Just to give you a feel for the debate, I’ve collected quotes from those Senators who spoke in favour of the bill. I think it’s interesting to hear what was said and how this bill was defended and passed (and it means you can be a bit more personal in your letters of thanks and appreciation!).
Judith Adams (Liberal Party): “New Zealand has special GPs who have been trained in termination procedures, in counselling and in how to deal with affected people. If a woman, for her own reasons, presents to her GP and says she wishes to terminate her pregnancy, under law that GP, if they have not done that training, must refer the woman to one of these specialist GPs. Women do not go to the pharmacy and get RU486 over the counter. It is prescribed to a clinic and the medical termination must be done at a clinic. The women must have access to trained psychologists, counsellors and people like that who form part of the clinic staff as well as the specialist GPs. If the women are approved as being medically fit to undergo this termination, rather than a surgical termination, and it is their wish to have a medical termination, they are then advised and given every piece of information that they need to make the decision. They are then given the drug at the surgery or clinic and allowed to go home for two days. They have 24-hour access to that clinic and they are not allowed to go any further than four hours away from it in case of any problems. On the third day they come back to the clinic and have their misoprostol. Often, within four hours, they will abort or miscarry at the clinic. So with these guidelines the woman’s safety is absolutely paramount and there is no way that that person will be left without support. When the process is finished, if they are fit enough and healthy, they are allowed to go home but they must return in two weeks time…”
“These medical professionals, especially rural doctors, have a terrific lot of knowledge and expertise. They have to do an extra two years of training before they are even allowed to have a Medicare number in a rural area.”
Lyn Allison (Australian Democrats): “It is okay for people to hold particular ethical or religious views that lead them to oppose abortion but it is not okay for them to impose their position on others who do not. Women are fully human. We will act on our own set of values and can be trusted to make reproductive health decisions for ourselves or to share those decisions with those we trust. An estimated one in three women have had an abortion, and I am one of them.”
“The current law not only gives the minister for health a veto over the availability of RU486; it specifically prohibits the assessment of safety and efficacy by the TGA before the minister decides. What a ridiculous system we have! How is the minister to make his decision without the input of the agency that has the expertise to do the assessment—particularly a minister who has no training in either science or medicine and who, I point out, is not a woman?”
Andrew Bartlett (Australian Democrats): “That is part of the problem with some of the debate surrounding this matter. It is not the fact that people have strongly held, genuine and informed views that is the problem; it is the way in which they seek to impose those views on other people. To label as murderers people who choose to have an abortion or who assist someone to do that and to label RU486 as a human pesticide or a drug designed to kill babies is an abuse of language and a vilification of women. It is a vilification of women who find themselves in a situation of extreme difficulty. The last thing they need is this sort of abuse…
I see my role as a senator and indeed as a Democrat to stand with those women in their right to choose, and their right to choose in an environment which has real meaning to the word “choice”, an environment free from such abuse and an environment where choice means having all of the options both available and affordable…
If you are genuinely concerned about the safety of RU486 it is far more logical and safer to have any potential health risks assessed by medical experts in the Therapeutic Goods Administration, as occurs with every other drug, rather than leave it up to one individual minister…
It was quite possible that the current health minister, Mr Abbott, who as everyone knows is strongly personally opposed to the use of RU486, could have been, in the most recent reshuffle, out of that position. So it is quite feasible that we could have had a Liberal minister in that position today who is strongly in favour of the use of RU486. There are both here and in the House of Representatives Liberal ministers who will, I am sure, vote in favour of this legislation. Frankly, the same problem would arise: we could have a pro RU486 minister deciding to support the drug on philosophical grounds rather than on its health aspects and its proper assessment. Whoever that person might have been, the fact is that the so-called protection that people opposed to RU486 see is not a real protection at all and is certainly not a protection that is based around this facade and false cloak of concern for the health impacts of the use of RU486 on women…
As Senator Nash said, this is probably the first private senator’s bill since Federation in 1901 that has four senators names attached to it from four different parties. That in itself is also something to note and to celebrate. I obviously feel more celebratory about it because I support the bill, but the fact that senators can come together from four separate parties on any matter and put it forward into the arena for political debate is something that should be celebrated. I would do so even if it was a topic matter I did not support, if perhaps not quite so enthusiastically.”
Bob Brown (Australian Greens): “If there are senators listening to this who are having difficulty making up their minds, let me as a past medical practitioner ask you not to make this decision as a politician but to allow it to go to the medical practitioners of this nation and the people who come seeking their advice. I support the legislation.”
Carol Brown (ALP): “There has been a concerted effort by some to make this debate about abortion, despite the fact that the decision on abortion has already been made in Australia. The fact is that abortion is currently available and regulated tightly by the states and territories in this country. Over 81 per cent of Australians support a woman’s right to choose when it comes to terminations. The right of a woman to have choices at what is a stressful and critical time is essential. Despite my personal conviction that it is the right of the woman to choose on abortion, it should be remembered that terminations, whether obtained medically or surgically, require professional medical oversight and approval and must satisfy all conditions required by law. This would apply equally to surgical or medical terminations.”
Ian Campbell (Liberal Party): “I have decided to support the legislation because I believe that as a matter of procedure, the approvals process we have for drugs should be in the hands of an independent expert body. This is the generally applicable regime and I don’t believe RU486 should be an exception.”
Helen Coonan (Liberal Party): “This is a legislated safeguard under section 60 of the act that enables the minister to make a decision at the end of the evaluation process rather than a pre-emptive decision before any evaluation can be made. I believe that an amendment to this review power to ensure that the minister receives notice of a TGA decision and can initiate a review on his or her own motion would overcome most of the objections to removing ministerial accountability. I have to say that it is not as if the TGA is infallible, and I support the minister having a power of review. I think it is just a matter of where it is exercised. I think this existing provision should be strengthened.”
Christopher Evans (ALP): “The point is that that decision should be made out of a political environment; not by a politician, not by a person who is under the political pressures that we have all come under in recent weeks, but by an independent body and based on the best scientific and medical advice. It seems to me that that is a very clear and easy decision to make.”
“… the arguments about accountability have been farcical, because I do not remember ever getting a say about these decisions when the minister for health makes them. There has been no parliamentary accountability since the position was put in place.”
“A lot of people consider this to be a debate about abortion. It is not, but I am very clearly and publicly expressing my position that I am pro-choice and have been for many years. I want to put that on the record, but it is not the point of this debate and it is not the point of the legislation. I have a fundamental problem with men trying to tell women how to handle issues of their own fertility and health.”
John Faulkner (ALP): “Although the majority of Australians consider that a woman’s decision to continue or to end a pregnancy is a private one, there is still a minority who would like to block women who have made the decision to have an abortion from access to safe termination services. In this minority there are those who have treated this bill as an opportunity to raise a question most Australians consider settled. This simple question of process – that experts, not politicians, should decide if a drug is safe and appropriate for import – has become a proxy for a campaign against Australian women’s right to control their own fertility and choose for themselves whether to continue or end a pregnancy.
So while the question of access to safe and legal pregnancy termination is not the question before the Senate today, for complete transparency I will go on the record as saying that if it were the question before us today I would vote in favour. It is not my right or the right of any politician, or indeed any person, to decide for any woman whether she can end a pregnancy. That is her decision. That is her choice. Nor is it the role of any politician to sit in the consulting room and tell a doctor how to treat their patient or to stand over the TGA and tell them which drugs they can or cannot assess. No question of Australian health should be determined been removed from the responsibility and oversight of solely on the private moral views of the health minister of the day.”
Mitch Fifield (Liberal Party): “This bill is not about the whether or the when but rather the how of abortion. In my view, judgements on the safety, efficacy and appropriateness of a drug or a procedure should be a matter determined by competent authorities, doctors and their informed patients. But I should make it clear that my vote for this bill in no way reflects a lack of confidence in Minister Abbott. He is a man of character and of great intellect and compassion. He is a diligent and competent minister. But matters like RU486 are for determination by medical experts and by informed individuals, not ministerial discretion.”
Robert Hill (Liberal Party): “Where women require an abortion, I believe they should be treated with sensitivity and support at what must be an extraordinarily difficult and emotionally stressful time. I believe they have the right to access whatever procedural options are safe and can be provided by their medical practitioner. It is for the Therapeutic Goods Administration to determine whether a particular drug is medically safe for the purpose for which it might be prescribed. If the TGA determines a specific drug to be a safe alternative to a surgical abortion then I believe it is appropriate for a medical practitioner to present it as an alternative to surgical abortion. I do not therefore see a role for the minister for health in this process.”
Annette Hurley (ALP): “In terms of accountability, accountability in the matter of abortion does not, in fact, lie with federal members of parliament, nor with the federal minister for health; it lies with state administrations. What the federal minister for health could do about the rate of abortions in this country is to put in place and fund programs to educate and counsel to reduce the rate of abortion. This is a subject that I feel very passionately about. I am sure that there are a lot of women in this country who have abortions who should not be having them and who probably should not have conceived in the first place. And I am sure there are a lot of women in this country who have had abortions, who have had terminations, and suffer as a consequence of that. I think if we had proper programs in place to educate and counsel women then we would reduce the number of abortions, and that is certainly within the ability of the federal minister for health and the federal government to put in place.”
I would certainly strongly support, as the Senate committee has recommended, any programs that would reduce the rate of abortion, but I do not believe that voting against this bill will achieve that effect. On the grounds of facts and outcomes, I will be supporting this bill.”
Linda Kirk: “With respect to all of the people who wrote to me and to other senators, this bill is not about proposing to change existing laws. As I said before, this bill does not propose to, nor can it, change existing state and territory laws in relation to abortion; nor does it seek to make a determination of the safety or otherwise of RU486. This bill is about the process by which RU486 should or should not be approved for use in Australia. my introduction, this bill is not about whether RU486 is safe but about who is qualified to decide.”
Kate Lundy: “Opponents of choice and those who think women are not responsible enough to make decisions about themselves and their health and welfare have subverted this debate. The question before the parliament is simply whether a health minister – and not simply the current health minister – should make the decision on the availability of a drug or whether the responsibility of evaluating drugs should belong to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, or TGA. At present, RU486 is the only drug that is currently evaluated by the health minister and not the TGA. Imagine the outcry from the same very vocal antichoice lobby were there to be a new pro choice health minister exercising this power of decision, based not on specialist medical knowledge but on personal, ethical and religious beliefs. These very same people would be calling for exactly this legislation to remove the decision-making power from a minister who is not required to have medical or pharmaceutical qualifications. Such is the hypocrisy of the situation.”
“In debating abortion issues, some senators and members appear to promote antiwomen and antichoice views. They will not trust women, or even their medical advisers, to make informed decisions in individual cases. From their positions of lofty ignorance, they seek to make universal rulings to cover individual plights. I believe it is between a woman and her doctor to determine the best procedure relating to termination.”
“The real issue here, as I think everyone knows, is that this bill seeks to prevent the personal views on abortion of the federal health minister interfering with best medical practice under state and territory abortion laws.”
Ian Macdonald: “I intend to support the bill and leave the scientific decisions to professionals. If they decide, in their collective wisdom, to make the drug more freely available – and I make no comment on whether they should or should not do that – then I have confidence in the medical profession to wisely use the drug, taking into account all of the circumstances and, importantly, the patient’s needs. It is for the doctor to prescribe the drug if that doctor, in consultation with his or her patient, believes it is in the best interests of the patient to do so.”
Gavin Marshall: “It’s worth noting that RU486 can be used to treat a variety of illnesses and life-threatening conditions, including: inoperable meningiomas; Cushing’s syndrome; breast and prostate cancer; glaucoma; depression; endometriosis and uterine fibroids. In addition, the drug has shown promise in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, dementia and progesterone dependant uterine and ovarian cancer.
At the end of the day, abortion is a subject for discussion between a woman and her doctor and a decision for the woman. The method a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy should be her decision and should be supported by the medical profession and the wider community, whatever that decision is. We had that debate decades ago. It’s over.”
Anne McEwen: “Much has been said by opponents of this bill about the alleged potential complications and ill effects that may follow use of RU486. This debate is so full of contradictory evidence that it is even more essential that the independent TGA make the decision about availability.”
Jan McLucas: “Any death from any drug is a tragedy. The recorded death rate from RU486 is less than one in 100,000. The death rate from a completed pregnancy is 12 in 100,000 in developed countries. From all available evidence, RU486 is in fact a remarkably safe drug. But I reiterate: it is not for us as politicians to assess the safety of RU486.”
“Opponents of RU486 alternatively state that this bill will mean that women will be taking RU486 irresponsibly to unthinkingly procure an abortion, or that women will be traumatised by the experience of a medical abortion, which they must experience alone. There is no evidence that Australian women have abortions unthinkingly. In fact, such a suggestion is offensive in the extreme. We know that over the past decade the proportion of medically funded abortions done for teenagers has fallen by 12 per cent, while the proportion of abortion patients over 35 rose by 37 per cent. We also know that an abortion patient was 40 per cent more likely to be married or in a de facto relationship in 2002 than in 1992. It seems that the decision to have an abortion is increasingly a family planning decision, usually made by a middle-class woman in a committed relationship. Our health care system is well able to cope with restrictions on use, appropriate medical monitoring, the provision of informed consent, patient information and support, and the reporting of adverse reactions. All of these can be put in place to ensure the safe use of RU486 if – and that is the important word – it is deemed to be safe by the TGA.”
“I urge all participants in this debate to be factual with their contributions. I urge the media to challenge incorrect, graphic and emotive language, and I encourage our community to look past the language of fear to the facts. It is really important for us all to note one crucial fact here: this is not a vote about whether or not abortion should be allowed in Australia. Abortion is a legal procedure in Australia. The debate about the legality of abortion and who can access it occurs in the parliaments of the states and territories. This debate is about allowing a drug, which has been around for some time and widely used overseas, into Australia for clinical use, which must be subject to scientific and ethical approvals and not the personal beliefs and biases of any health minister.”
Christine Milne (Australian Greens): “One has to ask: who is best informed or equipped to determine if a drug is safe for use by humans – a politician who may have no medical training at all, or the organisation specifically set up and trusted to make that decision about every other drug on the market in Australia today? The Therapeutic Goods Administration is accountable at every stage. Can the same be said of one parliamentarian?”
Claire Moore (ALP): “We believe that we should reaffirm the right of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA as it is commonly called, to do the job for which it was established, and for this particular group of medications.”
“A question that I consistently asked people who came before our committee who were in the medical profession and who were giving evidence about their concerns about the safety of RU486 was whether there was anything in the legislation at the moment that would force them to use this particular medication. Where was the compulsion to use this process? There is none. The amendment that we have put before the parliament carries no compulsion. The amendment that we have put before the parliament gives clear responsibility to a group that has been developed for that job.”
Fiona Nash (National Party): There are those that say the TGA does not have the ability to make a moral evaluation of the social issues surrounding the drug RU486 and others like it. The Therapeutic Goods Administration does not need to have that ability. The moral evaluation of the social issues has already been done in the debate in this nation that led to termination being lawful. How can we say that, in a society where termination is lawful, we will allow surgical termination and yet we will not allow medical termination to even be assessed? It is illogical…”
“None of us sitting here know what the people from the TGA will say if they are able to assess this drug. They may approve the drug; they may not. But it is not up to us to tell them that they cannot have the opportunity to assess it. That is not our role, and it is certainly not our role in a society which has said that termination is lawful.”
Kerry Nettle (Australian Greens): “It is unfortunate that many people who oppose this view mistakenly believe that having the health minister decide whether this drug is safe or not for use in Australia somehow offers a form of parliamentary scrutiny. This is not correct. A Parliamentary Library research note explains:
Under current arrangements, the Minister is simply required to notify the Parliament of a decision to approve an application for evaluation by the TGA. Given the fact that such a decision would not be disallowable— by the parliament— this does not amount to a significant level of parliamentary scrutiny. Further, the Minister is not required to table decisions not to approve such applications, meaning that the Parliament would neither necessarily be informed nor have the capacity for any oversight of such a decision.”
“Again, unfortunately there has been some misinformation in relation to RU486 being used in rural and remote settings—and that led to the Chief Medical Officer needing to comment through his spokesperson that the Minister for Health and Ageing had misinterpreted the information that had been provided to him. That is an example for us of the difficulties that occur when a minister for health is put in that position. It is not their fault. They are appointed to that position with no medical training and they have to interpret advice that they seek and they can misinterpret it, which is what happened in this instance.”
Kay Patterson (Liberal Party): “Personally, I – as I am sure most, if not all, who are voting in this chamber on this bill – would prefer that there were fewer abortions; in fact, none if possible. We would want to see more done to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, whether it is teenage pregnancies, pregnancies of people entering into new relationships or pregnancies of people who have been partnered for significant periods of time who do not think they can afford a child. I think every one of us would want to see fewer unwanted pregnancies. However, if we want to face up to the situation, however much we would prefer not to see an unplanned or unwanted child being conceived, I think we are wishing for the nirvana.”
“I do not feel competent to stand up and argue for RU486. That is not what I am doing in supporting this bill. I am saying that I do not have the competency to assess RU486. We have a process for assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used in Australia, and that is the process that should be used… Had a company written to me when I was the health minister and sought to have RU486 evaluated, despite my keen interest in things medical I do not think that I would have had sufficient expertise to make the decision not to allow the TGA to evaluate the drug. I would have sought the advice of the expertise of the TGA. And if the drug to be administered needed a Medicare item number, I would have sought the advice of the Medical Services Advisory Committee.”
Marise Payne (Liberal Party): “It seems to me that, if the concerns of the opponents of these particular drugs are well founded, the TGA would examine the impact of the drugs very carefully before coming to a decision on them. Indeed, the fact that both sides of this debate have been passionately argued, in many cases by medical practitioners from diametrically opposed positions, confirms to me the need to action the central premise of this bill to ensure that it is the TGA that evaluates and assesses such drugs.”
Rachel Siewert (Australian Greens): “I think it is particularly important to separate politics from medical decision making. Decisions about the health of Australians need to be made on the basis of medical evidence presented by the experts to those charged by our government with the risk assessment role: the TGA.”
Nick Sherry (ALP): “It is relatively rare that I find myself in absolute agreement with the previous speaker, Senator Patterson, and I do about the way she has approached this matter. Like her, I voted to prohibit euthanasia, for reasons that I outlined On the issue of abortion: I do not agree with abortion. To me, it is the destruction of evolving human life and I find it highly disturbing that abortions are carried out in the community. However, abortion is legal in Australia… So the principle on which I have made up my mind relates fundamentally to what is appropriate, independent, expert, arms-length decision making about the use of or prohibition of particular drugs in Australia. I do not believe that the decision making belongs with an individual minister. If we allow such a process to continue – I point this out to those who strongly oppose abortion and, in this case, the use of RU486 – what happens when the current Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Abbott, concludes his position and a new minister with a different point of view is appointed? That seems to me to be a ridiculous approach to the legal use or otherwise of a drug in this country.”
Natasha Stott-Despoja (Australian Democrats): “I speak as a proud pro-choice woman and as a member of the only political party that opposed the Harradine amendments in 1996. For 10 years, the Australian Democrats have been keen to see this decision reversed, and I hope that this afternoon this private members bill will be successful. I want to place on record my congratulations to the cross-party co-sponsors of this private members bill.”
“The bill is about a simple change. It is not about the availability of abortion, nor is it even about the safety of RU486. Since this particular issue has been raised, I will comment on it later in my remarks. It is about who should be able to decide whether or not to approve drugs such as RU486 for use in AustraliaСthe TGA or the health minister, whoever he or she may be, regardless or their personal views, regardless of whether they are pro- or anti-choice, for that matter. It is about removing the extraordinary and unprecedented ministerial discretionary power.”
“This bill does not make RU486 available. Of course, if this bill passes both houses of parliament, an application for a licence to import RU486 would need to be made, and approved by the TGA.”
“This is not about the morality of abortion but the safety of a drug. Therefore, the TGA is the appropriate body to be evaluating it.”
Judith Troeth (Liberal Party): “So, what are we to do? Are we to have the safety and efficacy of an internationally widely used drug determined by a minister for health who is still a member of parliament, or are we to have the safety and efficacy of an internationally used drug determined by an objective science and evidence based national authority? The choice is to be made by the Senate. I know my choice, and I will be voting for the bill.”
Russell Trood (Liberal Party): “In public policy terms it [the right of the Health Minister to rule on whether RU486 can go to the TGA for approval] is a very peculiar discretion. It lacks adequate accountability, offers no transparency and, perversely for a drug said by its opponents to be so dangerous, does not permit scrutiny and examination by the one agency able to do it professionally – the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Considering the level of legislative and regulatory control of therapeutic goods in this country and the expectation that Australians have that such products will be safe, of high quality and comparable to the best available elsewhere in the world, that is an extraordinary situation indeed. I think it is an untenable one. We now have the opportunity to correct this anomaly by placing the power where it belongs.”
Amanda Vanstone (Liberal Party): “In my view, the decision as to this matter is not one that should be held by any individual minister. It is one that should be looked at by experts. After that, if the decision is made that RU486 should be available, the decision with respect to any individual woman should be made by her in consultation with her medical practitioner.”
“I was at a dinner last night where there were men and women of differing views on this issue. One of the men said that he was opposed to abortion and was going to oppose this bill because he thinks that, if the bill passes, RU486 would be available and – wait for it – he does not want abortion to be any easier and a pill would necessarily be easier. Well, hello! Clearly, he has never had the mindset of it ever happening to him. It is not going to happen to him because he is a boy.”
“I understand that there are very different views here. I say this to everybody: whatever their beliefs about the existence of a god or their particular religion, they are entitled to keep their views to themselves and make them private. My personal view is that religion is debased when it is cast around and used as a political football. My strong belief is that any god that I have ever heard about or read about is looking for converts, not conscripts. No god that I have read about or heard about needs this place to do his or her work. Any omnipotent being must be more powerful and stronger than the Senate – shattering though that may be to some. If you have a belief in a more powerful being, you will understand the point I am making. It is not for us to legislate.”
“I conclude by coming back to what was going to be the final point I made – that is, that your religious and moral views are your own and it is not for this place to legislate on those.”
Ruth Webber (ALP): “It is no small task to take on what can be such an emotional, divisive and somewhat distracting debate to try to actually bring forward a piece of very straightforward and sensible administration in this country.”
“Here in the Senate we do not seem to have too many people with medical qualifications; yet … under the legislation as it currently stands, it would seem that any one of us can give medical advice on this issue – only on this category of medications, not on any other – regardless of our qualifications or what we bring to the table.”
“If we are going to have a debate about medications and their effects on individuals, perhaps we should have a debate on whether or not to allow, say, Viagra, to be sold to unsuspecting Australians. As I understand it, an editorial in the US journal entitled, conveniently, Contraception noted that Viagra has a mortality rate of five deaths per 100,000 prescriptions. The Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee received 20 reports describing heart attacks linked to the use of Viagra which included four fatalities. Clearly, if we allow this to continue, we are taking a risk with the health and safety of Australian men – let alone the health and safety of those who have sex with them! Surely the men of Australia deserve to be protected from such a dangerous drug.”
“This is another thing I have learned during my recent crash course in medicine: if someone takes this drug, the risks being talked about – infection, bleeding and death – have nothing to do with mifepristone. It is not the drug that causes them; it is ending the pregnancy. Ending a pregnancy, whether by delivery, spontaneous abortion – a miscarriage – or by election, through a medical or surgical abortion, is associated with certain risks. Both a term delivery and a miscarriage at six weeks bring with them a risk of infection and/or bleeding. So it seems to me that those who are concerned about this drug should stop pointing out to everyone that country women often do not have access to adequate medical care and actually start fixing the problem.”
Penny Wong (ALP): “I turn firstly to the issue of safety. I want to emphasise that I believe there must be a scientific and evidence based assessment of whether this drug is safe and, if it is safe, on what basis it can be used. However, I do not believe that this chamber is the place in which such an assessment would be properly undertaken. The need for such assessment to be undertaken by relevant experts is one of the reasons the TGA exists at all – to ensure that the Australian community has the benefit of impartial evaluation and proper assessment in relation to drugs.”
Dana Wortley (ALP): “It is my view that the current process of having the decision reside with the minister alone is flawed. The minister is simply required to notify parliament if approval is granted under his authority for evaluation by the TGA of a drug. This decision would not be disallowable by the parliament and therefore could not be considered parliamentary scrutiny.”
Leave a Reply