Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

At this late stage, there is very little new that can be said. I essentially support the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 and oppose the two amendments. I believe that the TGA is the professional body that should make these decisions. It has managed to do so, with great faith from the Australian electorate and this parliament, in regard to 50,000 pharmaceuticals since 1989. And that is in a society where increasingly we must be concerned about the dominance of the pharmaceutical industry and corporate power in regard to the examination and testing of pharmaceuticals and the reliance, often, upon their supposed experiments and their statistics. Many of those pharmaceuticals display issues of toxicity and danger. We have had the confidence to put great faith in this body about a wide variety of other goods. Similarly, the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee is independent. Its personnel are appointed by the minister. So we have two bodies with a role in this. Quite frankly, quite crudely, I have more faith in their professionalism, knowledge and backgrounds than in an individual with a minimal scientific background.

That said, I want to deal with one aspect of this debate. As the representative of the most Islamic electorate in this country, I want to deal with the comments made by the member for Hughes. They might seem peripheral, they might seem esoteric, but they do cause me some concern. Even if one had the concerns of the member of parliament I have mentioned with regard to the growth of the Islamic population in this country, the reality is that Australia’s current migration intake is heavily accented towards skills and our contemporary refugee intake is from Africa, which means that the Islamic intake of population to this country is actually declining.

I noted figures from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs this week which soundly repudiated the logic and lack of knowledge of the member for Hughes. In actual fact, of the top 10 intake countries last year, only one—Malaysia—was an Islamic country. I also expressed concerns about the member for Hughes’s contribution, because of her crude stereotypical approach to the Islamic community in this country. Quite frankly, the reality is that the number of children people have is based far more on economic realities, the conditions in the workplace and people’s socialisation processes than it is on a regard for religion. Who would have thought 30 years ago that Ireland and Italy, with very highly Catholic populations, would now have amongst the lowest birth rates in Europe? So we see there a clear indication that faith has a lot less to do with it than the reality of people’s economic circumstances.

The comments of the member for Hughes insinuate that amongst Muslims there is some level of attachment to religion which is totally unreal. A few minutes ago, the member for Hinkler—after deploring other people and ascribing his beliefs to his religion and to the fact that he was in some way instructed by the church—then had the effrontery to turn around and denounce people from the YWCA because they were pro-choice, an attitude which somehow implies that one cannot be a Christian unless one has the beliefs of the member for Hinkler. Quite frankly, we have seen in this debate the wide range of views of believers and non-believers with regard to this bill, put in a very personal fashion.

The comments of the member for Hughes give concern to people in the electorate that the birth rate of the Islamic population in this country is so great that we will be overwhelmed because of the abortion levels. The reality is that, as Muslims in this country go into their second and third generations, they will largely repeat the realities of the general population. I can see it myself because, as I said, I live in an electorate with a very high Muslim population. These people, in many senses, are just the Australian electorate but with a different religion. The vast majority of them have very little attachment to that religion. Quite frankly, many of them are as religious as I am—and that is not very religious. The comments of the member for Hughes were unhelpful, ill-informed and alarmist.

Turning to the broad issue again, I do believe that this is not an abortion debate. We are quite aware that tomorrow night when this bill is passed—and I think it will be by a fairly overwhelming majority—abortion law in this country, controlled by the states, will not be altered. We are essentially debating a means by which women in very difficult circumstances can accomplish this aim—under medical guidance, under medical supervision, with counselling et cetera. As the previous speaker on this side in the debate indicated, why would people go out there to make it more painful and more traumatic for women?

In conclusion, I strongly endorse the measure. The TGA is a respected organisation. It has personnel with experience. As a person who was one of the few that gave up science in the Higher School Certificate, I do not think I can comment about science and medicine, but I have seen a number of speakers in this debate who have wandered well beyond their knowledge in these fields. The TGA is a responsible body, and that is where the decision should be made.

Debate (on motion by Mr Baldwin) adjourned.

See this speech in context