Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Hansard source

We are asked in this debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 to vote according to our conscience, in which case we must first ask ourselves: what are those factors which shape our conscience—those factors which shape the moral compass we try to apply to our lives, however imperfectly we may in fact live those lives? What shapes my conscience on the matters before the House?

I have never made a secret of the fact that I am a person of faith and I would be lying if I said that for me faith did not shape deep questions of conscience. I do not believe, as a result, that people of faith have some sort of monopoly on conscience. They do not and I do not. Nor is faith the only guide to conscience. It must always be tempered by reason and, in the case of legislators, reason must be applied to a properly informed approach to public responsibility for the public good.

It is for these reasons that I have struggled with the questions alive in the legislation before the House. As a person of faith, I have conservative views on the sanctity of life. As a person of reason, I must recognise that I am being asked here to vote not on the legality of abortion but rather on its means. This legislation does not ask us to vote on the legality of abortion, because those powers lie within the exclusive purview of state and territory parliaments. These parliaments have determined these laws long ago and they have been subsequently reaffirmed through the courts. What is therefore at issue here is a debate about the means of abortion within the legal framework already determined by the states.

What questions of conscience arise for me within the narrow scope of this legislation? For me there are two. First, what is the relative impact on a woman’s life and what is the best means of assessing that impact and, second, when it comes to the life of the unborn, what is the relative impact on the abortion rate. On the first of these, the scientific literature suggests that both methods of abortion are of comparable safety in terms of the life of a woman. There is nothing on this score that would argue against the TGA rather than the minister having regulatory powers over its use within the legal framework already determined by the states. Furthermore, there is a strong reason for the TGA to have this power to monitor its continuing impact on a woman’s health and women’s health in general over time—it is the only competent professional body equipped to do so.

For me, the impact of this drug on the abortion rate is also of great importance. The international data measuring abortion rates indicates that countries which have introduced the drug have not experienced any increase in the abortion rate. In a small number of countries we have seen a small reduction in that rate subsequent to the introduction of the drug. In this context, I note carefully the submission of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, which states:

At present, there is no substantial evidence that the availability of abortifacients increases, or decreases, a nation’s overall abortion rates.

If there was compelling international evidence that this drug significantly increased the abortion rate, my attitude to this legislation would in all probability be different. I believe the abortion rate in this country, of some 75,000 to 90,000 per year, is far too high. It is higher than that of a number of other OECD countries.

I am impressed by the fact that in the midst of this controversial debate—one conducted with great mutual respect in the main, although with a couple of now notorious break-outs—there has been agreement among many pro-choice and pro-life advocates that the abortion rate in Australia is too high. I have said to various proponents of the bill that for me this is a central consideration. I have also noted their commitment to work together in practical areas to bring the abortion rate down over time by concerted measures including better sex education; better general information on and availability of contraception; better family planning; better pregnancy support services for unplanned pregnancies; greater use of adoption; and, most critically, better and more affordable child care. This is a program of concerted action over time to which I propose to commit myself. I appreciate the fact that Senator Moore, for example, has committed to the same. For me, for the reasons I have outlined, the life of the unborn is of great importance. Within this framework and for the reasons I have stated, having tested these reasons with men and women of faith and of science, I have decided not to oppose this bill.

I said before that this debate has in the main been characterised by great respect for opposing views shaped by the exercise of individual and informed conscience. I have no intention of identifying those individual contributions that have strayed across the line. For me that serves no particular purpose. I have, however, noted some arguments that the church in general and individual Christians have no right to adopt a position based on faith. I take the reverse view. The church has every right to take a position on these and other great social, economic and political questions of our time, even when we may find those views personally or politically uncomfortable. That principle applies as much to this debate as it does to the industrial relations debate. Some attack the church for intolerance. What I find remarkable is the amount of intolerance I find expressed towards the church, as if faith is some sort of intellectual disorder. It is not, and nor is an ethical world view shaped by faith.

However members vote on this bill, let us all in this place work together to strengthen the family unit. Australian families today are under great pressure for many complex reasons. Families remain the essential building block of our society, our community and our country. This is often forgotten in this place. Let us hope that this debate at one level refocuses us on how this legislature and we as legislators can concretely rather than rhetorically protect, support and enhance Australian family life.

See this speech in context