Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Before I start my speech, can I compliment the Treasurer on his superb speech here this morning. It is a wonder that we do not have more conscience votes, because we have to speak from our heart, examine our soul and look at all the options on a very contentious issue. In his speech the Treasurer has done that, and I admire him for his frankness and honesty in dealing with a very complex issue. I want that on the public record.

Like everyone in this place, I have been inundated with emails both for and against this issue. As past President of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship and now the Secretary of the PCF, it has been interesting. We had our breakfast this morning and the first topic of conversation before we said grace was the whole issue of RU486 and the different points of view. I know members in the PCF and members generally have thought long and hard on this issue. It is not an easy issue. There are no party guidelines to carry you through in a comfort zone. When the whips call the numbers, they will not have a role in this, as they did not have a role in the euthanasia debate. I supported the Andrews amendment on euthanasia, and I know it caused some angst in my family.

As people have said, we are elected here. There have been 1,018 members of the House of Representatives since 1901. We are a privileged group of people. We carry an enormous load on our shoulders. When people expect us to make decisions, we do not make them lightly. Those of us who are here—in most cases, not for a very long time; those who serve more than three terms are the exception to the rule—do look with great honesty at the issues. I know for a fact that quite often I am at discord with my party on some issues, particularly in the area of the war in Iraq. My pacifist views have got me into lots of trouble.

I am somewhat upset by the extremism in this debate. Whenever the ‘a’ word is used in this place and in the media, there are two extreme points of view. As a male, and as a member of this place, when it comes to issues of women’s health and safety and procreation, I do not have the temerity to impose my views. I have two wonderful daughters, Sarah and Hannah, and I have obviously discussed the issues with them and with their mother. I guess, being a member of the PCF, there is an expectation that I am a devout Christian and understand the words in the Bible. It worries me that there is a sense of fundamentalism creeping into this debate, which I think clouds the whole issue.

As the Treasurer said, in parliament we delegate. We have set up departments, and ministers are responsible for the conduct of those departments. For the last week on this side of the House we have been examining the conduct of departments and agencies that are under the control and purview of this wonderful place.

This is not an easy issue. We have heard about six women in the US dying after they were given RU486. We have heard of Canadian and European examples. Of course we are concerned. I rely on an insert in one of my arteries to keep me alive and I take a little pink pill every day to make sure that my blood is thin so that I can survive. When I was asked about whether I wanted to do this, I was told, ‘There is a one-in-five chance of having a stroke if you do this, that or the other.’ Of course I am concerned about medical responsibility, the use of drugs and the like—we all are. Those of us who are lucky enough to serve on the committees that examine this issue do so with great foresight and insight. We listen to the experts. As with all issues, you can listen to scientists on one side and scientists on the other.

As I said at the outset, I welcome the opportunity to listen to the points of view of the 150 members in this place. It is interesting that the galleries are a lot fuller than usual today, as they were yesterday—and they will be tomorrow when the vote is taken. People are concerned. I oppose the two amendments because I think they muddy the water and cloud the issue. I have great respect for the member for Lindsay and the member for Bowman—one has been here a little longer than the other. I know they put forward these amendments in all good faith. But, as the Treasurer has stated, we have a responsibility in this place, and we have delegation. The TGA is an excellent organisation. It has the very difficult task of regulating the whole issue of therapeutic goods. I look forward to listening to the debate. At this stage I am going to vote against the two amendments and support the bill.

See this speech in context