to do with the TGA. I mean no reflection upon the TGA. It is a very worthy body. But the fact is that its daily dealings are with therapeutic pharmaceuticals—medicines that are designed to cure diseases and illnesses. Indeed, part of its charter is to ensure that we do not approve the use of any drugs that may cause harm to unborn children. That is one of its roles and responsibilities. This drug’s purpose, in being used as an abortifacient, is to destroy a foetus—to destroy an unborn child. Thus, quite clearly, its use raises very serious social and ethical issues which, in my view, should be the responsibility of a duly elected and accountable minister in a government—accountable to the public and the parliament—and not be the pure and sole responsibility of a committee of officials.

I must say that I found most persuasive an opinion piece in the Australian of 31 January by Monique Baldwin—who is described as a full-time ‘drug regulatory affairs associate with a pharmaceutical company in Sydney’—who deals with the TGA every day of her working life as a professional in seeking approval for the drugs which her company manufacturers. In my view, she makes a very persuasive case, with her intimate knowledge of the operation of the TGA, that it should not have the sole responsibility for dealing with this drug, because it is not like any other drug which the TGA deals with. So, for those still undecided on their position on this very significant issue, I do commend that article.

It is true to say, as Senator Nettle says, that this is not a debate as such about whether or not we the parliament should be here and now approving RU486. It is, in fact, a debate about the process by which such a decision should or should not be made. I concede that. But I cannot see how you can possibly divorce from even that debate the ethical questions which are therefore raised. This is a conscience vote, yet we are being asked to suspend our consciences by dealing with this as nothing more than a mechanical matter. I think that would be an abrogation of the true responsibility of every member of this Senate to bring to bear their conscience on this very significant issue. I openly say that I bring to this a conservative disposition. I personally uphold the sanctity of innocent life from conception onwards. I am personally alarmed by the number of abortions that occur in this country. I am alarmed by the number of pregnancies that are terminated. I bring to this debate personal experience in that a former girlfriend of mine had an abortion when we were in a monogamous relationship, and I cannot divorce that experience in my life from this consideration. I do not believe that the parliament should be, or should even be seen to be, doing anything that might bring about or encourage a greater number of abortions in this country.

I am also very concerned by the medical risks which this drug does have for mothers. I was quite moved by the views of Senator Alan Eggleston, who, I guess, in the broad church of the coalition would normally be seen on the small ‘l’ liberal side of the argument. But, as a medical professional, he has made clear to his colleagues his very serious concerns about the health risks to women of the use of this particular drug. I really do have great difficulty with, and cannot support, any repeal by virtue of this bill of ministerial responsibility for the approval of this particular drug.

I want to refer briefly to some points made in this debate, in the report and in the Parliamentary Library document—which I commend—in relation to this matter. There is the suggestion that there is not in fact any requirement on the minister, in exercising his or her current role, to have regard to expert advice in determining whether or not to approve this drug—specifically, the licensing, import registration, evaluation and importation of the drug. The fact is that there is not any possibility of any responsible minister in any government not seeking expert advice at any stage in the consideration of a request for the evaluation, registration, listing or importation of this drug. But, to the extent that that is an argument that is made, it may be that in due course a requirement for the TGA to seek such expert advice from the national Health Ethics Committee of the NHMRC could indeed be formalised.

It is also argued that, while the current legislation requires the minister to table any written approval within five sitting days in the parliament, there is no such requirement with regard to any decision not to approve. Again, I would say to the Senate that any responsible minister, in my view, would table a decision not to approve, albeit that the law does not actually require that. But again, I think that is also something that quite properly could be formalised in any subsequent consideration of the way in which the question of the approval or disapproval of this particular drug should be handled.

I will conclude my remarks at this point, but can I just say that I am pleased that the government was able to facilitate debate on this serious issue. I have nothing but high personal regard for the proponents of the legislation, but I profoundly disagree with their perspective on this matter and I urge senators to oppose this bill.