Speech to Parliament on 16^th Feb 2006 by Mr Kevin ANDREWS (Minister for Employment

and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (12.26 pm)

At the end of this very extensive debate, I rise to

voice my opposition to the Therapeutic Goods

Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for

Approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I do so because the

system of regulation proposed by this bill is, in my

belief, fundamentally inadequate. At present, as honourable

members know, final approval for drugs such

as RU486 rests with the Minister for Health and Ageing.

It is argued by the proponents of this bill that this

arrangement—that is, final approval resting with the

Minister for Health and Ageing—lacks in transparency

and accountability. They seek to resolve this lack of

transparency and accountability by replacing the decision

made by the Minister for Health and Ageing with

a decision made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration,

the TGA. If, as many proponents claim, this issue

is not about abortion but about the best process of decision

making, this bill is flawed for the very same reasons

that the proponents claim the current system is—

that is, it contains no more transparency and accountability

than the current arrangements.

Having spent much of my professional life advising

governments—I should say, both Liberal and Labor—

and health care institutions on appropriate approaches

to the regulation of biotechnology and reproductive

technology, it appears to me that both the current arrangements

and those proposed in the bill are inadequate.

Much has been said about the appropriateness or

otherwise of the Minister for Health and Ageing alone

having the decision, but little attention has been given

to the alternative proposal. There are a number of reasons

why I believe that the TGA alone should not have

these powers.

First, the TGA’s purview is limited to technical

questions of quality, safety and efficacy. It does not

consider other criteria. It is not empowered to take into

account any ethical or other consideration that may

pertain to this issue.

Secondly, the TGA’s technical

consideration is limited. For example, there is no requirement

that doctors or pharmacists report any adverse

reaction to the drugs. Yet we know that the use of

this drug, in combination perhaps with other drugs, has

caused a number of maternal deaths. Indeed, a major

investigation into this issue is currently under way in

the United States of America. It would be a pity if, out

of all of this, the only winners were the drug companies

and members of the legal profession.

Thirdly, the work of the TGA is largely funded

through the industry that it regulates. Indeed, part of

the reason advanced in favour of this bill is that, with

the costs of making an application being so high, the

CEO of a drug company would not make one, if the

decision were to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I

find this disturbing—not for the reason which was advanced

by my friend the member for Moore, but because

it may give rise in the community to a perception

that the TGA will be a rubber stamp for applications.

That would be regrettable, as far as the reputation of

the TGA is concerned. This bill proposes that a group

of medical experts will decide, on narrow grounds,

what pharmaceutical companies in Australia wish to

market. As Justice Michael Kirby once observed, the

regulation of new technologies is not a matter to be

resolved behind closed doors by committees, however

expert and sincere they are.

For these reasons, in my view this bill contains a

very inadequate system of regulation. Indeed, I find it

quite strange that parliamentarians who day in, day out

defend the concept of ministerial responsibility and

parliamentary scrutiny in other areas would wish to

abandon them in this instance. To the contrary, the

amendments foreshadowed by both the members for

Lindsay and Bowman provide more checks and balances

and a higher level of accountability and transparency

than the current bill. I prefer the amendment

moved by the member for Lindsay, because it involves

not only the expert advice of the TGA but also the minister

and the parliament. For those who say that this

argument should be based on a level of accountability

and transparency then obviously both sets of amendments

provide more accountability and more transparency

than is provided in the bill before the parliament.

Accordingly, I will support the amendments.

May I make a few comments about the issue of

abortion. I find it disingenuous to say that this debate is

not about abortion. That is purely a technical argument.

The whole purpose of RU486 is to induce an abortion.

If the subject matter were aspirin, we would not have

been having this debate in the parliament over the last

few days. Indeed, many speakers both here and in the

Senate have explicitly stated their stance on the bill and

related their stance on the bill in relation to their view

about abortion generally.

Two things appear clear to me about abortion in

Australia. The first is that there is no desire generally

in the community to change the current legal approach

to abortion. Contrary to what many have said, abortion

is illegal in most Australian states unless certain circumstances

are established, which usually relate to a

threat to the health and wellbeing of the mother. However,

in practice we know we have abortion on demand.

Secondly, there is a growing unease about the high

number of abortions. Many Australians are concerned

that there are 80,000 to 100,000 abortions performed in

this country each and every year. Many believe that we

have trivialised a profound issue and many also worry

that this bill will compound that view. I believe that

this level of abortion in Australia is a blight upon our

nation. Many speakers both here and in the Senate

have voiced concerns about the high abortion rate. Anecdotal

evidence is supported and reinforced by surveys.

A national poll conducted by the Sexton Marketing

Group found, for example, that 87 per cent of people

wanted the number of abortions in Australia reduced

and 78 per cent wanted mandatory counselling

before the procedure was undertaken.

I note that this bill proposes absolutely nothing that

would reduce the incidence of abortion in Australia,

something which I think overwhelmingly Australians

would like to see. Indeed, the comment by Serena Williams,

a young Melbourne woman reflecting on the

unwanted loss of a pregnancy, in the Herald Sun last

Sunday succinctly summarised the concerns of many

people. She said: I cannot understand why we are fighting so hard to promote

less counselling, less help and debilitating bleeding at home

without medical supervision, which is what would happen

with RU486.

Given the level of concern in the community about the

prevalence of abortion, I urge my colleagues in the

government to consider what support and counselling

can be provided for people facing this choice—and, by

counselling, I do not mean services provided by abortion

clinics. The reality today is that we have abortion

with very little or no support for the women and the

men facing these significant decisions. I urge the government—

indeed, I urge this parliament—to address

the issue. I believe a program that provided counselling

and some time for people to consider all their choices

would be widely supported in the Australian community.

We need more discussion, not less, about the causes

for such a high incidence of abortion. For far too long

we have danced around the subject—like the elephant

sitting in the middle of the living room that we all

know exists but whose existence we do not want to

acknowledge. I hope this debate will not be the last

word on the subject in this parliament but the beginning

of a mature reflection on a matter of concern to so

many Australians.