Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Hansard source

I am rather bemused that we are even debating the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005 in the parliament at present, to be honest with you, because, quite frankly, the drug company Pfizer has not even moved to have RU486 registered as a drug in Australia. So we are pre-empting most of the things that are being said in this parliament. I have to take exception with some of the statements by the member for Batman where he attacked government members for referring to statements from the opposition then proceeded to attack some members of the government. It was rather hypocritical, I would have thought, given the comments that were made.

I cannot come to terms with the argument that says Pfizer will not apply to the TGA to have this drug registered because they have some concerns about the ability of the Minister for Health and Ageing to approve or not approve the drug. The member for Batman went on to talk about some of the other medical benefits of this particular drug. If it has those medical benefits, why has the company not applied to register the product? I would have thought that was the first step. To presume that a minister would disapprove of the drug I think is rather a big presumption.

The other thing I want to say, which I think this has probably been in the debate from a very early stage—it might have been started by the member for Lalor; if not, I will apologise for that—is that the attack seems to be on the minister himself. The debate certainly started that way, with the fact that he was a practising Catholic and he had a view from that particular position. That is a secular argument. I think it is very unfortunate that we are going to get into a secular argument over this particular position. I really do not think that this can be debated any other way than taking into consideration all of the detail.

I have also seen editorials saying that this is not a debate about abortion; this is a debate about RU486. I do not know how you can have a debate about RU486 without mentioning something about abortion, because that is what it is being peddled as: an abortion drug. So that must come into it.

Unlike the member for Batman I do not believe that law is always set in stone. He said that we have had the debate about abortion. But parliaments have the right to change the law; that is what they are put in place for, and from time to time they do change the law. That does not mean to say that the debate over abortion cannot be revisited—of course it can, if public opinion changes. That is what we are about. We are members of parliament; we reflect public opinion.

The other claim that has been put forward, very strongly I might say, by some of the supporters—and I wonder whether this debate is about feminism or whether it is about RU486, from time to time, because I think some of the debate comes down to the position of strong feminists in our society—is that this is all about women’s health. I have had a very strong view for a long time. I do not come from a religious position. Although I claim to be Christian, and I am an Anglican, I do not come from that strong Christian position, but I have always had a view that abortion should only be allowed in certain circumstances: when the woman’s life is at risk, where there has been rape or where there might be some congenital problems with the foetus. I accept that those are valid arguments for an abortion. But I do not believe in abortion for convenience—I do not believe in that at all. I think those are some of the things that we need to take into consideration. A woman has to be in the pink of health to fall pregnant—if she is not in good health, she doesn’t. So I think this argument about health that has been put forward in this debate is a very spurious argument.

The other point that has been put forward, very strongly in some circumstances, is that this is absolutely a woman’s choice. I want to refute that. The last time I checked there was only one major claim about immaculate conception. There are two involved in this. I accept that some people walk away from their responsibilities, but most do not walk away from their responsibilities. During the debate that this House had over the Family Law Act members will have found that a lot of men have some very passionate positions on their children. From my age group, I suppose, I found that rather surprising; but they have very strong views about the fact that it is their child. I think we need to take a close look at that: there are two in this, not just one. I think there needs to be some consideration given to that.

Someone said to me the other day that in the past there were a lot of mistakes. Right through history there have been mistake pregnancies; there is no doubt or argument about that. But let me say: I know of quite a number of these mistake pregnancies, and they are very loved members of families. So just to say, ‘I didn’t plan this,’ and that for some reason, for convenience, you can just abort that pregnancy—I do not take that argument either.

It has been put forward by the member for Batman and others that we should rely on the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This is a faceless group of bureaucrats. They have no responsibility to the people. I thought human life was a little bit more than the clinical, cold consideration of a faceless group of bureaucrats. We have human emotions, and there is no doubt that human emotions come into this. We had a great debate in this parliament about euthanasia, a very good debate about euthanasia. Surely this is in exactly the same category. It is a very strong human debate about whether we should agree with this.

I do not think anyone has seriously taken into consideration the psychological effects this can have on someone. I know at the time women believe: ‘I’ve just got to do something about this. I really don’t want to go through with this. I’ve got to do something about this.’ I accept that that can be a position. But I have also met women who after the event have mourned that lost child for the rest of their lives. Probably not all have done so, but I know that it can have very deep psychological effects on some women. I do not think we take those effects into consideration. I do not know whether we think seriously enough before the termination; there can be some counselling as to what the effects might be. I think that is another thing we need to take very seriously.

The other thing we need to say is that in many ways—and not all; I would say that the community is divided on this debate—the community accepted abortion, as I put forward to you earlier, under very restricted circumstances where they believed there was a problem. But many in the community are asking me, ‘How can you say that 100,000 abortions a year in Australia’—and I know that number is a debated point; I accept that—‘are had due to health reasons, congenital reasons or rape?’ It is very hard to believe that you can come down with that position.

While I suppose I wrestle very deeply with this situation, maybe given the fact that I have a few grey hairs on my head and have seen a fair bit of life, I have come to the view that I have a great respect for life. I think it is one thing that you really have to take very seriously. I do not accept that this or any previous health minister would take a decision that they believed was wrong. I think that is a presumption which is completely wrong. I believe that the pharmaceutical company, if they believe this drug has something to offer, should go ahead with applying for the registration of the drug. How can you possibly say that a minister has rejected this when he has had no application to consider? I think it is an absolutely farcical position to be put. As I said from the start, I wonder what this debate is all about. Is this a debate about RU486 or is this a feminist agenda that is being pushed through the parliament?

See this speech in context