Rod Sawford (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for La Trobe, because I think that in the latter part of his speech he identified the core of the problem. In a free and democratic society, the control of a woman’s body ought to be self-evident. There ought to be no doubt whatsoever. The control belongs to each individual woman. To suggest otherwise is to support a society to which I do not want to belong. If a prescription drug is involved, obviously a woman’s doctor is a crucial part of decision making. If a prescription drug is involved, obviously the Therapeutic Goods Administration plays a significant role. However, in the final analysis, the choice of using either legal drugs or legal surgical procedures is for each informed woman to decide.

There are some basic fundamentals to which I believe a good society adheres. I believe in free speech. I accept that that belief can be contentious at times, but the belief is more important than the risk of overreaction by totalitarian groups. We should never forget that or be cowed by overreaction. I believe science should not be trumped by religion. Recent efforts to clothe discredited and nonsensical creationist views with so-called ‘intelligent design’ are no more than manipulative brainwashing. I believe that the beliefs and religious views of all individuals should be protected and defended. However, that protection and defence does not entitle the believer to dictate their views to others. I believe politicians ought to keep out of people’s bedrooms. The sexuality of any individual is not our business. I do not recognise same-sex marriages but I do recognise civil unions. I believe women should have control of their own bodies.

Many of the basic fundamentals and freedoms of a good society are being challenged throughout the world. Intrinsically there is nothing wrong with challenging existing beliefs, no matter what they are. Debate is healthy, but many of the challenges are not genuine. In fact, ‘attack’ describes more accurately the situation on many occasions. It has to do with propaganda; it has to do with denial; it has to do with power and control; it has to do with manipulation; it has to do with totalitarian brainwashing; it has to do with extreme fundamentalism; and sometimes it has to do with evil. Often that evil is clothed in seemingly plausible arguments, but it is evil nevertheless and it ought to be exposed and vigorously rejected. As occurred in the Senate, commonsense and goodwill will hopefully prevail on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 in this House when the matter comes to a vote—a vote to make consistent the application and approval of drugs into Australia. That is the proper thing to do: evaluate a drug as all other drugs are evaluated.

It is claimed by many that this debate is not about abortion—even the Prime Minister makes that point—and, technically speaking, that is correct, but ideologically and strategically that is not the case. Opponents of this bill are using the opportunity to debate the issue of abortion via the back door. Unfortunately, this is a de facto debate on abortion, and there can be no escape from that conclusion. The simple fact is that any debate on abortion divides all the participants into ‘for’ and ‘against’. There is no common ground and there is no consensus. A debate on abortion is totally unproductive.

A more responsible debate, as the member for La Trobe pointed out, a more honest debate, a more inclusive and unifying debate, but still a necessary debate, is the debate about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Is that topic on the national agenda? You bet it ain’t. The question to ask is: why? Is that notion promoted by church leaders and pro-lifers in Australia? You bet it ain’t. The question to ask is: why? In a debate on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, no initial division of participants would occur. No-one would be excluded; belief systems would not influence the debate; past experience would be non-consequential; and emotional claptrap would be absent. Any exposition would be based on reason, substance, science, proper analysis and evaluation, rather than on style, propaganda and faith based dogma. Yes, goodwill and commonsense would be required, but that is what the overwhelming majority of Australians expect of us in this place—to subjugate our personal prejudices and our personal beliefs and replace them with reasoned argument on all matters that come before this parliament. The current worshipping of the cult of celebrity, the massive egos and the drift towards a manipulative democracy, which is practised so increasingly by people both within and outside this parliament and in the media, is largely and rightly rejected by thinking Australians. It would be quite a positive achievement to reduce and diminish that worshipping of useless activity even just by a tad.

This is not a complicated debate. The TGA is the proper body to regulate drugs—no ins, no outs; end of story. It is the current process of excluding RU486 that is flawed, not the process suggested by this bill. I also reject the amendment, or amendments, being put forward by a dozen or so pro-life government MPs. I respect their view but, from a practical point of view, their amendments are unworkable and, quite frankly, silly. The Minister for Health and Ageing was reported as saying at the University of Adelaide in March 2004:

Even those who think that abortion is a woman’s right should be troubled by the fact that 100,000 Australian women choose to destroy their unborn babies each year.

The facts to substantiate that claim of 100,000 abortions are simply not available; why would you use them? Why would you use emotive language like ‘destroy’? Certainly the health minister qualified his comments to Adelaide university students by saying that no-one wanted to ‘recreate the backyard abortion clinics or stigmatise Australians who had abortions’. But did he consider alternatives? No. Is he genuine on this matter? I do not see the evidence that he is. The current reality in Australia is that abortions are available under state laws and, overwhelmingly, those abortions are conducted under anaesthesia and with surgery. As with all procedures involving anaesthesia and surgery, some risk is involved. With drugs, risks are attached too, and RU486 is no exception. As with anaesthesia and surgery, the use of RU486 has risk.

Let no-one in this place be deluded by claims that opposition to this bill is based on anything other than pro-life, personal or religious views. I do not have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is the claim that opposition to this bill is based on reasoned argument. It is not. As an example, take the health minister’s suggestion that Australia’s medical professionals could be irresponsible in prescribing or not prescribing any drug, including RU486. Quite frankly, that is an affront to the nation’s doctors and was rightly rejected by the AMA and other doctors organisations. If an individual doctor refused, because of their own personal beliefs, to prescribe on grounds other than medical science, the patient could at least choose another doctor.

The point that was also made by the member for La Trobe that politicians are accountable for their actions and bureaucrats are not is, as he suggests as well, spurious. Approval or rejection of RU486 is and should only be a technical matter, as it should be with all existing and all future drugs that come onto the Australian market. Accountability operates as with any other drug—no exceptions; no special treatment. Let the merits of the argument prevail.

In conclusion, may I again remind members as others have done that RU486 is available in 33 other countries. Some of them tell a story by just saying the country without comment: New Zealand, the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Sweden, Turkey and Israel—and we could go on.

In supporting this bill I am not asserting the safety of this or any other drug. Like everyone in this House, I do not have the qualifications to make that decision. But I have every confidence that the Therapeutic Goods Administration in this country does have that expertise and will exercise its responsibility to the benefit of the Australian people. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context