Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 cuts to the core of issues that demand that we stop and reflect on our role as legislators and on the ramifications of passing the amendments. I am referring there to the amendments in the bill, not to the amendments moved by Miss Kelly and Mr Laming.

The bill revisits an issue we debated in 1996. At the time the amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Act placed abortifacient drugs in a special restricted category such that drugs within this category cannot be evaluated, registered, listed or imported without the written approval of the minister. As I said, it received bipartisan support. Why did we do that? The simple reason is that the role of the TGA is to approve drugs for the beneficial purposes of its citizens—that is, for medicinal purposes, for infection control, for pain relief, to counteract cancer and for many other things. I would have no problem, for example, with RU486 being put to the TGA for cancer treatment. After all, we have many drugs which are allowed on a restricted basis. But this bill sets out to repeal the amendments of 1996, which in effect will strip the minister of his power to approve the release of RU486 into Australia. In effect, it will simply allow another form of abortion.

Many speakers in this debate have argued that we are not talking about abortion or, indeed, RU486 and its subsequent use but rather about who should have the authority to approve it—the minister or the TGA. This is to tiptoe around the intent of the bill. All drugs approved by the TGA are for the enhancement of life. But RU486 is an abortifacient, a poison, a death-inducing instrument, that leads to the female body expelling the embryo. To pretend this debate is about something else is to be either lacking in courage or disingenuous. Using the drug for this purpose creates a new perspective that goes beyond the charter of the TGA and to the accountability of the government of the day. We should not flick pass this issue to bureaucrats when the implications go beyond matters medicinal and to the safety of women, to ethical considerations and, quite frankly, to the ultimate character of our nation.

Let me make it clear that I have no argument with the competence of officers of the TGA, nor with the efficacy of their work, but in matters of the future demography of our country they are not accountable; we are. We are elected representatives and legislative arbiters on behalf of the Australian people. The office of the Minister for Health and Ageing is an extension of that role. We as parliamentarians must understand that by amending this legislation we are placing a higher value on choice and convenience than on human life. We must not resile from our responsibilities when it comes to contentious social and ethical questions. We are accountable to the public and duty-bound to help build a better Australia. I am fundamentally opposed to the act of abortion, no matter how or when it occurs, and I cannot support any action or procedure that facilitates the termination of human life. While I acknowledge women’s rights, it is the life and rights of the unborn child that I believe need to be defended. Powerful though we as legislators might be, we cannot legislate a human being back to life. Therefore, I do not support this bill, though I would on the basis of what I have said support the Laming amendment.

This debate has been more about choice and convenience, a political debate, and it has had an ugly side to it: the denigration of members—and, of course, the minister for health himself—because of their faith. The inference is that we have accepted church direction. Even uglier is the offensive Nettle T-shirt ‘Mr Abbott, get your rosaries off my ovaries’. This was a giggling, offensive insult to most Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, and bordered on the sectarian. That this T-shirt was sponsored, promoted and sold by the YWCA is almost unbelievable. That this once proud organisation of Christian virtues dedicated to the healthy bodies and minds of young women could stoop to such a tacky level is unimaginable. They have recanted today, but strangely they still promote the pro-choice position. They have said, ‘Sorry, but we’re going to keep going.’

The debate on people’s faith is unjustified. We are conditioned somewhat by our family environment and our religious upbringing in the sense that it is part of our development of conscience. But do not insult me by saying that I have been dictated to by my church as to how I should vote. I had no trouble in reaching my decision on my own. It is equally regrettable that some have linked their argument to the emotive scare tactic against non-Christian religions. This does not enhance the pro-life case, and I will have no part of it.

The road to open, almost unfettered, abortion on demand has been all pervasive for some decades. First, it was only ever to be used in the case of the mother’s life being at risk. Then it was extended to the mental welfare of the mother, her psychological status, and then to the economic capacity of the family. If RU486 is approved, it will be extended to mere convenience. The methods that are being used in abortion, not just in RU486, are being refined all the time—if, indeed, ‘refined’ is the right word. After RU486, can we expect a move to lengthen the 28-week limit on late term abortions, which is the case in most states? The thought of partly birthing a foetus and then carrying out the suction removal of its brain while it is still alive—and I will not go into any more horrifying detail—fills me with unspeakable revulsion. It is evocative of the Dark Ages and we should have no part of it. You can add to this some international studies that point out that more female than male foetuses are aborted. This debate has been all about the role of women and the enhancement of women. Yet, isn’t that the ultimate denigration of womanhood?

I do not say these things to be insensitive. I do not say these things as a scare tactic. I do not say these things to be confrontationist. But it is undeniable that these forms of abortion are becoming part of a continuum. I ache for women and their families who have experienced abortion. I make no moral judgment of those who entered into such an arrangement in good faith. But as a legislator I have to vote according to my conscience and I believe that my electors, though some of them may differ from me, would expect me to do so.

It is a sad fact of life that there are nearly 100,000 abortions a year in this country. Surely future generations of Australians, regardless of their ethnic or religious derivation, will make a very harsh judgment of our generation. What a marvellous opportunity these potential 100,000 young Australians could be. What sportsmen, academics, tradesmen, educators and wonderful mothers have we lost? The issue before us tonight is one of fundamental importance. For every argument in support of amending the bill there is a counterpoint.

The unleashing of RU486 upon our society has serious implications not only at the moral level but also on the health front. The complexity of the issues related to this bill is evidenced by the number of submissions received by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. The committee received around 2,500 submissions and more than 2,000 letters from pro-choice and pro-life adherents. That level of engagement is supported by research commissioned by the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations, which showed that more than 64 per cent of respondents from non-metropolitan Australia did not support abortion for non-medical reasons. Interestingly, almost 87 per cent of respondents also believed that abortion can harm a woman’s physical and mental health. As a regionally based elected representative, those figures go to the forefront of my mind.

I have listened carefully to the opinions of the medical fraternity. The US Food and Drug Administration is currently investigating five deaths between September 2003 and June last year attributed to sepsis in women who had RU486 treatments. Their deaths and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of RU486 were detailed in a study conducted by American obstetricians Margaret Gary and Donna Harrison, which produced some very concerning results. The details of the five reported deaths are quite horrifying in themselves and I will not go into the gory details. The study showed that there were a further 64 life-threatening adverse events and 224 serious events, amongst them serious bacterial infection, bleeding, haemorrhaging and ruptured ectopic pregnancies. The report concluded that the drug posed ‘a significant risk of severe, life-threatening, or even lethal adverse events’ and that:

... the choice of mifepristone termination over surgical termination is based mainly on patient perceptions of safety, convenience, and privacy, but these perceptions do not accurately reflect the realities of the regimen.

Dr Gary also believed that the adverse reactions reported to the FDA were only a fraction of those that were actually occurring. Another distressing aspect of post-abortion health outcomes was highlighted in a recent New Zealand study which tracked 500 young women from birth until the age of 25. It found that 42 per cent of those women who had abortions suffered major depression at some stage, a third higher than those who continued with their pregnancies and double that of those who had never fallen pregnant.

Looking at this evidence, we should dismiss this point about convenience and focus on the dangers facing country women if they use this drug. Some argue that RU486 gives women in rural and remote areas more choice in their health care and is a matter of convenience. I fully appreciate that living and working in regional and remote Australia can prove difficult for doctors and patients alike. But the health risks linked to RU486 cruel any argument about choice or convenience. If a woman cannot access specialist medical services because of geographic isolation and takes RU486, what protection does she have if medical complications develop?

To emphasise my point, in Queensland we have 153 gynaecologists and obstetricians registered with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Of those 153, only three are practising west of the Great Dividing Range—two in Mount Isa and one in Roma. That is a very scary figure.

When you take all these things into account, it is another step on the slippery slope to more abortions. It is arguably injurious to women. It has divided our nation as no other subject has in the past. It cannot be argued that this is purely a case for the welfare of women. I cannot support nor will I support this bill. As I said before, I will be prepared to support the Laming amendment.

See this speech in context