Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I withdraw that remark—though it was said in a kindly way, Member for Grayndler. The contribution of the member for Grayndler was very thoughtful. I am actually paying him a compliment on the way that he even-handedly dealt with these particular issues. I found myself agreeing almost entirely with what he said.

I want to thank the many people who have contacted me with their contributions and assistance, as they have contacted many members of parliament. I have certainly taken note of all the correspondence that I have received, and it has been quite voluminous. However, those who have written or emailed me saying, ‘If you’re not going to vote the way I want you to vote, I’m not going to vote for you at the next election’ do themselves no good at all. When members of parliament come into this place they vote as they think they should vote, not in accordance with whether or not they are going to get another vote from somebody else. I say to those people: ‘You devalue your contributions by threatening that action.’

The contributions, help and information that I have received have come from those on both sides of the debate, and have been very passionate. It has been interesting to hear those contributions. Those who want this bill to be voted down will say things like, ‘This affects the issue of abortion and the very fabric of society’; that government is set up in this country so that parliament and its members are directly accountable to the whole community; that the government sets up consultative regulatory bodies, such as the TGA, to advise and administer on its behalf but that these bodies are not directly accountable to the community or the electorate and are not the government itself—rather they are simply the enabling machinery of government; and that the ultimate result of such undermining in allowing administrative bodies to make decisions is to weaken the institution of government and, in final effect, to begin to make a route to anarchy.

Government has many departments and many advisory bodies, and I think it is clear to the parliament that we do rely on advisory bodies and government departments to make a number of technical decisions on behalf of the government. And they do it well. It would be impossible to have the parliament review every decision of every advisory body in every government department. It just would not be possible. Parliament would be dysfunctional. So I reject that line of reasoning.

Those on the other side of the debate say that there is overwhelming evidence, based on numerous studies and clinical trials, to support the statement that RU486 is safe and efficacious for medical abortion. They go on to give all sorts of reasons why that is so. I found it fascinating to get two pieces of correspondence from two doctors, based on their experience in the Northern Territory. The first doctor was from the Darwin hospital. He said:

I write as a medical practitioner ... working in Darwin. I regularly consult in remote Aboriginal communities as part of the Surgical Outreach Program of the Royal Darwin Hospital.

I am concerned that ... RU486 has been recommended for women in rural and remote locations. In fact it has been claimed that it will fill a gap in abortion services in these areas. There are a number of reasons why such a proposal is not only ill-considered, but dangerous.

The doctor goes on to argue against what this bill proposes. Equally, I have a letter from a medical practitioner who is now living in my home city of Townsville. He has some experience with remote area medicine in north-west Queensland and the Northern Territory. He says:

I write because I believe that the drug ... RU486 ought to be available for the patients that I have looked after. I believe that it is quite anomalous that Australian women do not have the option to use ... this drug whereas therapeutic surgical termination of pregnancy is available in Australia and both the medical option using [RU486] as well as surgery is available for women in comparable countries overseas.

The specific ban on this drug seemed to me to be quite an extraordinary measure motivated by Senator Harradine. It seems that this senator wanted to inflict his minority world view in terms of abortion on the general Australian population, but could not succeed in an outright ban on the procedure, but because of the political situation at the time was able to impose a restriction on this drug which was without medical basis.

My life experience over my 56 years has shown me how devastating it can be to mother, child and society to have unwanted pregnancies which are continued to term because of the unavailability of appropriate therapeutic abortion after due counselling. I therefore strongly urge you to vote for the lifting of the ban on this drug.

So the parliament and all of its parliamentarians are faced with conflicting views from the medical profession. But I appreciate receiving those views.

Perhaps the most compelling view that I received was from the National Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia. All of us have received a lot of correspondence from the churches and from their parishioners. I think the Uniting Church are very even-handed in this debate. The Uniting Church start off by saying:

The Uniting Church believes that human life is God given from the beginning. We believe that all human beings are made in the image of God and that we are called to respect the sacredness of life.

We also believe Christians are called to respond to life with compassion and generosity.

When abortion is practised indiscriminately it damages respect for human life.

And I think that is true. The Uniting Church continue:

However, we live in a broken world where people face difficult decisions. Respect for the sacredness of life means advocating for the needs of women as well as the unborn child.

This is the key to their view:

We reject two extreme positions: that abortion should never be available; and that abortion should be regarded as simply another medical procedure.

It is not possible to hold one position that can be applied in every case because people’s circumstances will always be unique.

It is important that women have the space they need to make an appropriate decision after careful consideration. The current abortion laws allow women to do this in whatever circumstances they face.

The Uniting Church go on to say:

Women must be free to discuss their situation before they make a decision. The Church needs to be a place where such discussions can happen. We can offer spiritual, moral and pastoral support to a woman at this time.

Whilst we encourage our Ministers to remind people of the sacredness of life, the Church’s role should be to offer care and support leading up to and following a decision, not stand in judgment.

The church then conclude by saying:

The decision to have an abortion is not just a moral issue but a social one. While the current debate attempts to pass moral judgment on the act itself, it ignores the many emotional, physical, financial and social issues that often create a situation where a woman is forced to consider an abortion.

The Uniting Church hopes that those engaged in this debate do not lose sight of the complexity of the issues.

I can assure the church that I have not lost sight of those particular issues. My decision on this bill is clear cut. I believe that there should not be a situation where just one drug comes up for the approval of the minister. We should have consistent policy. All drugs needing to be available in Australia should go through the TGA. I leave it to the TGA, the professionals and the health professionals to decide whether they should be prescribed.

I note that RU486 is also used in the treatment of brain tumours and prostate cancer. It would be a shame if those people who had brain tumours and prostate cancer could not have access to a drug that may help them enjoy a better quality of life.

So I leave it to the medical profession and to the women of this country to make decisions as needed. I mightily respect the Uniting Church for their even-handed view on this particular issue in such difficult circumstances. I will be supporting the bill when it goes to a vote.

See this speech in context