Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like many honourable members I have been grappling with the issue of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 since it first appeared on the national agenda. I have read most of the submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Committee’s inquiry on this topic, and I have read the committee’s report. I have watched or read most of the speeches made in this House and in the other place. I have read the letters and submissions from people in my electorate who have argued the opposite sides of this case with equal passion. I thank the people in my electorate, whatever their views, for taking the time to write to me. I did receive slightly more letters and emails against this bill than I did for it, and if I am to believe the opinion polls a solid majority of electors support the bill. However, this is not a popularity contest. In matters such as this I agree with Edmund Burke, who said:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

That is a sound principle, even though when Edmund Burke said that in the 1700s there were no female members of parliament and his quote reflects that. As tempting as it is to ignore some of the more distasteful things that have been said in this debate, I feel obliged to disassociate myself from them on the parliamentary record. For instance, I was disappointed to hear Senator Joyce’s contribution in the other place. Senator Joyce pointed out that there is a risk that women will die because they take RU486. He went on to say that there would be blood on the hands of members and senators who vote for this bill. This was a particularly unfortunate contribution. Any medication has its risks. Indeed, childbirth has its risks. If RU486 were to be introduced in this country, it would be for the woman to discuss with her doctor the relevant risks of each type of abortion. I do not regard this as an argument to vote against this bill, and the emotive and inflammatory language that Senator Joyce has used has done nothing to add to the quality of this debate.

Let me now turn to the argument advanced by a small minority that the present minister for health, who is in the chamber, is particularly unsuited to judge this drug on its merits because of his religious beliefs. This was an argument most graphically advanced by Senator Nettle by wearing a T-shirt into Parliament House which read: ‘Minister Abbott, Get your rosaries off my ovaries’. I found this T-shirt to be particularly offensive and this argument to be flawed. I do not wish to dwell on this point but simply say we all have our own moral compass, which is informed by different factors for each of us. For some it is informed by religion; for others, by more secular passions and backgrounds; for all of us, by our experiences. I believe that an individual is as entitled to call upon their religious beliefs to inform their views as to what is right and wrong as they are to call on a more secular philosophy. There is a separation of church and state, but there is no separation of religion and conscience. Whatever Minister Abbott calls upon to inform his conscience is his right. In any event, Minister Abbott is a temporary holder of the office of the minister for health. The argument should be based on good governance, proper process and the best way forward, not on the traits of any particular minister at a particular time.

The less that is said about the contribution of the member for Hughes the better. I do not wish to dwell on this point either, other than to say that I found the member for Hughes’s contribution to be particularly offensive and her so-called clarification in the House earlier today particularly unsatisfactory.

Much has been made in this debate of the fact that in the Senate a substantial majority of women senators voted in favour of this bill. Some senators put the argument very strongly that this is a matter for women and women’s rights. Senator Stott Despoja, in particular, implied that male senators did not have the same perspective nor, I believe, the same right to vote and speak on this bill. It is true that men and women have a different perspective on this matter. Clearly, this is a matter of great importance to women. Of course, in many cases, women make their decision on abortion alone. They have been abandoned by their partner, they do not feel they can talk to their partner because of a history of violence, or their sexual partner is not their life partner and they have no wish to enter a relationship with that man. Of course, in other cases, tragically, pregnancies are aborted as the result of rape or incest.

But let us not forget that thousands of couples struggle with the issue of abortion every year. Thousands of husbands and wives struggle with the moral, ethical and medical dimensions of abortion. Whatever the reasons that couples consider abortions, let us remember that men also grapple with this issue. Only South Australia keeps figures on the marital status of women who have abortions. Thirty per cent of these women are married or in a de facto relationship. There is no reason to believe that these figures would be different in other states. I simply want to make the point that, as vitally important as this issue is for women, it should not be forgotten that this debate also affects men throughout this country.

I said at the outset that I have been open minded throughout this debate. There have indeed been times when I have leaned the other way to the way I will be voting. I have applied the following tests to my vote: would the introduction of RU486 increase the number of abortions carried out in Australia? And would be introduction of RU486 potentially reduce the trauma for women who feel it is necessary to undergo an abortion? On the basis of these tests, I have decided to vote in favour of this bill.

Experience in the United Kingdom, the United States, Sweden and Germany indicates that the number of abortions using RU486 has increased but that the total number of abortions has not. Similarly, in New Zealand there has been no increase in the number of abortions—there has been a slight decrease. There is no evidence that countries that have RU486 available have a higher rate of abortion, and there is no evidence that the abortion rate goes up when a nation allows RU486. This stands to reason. I believe that very few women take the decision to abort a pregnancy lightly. It is something they struggle with, something they grapple with. I do not believe that women will decide to have an abortion simply because an arguably less intrusive method of abortion is available.

If I had seen any evidence that the availability of RU486 increases the number of abortions, making abortion so easy that more women would be tempted to abort their pregnancy, I would not be voting for this bill. Indeed, opponents of this bill have pointed out the risks in taking RU486 and the frankly horrifying things that can and have gone wrong for women who have taken RU486. When a doctor explains these risks to a woman considering an abortion, I refuse to accept that any woman would see taking RU486 as an easy way out of a difficult situation. However, I do believe that a woman or a couple making the decision to have an abortion should have as many methods available to them as possible.

Reading many of the submissions, especially the submission of Dr Renate Klein, I believe I would be very reluctant for a woman I loved or cared about to have an abortion using RU486. But at the end of the day this is a matter between a woman in consultation, in some cases, with her husband and her doctor.

I should also briefly indicate that I will not be supporting the amendments moved by the member for Bowman or the member for Lindsay. I listened carefully to the contribution of the member for Bowman and I understand his argument that there may be other drugs that come forward which should be subjected to ministerial or parliamentary control. However, I believe those drugs can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as they arise, as RU486 was in 1996.

I do not feel qualified to determine whether medical abortions are more or less safe for a woman than a surgical abortion. I accept there is some evidence that they are less safe, but I am swayed by the views of the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that these are matters best left to doctors and the TGA.

I want to briefly deal with the argument put by some, chiefly the Prime Minister, that to refer the approval of RU486 to the TGA would be some sort of abrogation of our responsibilities—that officials who are accountable to the people should be the ones who make these types of decisions. I accept the motives of the people who put this argument, but I respectfully disagree. It is the role of this parliament to set parameters for decisions. If this argument were taken to its natural conclusion, we would not have a Director of Public Prosecutions; the Attorney-General would determine who was prosecuted. We would not have an ASIC; the Treasurer would determine which companies got investigated. We would not have a Reserve Bank; the Treasurer would set interest rates. I could go on.

I will conclude my remarks, because I know that many honourable members wish to make a contribution, and it would be unfair not to try and let them speak before the time for this debate expires tomorrow. This is a bill about process. I have not gone into my personal views about abortion or my personal views about when human life begins. They are irrelevant, I believe, to this debate. Abortion is legal in Australia, with certain restrictions. RU486 is another way of achieving an abortion, and I believe this drug should be treated in the same way as others. It should be treated in the same way, for example, as the morning-after pill, which has been available in Australia for some time—largely without controversy. The morning-after pill changes the hormonal nature of the uterus so a fertilised egg cannot implant in it. It is a drug that must be taken very early in the pregnancy but which also has the effect of expelling a fertilised egg. I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that RU486 should be treated differently to the morning-after pill. It should be dealt with by the TGA and the drugs advisory committee, which I believe is appointed by the minister, in the normal manner. I support this bill.

See this speech in context