Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is an issue which has attracted keen public interest and one on which views on both sides are held strongly and argued passionately. The flood of correspondence to our electorate offices and the moving speeches in the Senate and in this House are evidence of this. I rise tonight to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, not because I have any new revelations or insights to share, but simply to place my own views on the public record. Members will be pleased that I intend to do so briefly. In short, I am opposed to this bill. Despite the arguments put by many here today, I do not accept that the ultimate authority for granting or denying approval for RU486 should be in the hands of the TGA rather than the parliament. Certainly their medical advice must be considered but the ultimate responsibility must remain with the nation’s parliament.

I have reached this conclusion for two reasons. Firstly, I do not believe that RU486 or indeed any other abortifacients are within the purview of the TGA. The role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is to evaluate the effectiveness, quality and safety of therapeutic goods—that is, those drugs designed to prevent or heal illness. Pregnancy is not an illness and, clearly, the termination of a pregnancy is not a matter of curing an illness. The Therapeutic Goods Act does not cover abortion and nor should it. Abortifacients are not therapeutic goods. They are not designed to preserve life but rather to take life.

This leads to a broader and more substantive issue. This question is not just a medical one—it is far more. It carries profound ethical and social ramifications. To pretend that this debate is not about abortion itself, that it is just about process, is—with the greatest respect to my colleagues—simply not sustainable. This debate is, at its core, about allowing access to an abortifacient—to approve or not approve a drug which has the whole intention of terminating a pregnancy, which ends the life of an unborn child. The debate in the community indicates that this is how this issue is viewed. It is precisely because of these profound ethical and social implications that we are having this debate. And it is precisely for this reason that the decision should reside with the national parliament, with the elected representatives who are accountable to the Australian public, rather than with an unelected body, no matter how proficient or knowledgeable its members might be.

It has been argued in this debate and more broadly that, as abortion is legal in this country, the issue is only about process. Yet most would agree that there are far too many abortions in this country, and I share that view. It is tragic that some 90,000 to 100,000 unborn babies are aborted each year in this country. I acknowledge that in the vast majority of cases the decision is an agonisingly difficult one and I in no way cast judgment on parents grappling with this, whatever their decision. But as a community we cannot simply ignore this issue.

My concern is that, by handing over the approval of RU486 and other abortifacients to the TGA, we abrogate our responsibility as a parliament. It somehow allows us as elected representatives to further distance ourselves from the question of abortion and as a community to further desensitise ourselves to this tragic annual loss of young lives. My concern is that it unintentionally reinforces a message—perhaps only at the margins—that this terrible toll is somehow acceptable, that abortion is not a last resort, and that we need not to be looking more earnestly at other approaches.

For me the fundamental principle is the sanctity of human life. The more we ignore the taking of lives, no matter how young, the further we move from this principle. I have never sought to impose on others my views on this very difficult and complex matter. Yet, as this is a conscience vote, I must, like all others in this place, follow the dictates of my own conscience no matter how flawed it might be. For that reason, I am opposed to this bill and will vote accordingly.

See this speech in context