Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to address the bill before us now, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I want to say from the outset that, if this bill is put to a vote in its present form, I will not be supporting it; I will vote against it. In coming to this position I have searched my own conscience, considered the facts of the matter and taken in all of the many emails, letters and phone calls I have received from people in my electorate and even beyond. I have also engaged the views of my parliamentary colleagues because I feel that their experiences and subject knowledge are worth knowing.

Drugs which cause an end to pregnancy, like RU486, belong to a special category of drugs known as ‘restricted goods’ under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Presently, restricted goods must have the approval of the Minister for Health and Ageing in order to be evaluated, registered, listed or imported. The restricted goods provisions were incorporated into the act in 1996 as a result of amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act by former Senator Brian Harradine, a great man. Harradine and others successfully argued that these provisions were necessary because abortifacients are by their very nature a special category of drugs that warrant extra scrutiny.

Very importantly, it has to be pointed out that abortifacients are not therapeutic. In plain English: drugs which cause an abortion ought not to be confused with drugs which treat an illness. They are treated differently because they are different. There is no need to be highly educated to understand this; yet, with great respect, I observe that, of my colleagues who favour this bill, not one has been prepared to concede this point.

Some advocates of this bill allow their arguments to imply that the health minister is the sole arbiter of these restricted goods and that he is not qualified to test the medical effectiveness of abortifacients. I think that this is false and misleading, both to members and to the wider public. I remind the House tonight that this bill does not simply offer a choice between the TGA and the health minister as to which is best placed to approve a restricted good. The fact is that the present law already ensures that there is a role for both. That is appropriate.

If some are dissatisfied and feel that it is not good enough for the minister to have final discretion in approving or disapproving a TGA recommendation, they have the opportunity to address this by supporting an amendment. The amendment moved by the member for Lindsay ensures a continued and substantial role for both the TGA and the health minister and, in addition, a new, overarching role for the elected parliament, through disallowance.

I agree that the TGA ought to do its job and assess the safety, efficacy and quality of the medicine according to the best advice and clinical data that is available. I think we have consensus on that point. Its recommendation, in response to an application, should be considered by the government of the day through its minister for health, and the parliament ought to have the right to disallow a decision it does not agree with. This is appropriate; it is democratic, and it is responsible. To dismiss the TGA as a faceless bureaucracy is an insult to science and to the Public Service—agreed. Equally, though, to dismiss this on the grounds that politicians are not capable of representing the community is an insult to our representative democracy. We need to draw on the strengths of both the TGA and the elected parliament for drugs like this.

There is disagreement as to whether or not this bill is concerned with abortion in Australia. Again, with great respect, I think that is a monumental ruse—perhaps to lull members into a false sense of security in respect of the decision we are about to make. This is in part a technical issue, but it is not just technical. This is a social issue; it is a moral issue; it is, for some, a religious issue; it is a women’s issue and it is a men’s issue. Like it or not, we are all implicated in this. It goes to questions of life and death.

It may be possible in this magnificent chamber, isolated from our communities, to argue on technicalities only. However, none of us can escape the reality that Australians see this as a question at least partly about our attitudes to the value of human life. Facing this reality, we should not cast a vote which conveys to the community a relaxed attitude to abortion.

Let me ask members of the House this question: if this issue has nothing to do with abortion, then why do I have a conscience vote, and why do you? If I am wrong about all of this, then there is no explanation for the rash of foolish statements which have been uttered by members on both sides of this issue. I cite the comment by the member for Hughes with regard to the Muslim population. I cite Kim Beazley’s equally stupid response that ‘Danna Vale represents growing government extremism.’ He is full of hot air and bluster and has offered nothing of value to this debate, which I deeply regret. I cite a Greens senator who wore a deliberately offensive T-shirt and showed her party to be the moral wasteland that it is. There are plenty of others who will go unremarked.

However, I sincerely congratulate the majority of my colleagues for their speeches, which I have been watching and listening to closely. I do not agree with some of what I have heard but, at the same time, I have enough respect for them to at least think they are capable of considering the issues, representing their constituents and searching their own consciences. Further, I thank that same majority for extending to me the same courtesy.

I want to single out the member for Sydney, who gave a speech that I disagreed with in almost all respects, except for her stunning reflection that ‘all children deserve to be wanted and welcomed.’ I do not want to trouble the House with a long speech in favour of protecting the lives of the unborn, as I am sworn to do; however, I want to record my disappointment that some members have been unable to reconcile themselves to their own double standards. I have said it before and I will say it again tonight: it is a double standard for some people in the Australian parliament to have fought—in the name of the sanctity of life—to save the life of one young man who had been found guilty of drug trafficking, while at the same time engaging in a campaign for a drug which will allow the death penalty to be imposed on unborn babies.

I mean no offence but, in the spirit of free and fair debate, this has to be said and considered. I cannot accept that the sanctity of life is a concept that can be invoked on a selective basis. The value of a human life should not be measured by whether or not it is wanted. An assault against a pregnant woman that causes a miscarriage is seen by criminal law as assault against the woman and the wrongful death of the unborn child. Why is this? It is because the child is wanted. However, an unwanted child is afforded no such protection, simply because he or she is unwanted.

I want to say very carefully, deliberately and sincerely that I would not and will not ever pass judgment on a woman who has gone through an abortion—that is not my place—but I hope that no-one I love will ever be faced with the challenge of an unwanted or unsafe pregnancy and I do sincerely wish the same for all Australian women. I hope, however, that we as a nation can be mature enough to seriously challenge ourselves and to demand an answer from ourselves about the vast number of abortions that are performed in our wonderful country—and every year they amount to the population of the city of Launceston!

I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I ask my fellow Australians to have the courage to at least start to ask ourselves the questions. May I offer some suggestions? I think there is room for the ‘pro-lifers’ and the ‘pro-choicers’ to give some ground here. Even without reliving any debate on whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal, we have a duty to show good faith and to acknowledge that we will not fully agree on the sanctity of life and when life begins. Let us at least identify a subset of the abortion statistics that should be stopped: abortions that follow as the result of promiscuous sex lives; abortions that follow because of a lack of personal responsibility; abortions performed after 24 weeks, when any half decent neo-natal ward would be quite capable of sustaining life; abortions where a woman does not have the financial resources or the emotional ability to raise a child; abortions where the boyfriend does not want to take responsibility for the child he helped to conceive.

I think there is a major role for men in this process. We, after all, should take responsibility for our actions. Equally, men should not be excluded from decisions that affect the life of a child they helped to conceive. If they want to enjoy sex with their lover, then they should also support the person they wooed and really demonstrate their professed love by showing commitment through the challenging times. Life is not always easy, but that is life. We can do all of this without even challenging the broad principle that abortion is available in Australia. But, like every law, we can talk about boundaries, if we can be reasonable with each other in the interests of the dignity of human life. But, for now, as the health minister has said, extending the means of abortion will certainly not reduce the number of abortions.

Academically, the bill as it stands has some merit, in that medical experts are needed to take a lead role in the assessment of drugs. But to totally take elected government out of the assessment process is certainly an overcorrection of the 1996 amendment. For the reasons that I have already given with regard to the nature of these drugs, we do need to have consideration for a whole lot more than just safety and efficacy. The social consequences cry out for consideration.

I am sorry to disappoint anybody listening to or reading this contribution, but I did not particularly want to speak on this bill tonight. If I were to be honest, I would say that I have approached this issue fairly reluctantly. I do not even look forward to exercising my vote tomorrow. That is not to say that I am unsure. I am who I am, and I have never shirked from saying what I believe. As I said in my first speech, Aussies are sick and tired of politicians who cannot say what they mean and cannot mean what they say. I ran for election to the federal parliament so that I could represent the proud and spirited community of Northern Tasmania. I did not run for election hoping deep down that this issue would arise and that I could have a chance to fight it. However, the people of Bass have entrusted this role to me, to represent them, to fight for them, to be a leader and, importantly, to be a person who can use wise judgment. As reluctantly as I approach this, I know it is my duty and the duty of my colleagues.

I also know that I would be neglecting this duty if I were to flick off my responsibility to an organisation like the TGA on difficult ethical issues like this one. And I can say that I have spoken to colleagues on both sides of this chamber who have openly said to me that they cannot support an amendment which maintains parliamentary oversight, because they do not wish to be troubled with this issue ever again. That is why we are here: to tackle the tough decisions, to show courage and judgment and to remain close and accountable to our communities, whatever the cost. Australians deserve no less.

In closing I want to again thank all of those who have contacted me to share with me their views, whether we have ended up agreeing or not. It is important to me to stay close to my community, to listen to all who want to be heard and to at least try to help all those I can. I owe it to my constituents, having looked at all of the arguments, to make a decision based on conscience, not rhetoric, emotion or political agenda. God help us and forgive us if we get it wrong. I thank the House.

See this speech in context