Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased and very honoured to have the opportunity to speak in the House of Representatives, as a member of this parliament and as the representative of the people of Ryan but on this occasion also in my own capacity just as Michael Johnson, a citizen of this country. I am pleased to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005.

This is the second occasion on which I have been given the opportunity to speak on a bill in the parliament where the Prime Minister has allowed a free vote or a conscience vote; the first was the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002. At the outset, I express my thanks to the Prime Minister for affording individual members and senators this opportunity. Indeed, my own view is that this parliament should perhaps have more opportunities for free votes or conscience votes; but that is a debate for another day.

I also want to declare my personal respect for and understanding of the views of all my colleagues in the parliament. I know that this vote is very difficult and confronting for many of my colleagues in the parliament; for others, that may not be the case. I also want to thank the hundreds of Ryan residents who have taken the time to call my office, to email me or to write to me expressing their personal views. Almost all those who have taken the time to contact me have expressed their views, one way or the other, in no uncertain terms. In all cases, I have welcomed their contact very much.

As for my own position, I have expressed it publicly and privately. I will be supporting this bill in its current form. I will be voting for the passing of this bill here in the House of Representatives chamber. I will be voting to take away from the Minister for Health and Ageing responsibility for the approval of this drug. In holding this position, I am comfortable with this decision, I am at peace within myself and my conscience is clear and strong. I am comfortable in supporting and voting for this bill, both as a citizen of this country and in my professional capacity as the elected representative of the people of Ryan. I will be voting in favour of this bill, irrespective of the position of those who have lobbied me one way or the other. I know that with my vote I will be angering and deeply disappointing the views of many Ryan residents. Equally, I know that by voting in favour of this bill I will be pleasing many other Ryan residents whose views coincide with my own. To me, this is not the point, as this is a conscience vote.

I believe that, this being a conscience vote, it is incumbent upon me nevertheless to try to explain the reasons for my position; I believe I owe that to my electorate. At the outset, let me say that any abortion or termination of pregnancy is deeply regretful and deeply sad. One abortion is one too many. As far as is humanly possible, we must do all we can in this country to minimise the number of abortions there are. As members of parliament and as a national government, we must do all we can to educate our citizens, especially our young people, about the implications of termination. We must step up and make uniform in our schools across the country the content of our sex education. While this alone will not eliminate the number of abortions there are, surely it will have some positive impact. Surely it will help some young Australians in the future to prevent situations where unwanted pregnancies might arise.

I want to reiterate the fundamental legal position on abortion in our country. As the law stands today, in February 2006, abortion is legal in certain circumstances in the states and territories of Australia. It should also be made clear that abortion in this country is entirely a matter for the state parliaments of this country. Therefore, this bill is not about the legality of abortion per se. In all the intense lobbying and the strong and emotional debate, I have found this fact to have been overwhelmingly ignored. If we want to change that position, we can have a debate about the legality of abortion. However, at this time the position in this country is clear. We have had the debate about legality and I am disappointed that some colleagues and many in the community have tried to portray the current debate as an abortion debate; we had that debate three decades ago. This bill is not about making abortion legal or illegal.

Due to time restrictions, I will restrict my remarks to dealing with what I believe is the central issue in this debate. In my view the central question which confronts me in this issue is: who is best placed to make the decision on the usage of the drug RU486? This is the fundamental question. Is the health minister of the day best placed to make this decision or is it another individual, another organisation or another body—in this case, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the federal government’s regulator for drug approval?

In my view this issue is not about politics; rather, it is about health. This issue to me is entirely about the health and the wellbeing of the individual woman in question. It is not about health policy or the government’s management of health issues. It follows, therefore, that in my view the health minister of the day is not the best person to make decisions in relation to this drug and its approval. I want to echo the sentiments of my colleagues in terms of the current health minister, the Hon. Tony Abbott. This is not about a vote of confidence in the Minister for Health and Ageing. Indeed, I wish to say unequivocally in the parliament that, in my view, Mr Abbott is doing a splendid job. He has my complete respect and my support as the nation’s federal health minister. Rather, this bill asks me to determine in good faith whether a politician or a health professional is better placed to decide on the suitability of a drug for usage by Australian women. In this counterbalance, surely professionals are better placed to make the decision, not members of parliament or an individual minister.

If it is not to be the health minister, who should be giving the approval for the use of RU486? In the context of this bill and this debate, the alternative of course is the TGA. The TGA has probably never received so much attention or publicity than it has in recent weeks. In my view the TGA is a world-class organisation and Australians should be proud of its international reputation. The TGA is a unit of the Australian government’s Department of Health and Ageing and is the expert body that should be charged with the responsibility of overseeing the approval of drugs such as RU486.

I do understand that one of the strongest reasons given by those who do not support this bill is to contend that, by giving the TGA the responsibility to determine approvals, the parliament would lose accountability, that somehow the government and the executive would be subservient to the TGA, to health professionals or to like-minded organisations as an extension of government. With the greatest respect to my colleagues who assert this position, in my view this view simply does not wash. By investing the responsibility of making approvals in the hands of the TGA, we do not in any way whatsoever diminish the standing or the status of the Australian parliament. We do not diminish the authority, the prestige or the accountability of the executive, the minister or the parliament. The parliament in our Westminster system will always remain supreme in this nation. It is the parliament which ultimately gives the executive and the Prime Minister the authority to govern this country.

From time to time every government delegates its authority to agencies, to tribunals or to other bureaucrats who have professional knowledge or expertise in a particular area. We have all kinds of tribunals and panels given huge responsibilities and powers to make decisions which governments or ministers feel are inappropriate for them to make or which they feel they should be at arm’s length from. Immigration tribunals are a good example, and I only give that one example due to time restrictions. I reiterate that at all times the parliament of Australia remains the ultimate legislative authority in this country and has the right to revoke any decision or law it has previously made.

While I understand that research into RU486 has shown that it can be used successfully in the treatment of a range of illnesses—including, as I understand, brain tumours—there can be no mistake that in the context of this bill and this discussion this drug is all about a particular purpose. The debate is about the approval of the drug RU486 and its application to the termination of unwanted pregnancies. Many people believe that human life begins at conception. I respect very much those who hold that view. I do not personally believe this to be the case. Some have argued passionately that this bill will promote more abortions in this country. I do not accept this view either. I cannot bring myself to accept that a woman would determine to have an abortion lightly. I am sure that some would make that decision more lightly than others but surely not with ease or indifference. I am sure that those decisions would remain with those women for the time of their natural life.

In the debate on this issue, I have found some of the presentations by my colleagues troubling in their personal attacks and in the way they have cast aspersions on opposing views held by other colleagues. In a conscience vote there must be complete respect for and appreciation of the views of others. In a conscience vote there is no call to accept the views of colleagues, but there is a call to respect and understand the views of colleagues. Clearly a diversity of opinion will emanate from within one’s own party, as will be the case in this debate. Some of the debate has been emotional, and that is clearly understandable, but some of the remarks of some of my colleagues have been truly unbecoming to their office and status as members or senators of the federal parliament. I regret that some colleagues have tried to create maximum attention for this issue through political cheap shots and stunts.

The decision a woman makes to terminate a pregnancy is surely a deeply personal one and a terribly difficult one. It must surely be one of the most heart-wrenching and traumatic decisions a woman can make, either alone, with her partner or with her family. I can only imagine what it would be like to have to confront such a decision. It is my prayer that I will never have to confront such a decision. However, in this debate it is my view that ultimately such a decision should be the decision of the woman. It must be based on her own circumstances and life situation, not coloured by the politics of the times or constrained by the beliefs of individual members of parliament. Where the law of the land has already deemed that the termination of pregnancy in certain circumstances is legal, it is incumbent upon us all to make it as safe as possible for that woman. As I speak at this time, in my view the safest way of approaching this issue is for the TGA, the federal government’s own body of experienced medical professionals, to assess all possible medical alternatives, including the drug RU486.

In conclusion, I want to express again my thanks to those in my electorate who have contacted me to express their very deep and very personal views on this bill. I also want to compliment my colleagues from both sides of the House and on both sides of this issue who have taken it upon themselves to conduct this debate in a mature and respectful manner. There is nothing inconsistent with holding very strong views and being able to present those views in a passionate but respectful fashion. There is absolutely no need or place in the Australian parliament for members and senators to express their views in anything but a respectful and courteous fashion.

I began by saying that coming to this decision will be very difficult for many of my colleagues. Again, I take this opportunity in the parliament to express my respect for the views of those colleagues on this issue. Due to the often difficult decisions that governments and members of parliament have to make, we are often portrayed in the community and by the media as callous or indifferent. Of course, as a member of parliament I absolutely repudiate that view, and I hope very much that all members and senators stand shoulder to shoulder with me in rejecting a view that demeans the parliament and demeans the status of the office we hold as representatives of the people.

I would like to think, therefore, that this debate has revealed a more human side to those who serve in this parliament. In particular, some of our colleagues have revealed compelling accounts of personal experiences. I say to them: I salute you; I admire your courage and hope that as a national parliament we are stronger for those revelations. For these reasons and others, which, unfortunately, time does not permit me to go into, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context