Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

Let me say that this debate is not about abortion, but the only reason we are having it is because it involves abortion. The proponents of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 say that the existing law is a de facto restriction on abortion rights. The opponents of the bill say that up to 100,000 abortions a year is far too many and that if people want an abortion there is ample opportunity already to have one. There is much to be said for Bill Clinton’s dictum that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. It seems that many others in this chamber, including proponents of the bill before us, agree. The problem though is that in Australia today abortion is anything but rare; it is all too tragically common. I challenge the proponents of the bill to explain how extending the means of abortion might actually help to reduce its incidence.

We have 1,600 road deaths in this country a year, we have 2,800 deaths attributable to the misuse of alcohol every year and we have 19,000 deaths attributed to smoking every year. These we take extremely seriously, as we should, and we have strategies in place to reduce the number of these deaths. But somehow up to 100,000 abortions a year is accepted as a fact of life—almost, by some, as a badge of liberation from old oppressions.

I have been taken to task by some for using the phrase ‘up to 100,000 abortions a year’. We do not know exactly how many abortions there are. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates 84,000 a year; my department, using the best available statistics that it has, estimates 91,000 a year; but in an academic paper Dr David Grundmann, a well-known practitioner in this area, estimated that there are 105,000 abortions a year. I would like to have precise figures, but whenever people say we should ascertain precisely what the figures are it is said that this is impossible, for privacy reasons. The truth is that many people do not want accurate statistics, because they would rather not know. I suspect that, for all of the scientific language, for all of the careful tiptoeing around this issue, in their hearts most people understand that this is an ugly business.

But things do not go away or cease to exist because we find them gravely unsettling. Whether it is 84,000, whether it is 91,000 or whether it is indeed 105,000, it is far too many, and I believe that we should face up to the hard-heartedness of a society where so many women feel that abortion is their only choice. This is a society which is, by nature, generous and sympathetic. It is a society which, by nature, produces advocates for every vulnerable group—and I suppose one of the positives of this debate is that it has allowed at least some members of this House to speak up for the unborn.

We have a bizarre double standard in this country where someone who kills a pregnant woman’s baby is guilty of murder, but a woman who aborts an unborn baby is simply exercising choice. I want to make it clear that I do not judge or condemn any woman who has had an abortion. There would not be anyone under 50 in this country who has not come up close and personal against this issue. I accept that resolutions made in church often wilt under the hot breath of passion—I think I know that as well as any person in this chamber—but every abortion is a tragedy, and up to 100,000 abortions a year is this generation’s legacy of unutterable shame.

Abortion is not just another medical procedure, and abortion drugs are not just another class of routine drug. This drug is rightly treated differently because it does not improve life and it does not extend life; it stops babies from being born. It has been said that this drug is no more dangerous than many other drugs. It may indeed be no less dangerous to a woman, but it is absolutely lethal to a baby, and that is why this drug should keep the current status of special consideration.

I have to say that I have been pleased, in the course of this debate, to hear the member for Moore and others sing my praises as a minister and extol my virtues as a human being. I suppose this is why I pose the question to him and others: why does he trust the head of the TGA, whom he does not know and cannot question, to make these decisions, rather than a minister whom he does know and can question and apparently trusts? I have great respect for the officers of the TGA, but I simply pose the question: why should the head of the TGA, a person whose name would not even be known to most of the members of this House and who has never given an interview, be responsible for making decisions on some of the most fraught questions facing our society, rather than being responsible for simply providing expert advice?

A very distinguished senior colleague and close friend of mine said earlier today in this House that RU486 should only ever be available on prescription. I regret to point out that, once the sole arbiter of the availability of this drug is the TGA, that can never again be guaranteed. His view will have no weight whatsoever—except insofar as it happens also to be the view of the TGA—because then the TGA will be the law to all intents and purposes, not the people in this place.

In the course of this debate there have been many suggestions—some implicit, some explicit, some gratuitously insulting—that ministers who have personal religious views are incapable of making objective decisions. Like the member for Prospect, I think that the proposition that religious people are inherently biased in a way that people without religion are not is silly and offensive. Let me make it clear that scientific questions should be decided on scientific grounds, political questions should be decided on political grounds and only religious questions should ever be decided on religious grounds, even by ministers who happen to take their faith seriously.

But let me also say this: religious faith is not some kind of contaminant to be driven out of our public life. It is not necessary to be a Christian to accept the golden rule on which the ethical tradition of the West is based—that is, do to others as you would have them do to you—but sometimes it does help. It does help in resisting the ordinary human urges to take what we can get away with, and that is why religious faith is so thoroughly a factor for good in our public as well as in our private life.

Let me make it clear: I will certainly be voting for the Kelly amendment. If that fails, I will certainly be voting for the Laming amendment. If that fails, I will most certainly be voting against this bill. Should this bill ultimately succeed, I believe it will be a hollow victory. I doubt that any reputable manufacturer would apply to register RU486 as an abortion drug when it has to be used in conjunction with another drug which is not registered for that use and is not certified as safe for that use by its manufacturer.

So the big issue is not RU486 but what can be done to ensure that the women of Australia have real freedom of choice. That is why I am so pleased that the cabinet will shortly be considering new support for pregnant women facing very difficult decisions.

I believe that, in essence, this private member’s bill before us is a political statement by its sponsors that there should be no external restrictions or controls on abortion whatsoever. I think that society should not be indifferent to the fate of up to 100,000 unborn babies every year, and it will not always remain as indifferent as it currently seems. At the very least, this debate has at least focused attention on how, in this respect, our nation falls so very far short of its best self.

See this speech in context