Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have a conscience vote on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. It is my second in 7½ years, so it is not often that as members of parliament we get the opportunity to have a conscience vote without any pressure from parties, prime ministers, leaders of the opposition and so on.

It has been very interesting to hear the different arguments put forward by members in their contributions to the debate on this bill. I agree with many of the arguments that have been put forward by those members whose vote will be quite different from mine. For example, I agree with the suggestion by the previous speaker, the member for Fremantle, that we need to do more to reduce abortions by providing better sex education and availability of contraception. But I could not be further from her view on where she will be voting.

Like every other politician here, I have received a lot of emails, phone calls and letters about the bill. Interestingly, in my electorate I think two people have suggested that I support the bill and, at last count, about 60 against. Even on that representation, my electorate seems to be a little different from others. In the end this is a conscience vote, and we as politicians have a duty to vote according to our consciences, which can never be the same as those of our constituents. I am sure that some will agree with me and some will disagree with me.

There are two questions to ask when referring to this bill. The first question is: who makes the decision about this drug? I have heard the various arguments that this drug should be dealt with in the same way as every other drug in this country. But not every other drug in this country causes abortions. The second question is: is this bill about abortion? Whether the bill is technically about abortion or not, most members have referred to abortion and expressed their views on it. It is very hard to divorce yourself from your beliefs on abortion, and for many it is the reason they will be supporting or opposing the bill. And I am the same: I will oppose it because of my belief in the sanctity of life.

It is interesting that we have four choices on this issue. We have the status quo, where the Minister for Health and Ageing has the veto power. That could vary quite considerably, depending on who the minister of the day is. I think the first amendment—the ‘Jackie Kelly amendment’—is the best course of action. Failing that, I would support the ‘Andrew Laming amendment’. If both amendments fail, then I would oppose the bill, which is the fourth choice. I will explain to the House why I have that view. I have heard many speakers say that this bill is not about abortion but about what is the best way to decide on a drug. That might be the technical argument that we are looking at, but out there in voter land I can assure you that this bill is about abortion. The voters have certainly expressed to all of us that they believe this bill is about abortion—with one argument about the right of women to do what they shall with their own bodies and the other about abortion being wrong. While most of the speakers in this parliament have said this is a technical argument about the best way to make a decision, I do not think any of us could say that the whole theory and philosophy about abortion has not come into this argument.

Normally, it is a state government decision. State governments all around Australia, with varying conditions, have legalised abortion. That has been the case for some time now. If I were in state parliament I would have voted against those decisions, but I have never been in state parliament. Thankfully, I am in federal parliament and, normally, we do not have to make these decisions because they are the prerogative of state governments. But, because we are talking about the importation of a drug into Australia, it now becomes the role of the federal government to make that decision.

I am concerned that, if this bill is passed, we will be taking away the role of politicians to make a decision on what is a very strong and ethical issue for many people and giving it to bureaucrats who do not have to face up to the public. I have heard the arguments that we can come back and reject that decision later, but that is all much harder to do. It worries me that some people in this parliament are willing to take away the responsibility from an elected politician and give it to an unelected bureaucrat. There has been too much of that in probably the last two decades. I remember having a discussion about this with a well-known person—and I do not need to name him—but he thought it was a worrying trend also. He was hoping the trend to give the responsibility for making decisions to unelected bureaucrats rather than to politicians who are doing their job and making the decisions themselves would be reversed.

We have heard all the arguments about whether RU486 is a safe or dangerous drug. I am sure the TGA can judge that. But this is not about judging whether a drug is safe or considering the efficacy of it. I reject all those arguments. It is all about whether we should have drugs for abortion. This is my only opportunity, as a pro-life person, to oppose this bill because of that sentiment. I have another concern if RU486 is eventually legalised. Every politician in this House—and probably many other people out there in their electorates—get bombarded almost hourly with advertisements on the net for Viagra, Cialis and so on. Of course, we automatically delete them because we are not interested in them. This bill will give people the opportunity to buy this drug over the net and have it imported into this country legally.

There is nothing in this bill that actually says that we will be stopping RU486 from being imported over the net. The trouble with that is that it will be done without medical supervision. Anyone who has spoken about this drug has always added the rider that, if you use this drug, it should be with proper medical supervision. But, if you are buying it over the net, that supervision will not be there, and that has to be a concern that has not been addressed by this bill at all. Like it or not, this bill has become a bill about abortion—that is fact and perception. As I said, I am unashamedly pro life, not because of religion but because I believe in the sanctity of human life.

So who should make the decision—not who should give the advice? I think we have been a bit confused here. We should always accept advice from the TGA on a decision like this. We should always accept advice from experts, whether it is advice from the TGA or from scientists or whether it is accepting what has happened overseas. But that does not mean they make the decision. Politicians are elected to make decisions; bureaucrats are there to give us advice. And to give the responsibility of making this moral and ethical decision to unelected bureaucrats is the basis of my rejection of the bill’s amendment. Firstly, I will support the amendment moved by Jackie Kelly and, if that fails, I will support the proposed amendment of Andrew Laming. I believe we are elected to make these decisions, not bureaucrats.

If we pass this bill, we will be the first parliament in Australia to give the responsibility of making a decision on abortion to unelected bureaucrats. I think we need to make that point very clearly: we will be the first parliament in Australia’s history to give the responsibility of making a decision about abortion to bureaucrats. We can accept that advice, but I assure you that in every state parliament of Australia they did not give the decision making on abortion to bureaucrats; they had the guts to make that decision themselves. But this bill does.

As I said, we have had a fairly long and protracted debate about this. There will be more to come. I am not sure whether there are many new areas that we can traverse in this debate. But I cannot divorce myself from a position where everyone knows that there is a feeling and a perception out in the community that this debate is really about abortion. My feeling about the bill is that it does not give enough protection against the ability to buy this drug on the net without any medical supervision. I think everyone would suggest that, if this drug is ever going to be used, it should have very strict medical supervision.

In closing—I see many of my colleagues have come into the chamber—I do not reflect on the decision of any of my colleagues. We all have a conscience and we all have to live with that conscience. My conscience tells me that I cannot support the bill. Firstly, I will support the amendment moved by Jackie Kelly. Secondly, if that fails, I will support the proposed amendment by Andrew Laming. If all else fails, I will oppose the bill.

See this speech in context