John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let me declare from the outset my position on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I am opposed to the bill. I want to briefly explain my position to my electorate, many of whom, I know, are listening very keenly to the discussion we are having.

People have argued that this is not a debate about abortion. I understand that, but the reality is that it is. I will be saying more about that. There are a large number of Australians who are very uncomfortable at the direction the nation has taken. I do not accept the proposition that the debate was had 30 years ago or that it is not appropriate to continue the discussion.

Issues like the ones to which this bill relates are never easy. Members of the community have strong views on either side and are not backward in expressing their point of view. It is an interesting experience when issues like this arise—issues of great moral and ethical import. We see a bombardment of mail, both electronic and by the conventional method, which is simply incredible. There are literally thousands of emails—a very large number from my constituency. I saw this in regard to the discussion we had on euthanasia. I saw it in regard to the discussion the chambers had on cloning and stem cell research. I even recall the first time the parliament considered the very matter we are discussing now, way back in 1996. It certainly arouses the passions.

I have tried to keep an open mind and put my personal convictions about the sanctity of human life aside. I have tried to listen fairly to the propositions being put. But I do declare a deep-seated conviction about what I believe as the empirical truth—that we are all, each of us, nine months older than we give ourselves credit for. I am very much pro-life. But let me put that aside for the moment.

The proponents of this bill argue strongly that the decision on a restricted good like RU486 should not rest with the minister. They argue that the Therapeutic Goods Administration should be the final arbiter for approval for mainstream community use. But in dwelling on that matter, it has to be said that RU486 is no ordinary drug. It is different from the other drugs that come under the jurisdiction of the TGA. By its very name, the TGA is about therapeutic goods—that is, research and the approval of drugs which make people well. That is, after all, the Macquarie Dictionary’s definition of the word ‘therapeutic’: ‘relating to the treating or curing of disease’. RU486 is just not another drug in that context. It is a drug which destroys human life. And human life, in the expectation of many Australians—the great bulk of Australians—is life. The drug is designed to terminate a pregnancy. I would not have thought of a pregnancy as being an illness or a disease. Let us get that clear: this is no ordinary drug, and it certainly should not be considered as a medicine.

As I have also said—and I have been part of a very strong community discussion, certainly in my own constituency—people hold strong views. In that context, I think it appropriate that a restricted good like this enjoys the supervision of this very chamber and those who are represented here. It is appropriate for an elected, accountable person to be the final arbiter—despite the views of those who argue that the debate about abortion in the nation is over it is 30 years old. I believe that the great bulk of the Australian community expect that.

The proponents of this bill argue very strongly that this is a discussion about process, not abortion. I have considered that point and dwelt on it. However, it is impossible to reconcile a proposal on decisions with great moral impact—on matters on which Australians are evenly divided, fifty-fifty, and where they have indicated that they are very uncomfortable with the very issue of abortion. For the decisions that contain that kind of strong medical ethics import, the parliament and the officers who are part of the parliament should be the final arbiter. As much as we appreciate the great work of the TGA and the medical community in regard to medical advancement and the contribution they make to good health and wellbeing, they are not accountable to the community in that strong sense.

I have been somewhat staggered to see the comments of supporters of the bill. In the Senate inquiry, Reproductive Choice Australia, which is a very strong pro-abortion group, gave evidence that politics has no place in medicine. I am astounded at that, especially when I think of just how much time is consumed in the discussions that we as members of parliament have in assessing and deciding on appropriate health policy. It comes down to the position that competency on an issue of moral and ethical significance appropriately rests with the parliament and its representatives.

Getting back to the point about whether this discussion is about abortion or not, if the discussion is not about abortion, what is it about? We are discussing an abortifacient, a drug that is designed to create an abortion. Of course it is about abortion. It is about a drug designed to make that process more accessible and more convenient. It is a little too cute. I have had too much trouble trying to come to grips with the suggestion. My community happens to regard it as a discussion about abortion.

The other thing I have been trying to do is to listen to my constituency, in a genuine effort not to impose my own pro-life position. I said from the outset towards the end of last year, when this discussion first started across the community, that I thought the sentiment of my own constituency would be fifty-fifty on the general issue and that at that stage the challenge was to choose between democracy and conscience. I have come to the position that I have chosen the latter. It is always very difficult to get a handle on these things, but I believe from the mail in my electorate—and I have differentiated between the electronic and the ordinary mail from outside my electorate—that the position is 60-40 in favour of maintaining the status quo.

I also take note of some national surveys. According to an article by Fleming and Ewing entitled ‘Give Women Choice: Australia Speaks on Abortion’, published by Southern Cross Bioethics Institute last year, 87 per cent of Australians are seeking a reduction in the number of abortions in this country. That is an indication of their level of discomfort with how many are conducted. We are having a discussion here about a drug that will not achieve this objective.

I also note another opinion poll conducted in August/September last year that produced some very interesting results. I have a copy with me. It is entitled ‘What Australians Really Think About Abortion’, published by the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations in February this year. The findings were that 51 per cent of 1,200 Australians interviewed did not support abortion for financial, social or non-medical reasons and 54 per cent believed that abortion involves the taking of a human life. Whether or not those proponents of the bill argue it is not about abortion per se, the reality is that the perception in many Australians’ minds indicate their discomfort with the whole issue. So I conclude that my original assessment of around fifty-fifty is about right. Those 50 per cent of people opposed to the bill deserve to have their voices heard in this chamber. That is what I am attempting to do.

I would like to make one final point. I want to indicate how curious I find the position that, while our Australian parliament is now wrestling with the issue of deregulating the approval of this drug, the US House of Representatives is wrestling with ways to ban, or at least regulate, its use in the United States after some very tragic outcomes there. It is an interesting observation.

The previous speaker, the member for Brisbane, did mention some serious questions about the safety of this drug. I am not convinced either way. That is not the central issue for me; I am focusing entirely on the conscience of a large number of Australians who have very strong views on this matter. I believe that, on issues containing such core moral and ethical import, it is quite proper and right that the accountable members of this place reflect that view.

One thing I would like to see is a renewed discussion, given the direction that abortion has taken. It is estimated, for example, that there are 100,000 children aborted every year in Australia. We do not even have a good handle on that figure, yet here we are discussing a so-called medication that would make such procedures even more accessible with adverse circumstances that we just do not know.

I will conclude by commenting on the number of amendments offered, which I am considering. I will do that as they arise. But, at the end of the debate, I favour the final arbiter being the parliament, its elected members, in particular the persons in the executive that the current legislation prescribes, to be that final arbiter. I think the huge ethical issues associated with this matter warrant such a position. I am opposed to the bill. I commend all members. I am grateful to be part of a genuine discussion where all points of view can be respected.

See this speech in context