John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to oppose the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, as it seeks to remove the transparency and accountability of this parliament in a very sensitive area of public policy. This transparency and accountability was put in place in 1996 in response to grave concerns held about the drug RU486. Those concerns remain today. A Parliamentary Library research note on the issue of RU486 says, inter alia:

… RU486 belongs to a special category of drugs under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (the Act), known as ‘restricted goods’, which cannot be evaluated, registered, listed or imported without the written approval of the Minister for Health. Further, any such written approval must ‘be laid before each House of the Parliament by the Minister within 5 sitting days of being given’.

This gives the parliament the right to scrutinise the decision of the minister and to hold the minister accountable for the reasons supporting the minister’s decision. In such a contentious area, this surely has to be seen as good parliamentary practice.

Dr David van Gend, in the Courier-Mail of 1 December 2005, puts quite simply the reason for ministerial accountability:

The Parliament in 1996 aimed to prevent recurrence of the debacle in 1994 where a junior official in the Health Department approved the importation of RU-486 without the minister’s knowledge.

It raises the issue as to why there needs to be ministerial intervention on RU486 when other drugs are approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. Again, Dr van Gend says in the Courier-Mail of 1 December 2005:

RU486 is a unique drug in that no other drug is designed to end a human life, and so its importation demands a unique level of public accountability.

Monique Baldwin, in an article in the Australian of 31 January 2006, says of RU486:

It is not designed to prevent, treat or diagnose an illness, defect or injury. It is not therapeutic. It is designed to cause an abortion that will end a developing human life. RU486 raises serious ethical and social concerns that go far beyond scientific analysis.

This is a compelling argument in itself for RU486 to be treated differently, even today, as it was clearly embraced by this parliament in 1996.

The bill, whilst not seeking to debate the demerits or merits of RU486, simply seeks to remove the open and transparent accountability process of 1996 and shunt off the approval process to the TGA, which is required to consider not the public policy aspects of the debate but only the clinical aspects. This would be a retrograde step indeed. The public policy debate is important to people such as me as it crosses the line of some of my most personal and fundamental beliefs.

One such belief is the right of every human being to life. When it comes to human life, I do not make exceptions or value judgments on the importance and value of such life. Each human life is important, precious and unique. We are only given one chance at this life; there are no second chances. I subscribe to the view therefore that each human life should be treated with absolute respect and dignity. Each human life has the right to be nurtured, protected and fostered to maturity without external interference of any sort. I maintain that no individual, collective or government has the right to summarily terminate another’s life. Life is so precious. Life is so important. Life is a continuum. It is not a series of disjointed or unrelated stages. I have a consistent approach in supporting the dignity of human life from its conception to death. That is why I am: opposed to abortion; opposed to the death penalty and opposed to euthanasia. I understand that others do not necessarily share my views on one or all of those issues but I like to think that I have a consistent approach. That is, the value of life does not change because of differing circumstances of human life or differing value judgments about the quality of that life. At the end of the day the unborn life, the unborn child, does have rights and, in particular, the right to life. Making RU486 readily available to terminate that life is unconscionable in my view. RU486, as stated earlier, is no therapy for the unborn child.

Evidence received by me clearly suggests that there has been no change in the circumstances that had parliament deem it necessary in 1996 to make the importation of RU486 the subject of ministerial approval and parliamentary scrutiny. The fact that other countries have approved the drug for use does not make it a correct or proper decision in Australia. There have been grave medical concerns expressed about the effects of RU486. The devastating effect still remains for the unborn human life in that it is summarily terminated. As Monique Baldwin, in the Australian on 31 January 2006, said:

The TGA was never designed to negotiate the public policy complexities that accompany debate about such a drug. This task lies with our elected and accountable representatives. And they should not wash their hands of this responsibility:

There is no compelling reason to change the current approval process. Clearly, the bill raises more issues than it resolves. The debate today will not resolve issues such as the abortion-breast cancer link, post abortion psychological issues and pregnancy or abortion counselling. I therefore believe that the bill should be rejected.

In closing my remarks I want to thank those members of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on both sides of the debate who pursued the issue diligently and brought down an excellent report. I also want to thank those people on both sides of the debate who have contacted me either by fax, email or letter and offered me their views, which I have considered in putting my views together. Having said that, I have noted in the chamber that there have been distributed proposed amendments to the bill in the committee of the whole stage. Whilst I have only had a brief chance to read those, because my speech was prepared obviously well in advance of the circulation of the document or my knowledge of it, my brief reading seems to tell me that it will improve the process and I think that, whilst I may well be opposed to the bill as it currently stands, I would be quite happy to entertain the amendments as circulated and I would listen to the debate when it undoubtedly takes place at the committee of the whole stage. It seems that the outlined proposals indicating that the minister would be required to seek written advice from the Australian Health Ethics Committee, to consider that advice and prepare reasons for approval or refusal to approve the importation, are a vast improvement on what currently exists. I note also the proposal at the committee of the whole stage requiring consideration of a proposition that written approval or refusal to approve in accordance with this section is a disallowable legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, and there is also a proposal in the circulated amendment sheet that the minister must give written notice together with a statement of reasons of approval or of the refusal to approve the evaluation, registration or listing of restricted goods in accordance with the section.

Whilst I have only had a very brief and cursory look at that proposal, it does seem to me to fit in with basic comments that I have put on the record this evening in respect of this bill. I would be opposed to the bill passing in its current form but if these amendments were to see favour in this chamber, I would be quite happy to support them unless I can be persuaded otherwise at the committee of the whole stage. I commend opposition to the bill as it stands and, given that there seems to have been amendments proposed to the bill at the committee stage, I would seek support for those amendments.