Senate debates

Thursday, 9 February 2006

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of Ru486) Bill 2005

Second Reading

12:27 pm

Photo of Stephen ConroyStephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to make my small contribution to this debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I am indebted to many of the speakers, who I have listened to intently. They have assisted me in reaching my decision about this bill. I am particularly indebted to the last speaker, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, who wanted to make it clear that this should be a debate purely about this process. My colleague Julia Gillard this morning on radio, again, said, ‘All this debate is about is whether politicians will decide the availability of the medication or the experts will.’ I want to reiterate and support that view. It is also not a debate about Tony Abbott, though, to be fair, he has turned himself into an issue in this debate very successfully. You have to admire his political skills. In a debate which is about a process, Tony Abbott has successfully made himself a large part of this issue.

The movers of this bill stress that the intent is to allow the TGA to have sole decision-making status. They argue that the decision should be based on scientific and technical grounds and that they are the experts who should have the final say. This is not a view I can agree with. Left to their own devices, scientists and doctors would advocate cloning, euthanasia and many other things that I do not support. Ethics and philosophical positions enter into the debate in some circumstances. That is why I believe that this drug raises scientific and ethical matters.

I fully accept the critique of the current process by the movers of this bill. I do not believe handing the power to the minister to have the sole prerogative is the way that this debate should be handled. I believe the process should be more open, transparent and accountable. That is why I cannot support a bill that simply says that we should give it over to scientists and doctors. There is no transparency and no accountability. I think that is a fundamental flaw in the bill. With regard to those who want to advocate that Tony Abbott should not have this power, I agree, but the solution is not to hand it over to an unelected group of people who have no accountability and no transparency.

A number of proposed amendments have been circulated. I hope that in the committee stage there will be some debate about these amendments, because I believe that these amendments should address many of the concerns of many of the people who have spoken. I accept the point made by Senator Stott Despoja that there is a potential difficulty that a rejection by the minister may not be covered. I do believe that the intent is to try to cover that circumstance, and I believe that some of the revised amendments—although I have only just seen them myself—may perhaps address that issue. But I do not believe that the parliament should have no role. I do believe that the parliament has a role in this and that we cannot wash our hands of this debate, because it does go beyond pure science.

I will be supporting the amendments. I hope that they address the concerns that I heard Senator Payne and Senator Stott Despoja raise about them. As I said, I fully accept the critique of the existing situation. It is not satisfactory that a minister of any political or personal persuasion should be in a position to make this call. I do believe it is a debate that should be had in this chamber. Euthanasia was debated in this chamber. Stem cell research was debated in this chamber. Some argue that these are just scientific processes and should be left to the doctors, but the parliament believes that it should have a role in this debate, and I also believe the parliament has a role in the debate around this drug.

This has been a difficult decision for me. I voted to support stem cell research. I voted against euthanasia. I would vote to support abortions being available on Medicare. If the amendments were ultimately successful, I would probably vote for the pill to be available. But I do not believe the bill achieves what it sets out to do. I accept that it is an attempt to change the process, and I do believe the process should be changed.

Comments

No comments