Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

Like others in this place, I have listened intently to the debate and to the various arguments put by both sides of the House since the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 was introduced yesterday afternoon. I have always publicly opposed abortion and have voted according to my beliefs and my conscience as a member in a state government in a previous political life. Of course, the question of the legality or the availability of abortion is one for the states.

As others have said, this is not a debate about the legality or availability of abortion. This is a debate about a restricted good, a restricted drug. It is a debate about who should be responsible for the evaluation, listing, registration or importation of that drug, RU486. The argument here is whether this drug should be assessed by the TGA or whether the responsibility should remain the prerogative of one person, being the minister for health.

I agree with many who have spoken in this debate who have said that there are far too many abortions in Australia. I agree. That is a concern that I share with them. It is interesting to note, then, that while we may agree that there are too many abortions in Australia there is no evidence at all to suggest that the incidence of abortion in Australia would rise if we were to support this bill. Indeed it has been pointed out in the course of the debate that in other countries where RU486 is available abortions are lower in number than they are in Australia. We should ask the question: why is that the case? Why is it that other countries have a far lower rate of abortion than we do here in Australia?

I suspect that it has a lot to do with the issue of proper sex education. It seems to me that for too long in Australia members of parliament, state and federal, have been running scared of those people who come out and criticise and threaten us whenever it is considered that we should turn to a more enlightened sex education being taught in our schools and whenever it is suggested that we should run more public, higher profile campaigns on sex education, on the practice of safe sex and on the practice of prevention. I think it is time that we really did focus on some of the things that are being done overseas. It is time that we had a good, hard look at why it is that other countries seem to be able to do these things much more successfully. Indeed, it is time that we brought the debate out of the dark and into the light. If we are going to lower the incidence of abortion in Australia, these are the things we simply must do.

The question is whether the minister should be the one to make the decision in relation to this drug or whether this is a decision that should be taken by a woman in consultation with her family doctor. If it is the latter, as I believe it should be, then that doctor and that woman should be able to take the decision based on the knowledge that this is a drug that has been properly evaluated by the most appropriate people. Of course the most appropriate people are those with the training, the knowledge, the experience and the expertise—they are the people who make up the TGA.

In making up my mind as to how I would vote, I have listened to the arguments. I must say I have largely been swayed by the member for Moore, in Perth, Dr Washer. The seats of Moore and Cowan are joined. I have a fair bit to do with Dr Washer from time to time. I listened to his speech when he introduced the bill yesterday afternoon and I thought he did an excellent job in the way he presented the arguments and in the way that he set the scene for this debate. I was also very impressed with our own Julia Gillard when she responded in a like way. I think between the two of those people they have set the scene for a very mature and even-handed debate. Dr Washer, when he was a GP, was my mother’s doctor when she was aged and when she was quite ill. She had a great deal of respect for his judgment, and it is a respect that I, too, have and want to acknowledge. I have been swayed by Dr Washer and I thank him for the way that he has presented his arguments in this parliament.

I have also received many emails and a number of letters, just as every other member in this place has. I have had many phone calls in my electorate office and of course over here in Canberra. I have listened to the arguments that people have put. There are many arguments on both sides of the point—many arguments for, many arguments against. But there can only be one vote. That is my conscience vote. I will be supporting this bill. I will not be supporting the amendments. I will support the bill as it stands.

I just want to quote one of the many emails that I have received because, for me, it really has summed up the pertinent points of this argument. It says:

Dear Graham Edwards,

As a member of your electorate and a labor voter—

I might say that this could just have easily been a National Party voter or a Liberal Party voter; that is not the point—

I am emailing you because the Federal Parliament will soon be deciding whether a politician or health professionals will determine access to the drug RU486. used to treat serious illnesses including cancers and brain tumours and to terminate early pregnancies. While this issue has become the subject of heated debate about abortion I believe that the greater issues here are whether medical professionals or politicians make such decisions now and in future, and the rights of Australian citizens to choose their medical treatments from the full range available. Clearly the way in which the legitimate use of RU486 in varied applications has been prevented solely on the grounds of personal views of politicians regarding a single application of the drug, makes it clear these decisions are more appropriately made by health professionals. I therefore urge you to make your vote on this matter mindful that this is not simply a vote for or against abortion but one encompassing far greater issues affecting the rights and freedoms of all Australians. I ask you to vote to remove the health ministers veto on RU486.

Yours sincerely ...

and we do not need the person’s name. As I have said, I have read the emails and the letters and I have listened to the phone calls; I have evaluated them. I have listened to the debate. I feel very comfortable in my decision to support the bill, for the reasons largely set out by one of my constituents.

See this speech in context