Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

When I sat down to decide what I was going to say in the present debate surrounding the topic of RU486, it dawned on me that this was not going to be about the efficacy or otherwise of RU486; this was really going to be about two major issues—pro-life versus pro-choice and how far we are prepared to relinquish personal responsibility to the government.

I will deal with the latter first. We have always been a government that advocated a minimalist approach to government intervention in our everyday lives. Indeed, the debate about workplace relations legislation was all about giving employees a choice, expanding their options and letting them have a say in their own destinies.

We had an earlier debate about abortion, and the general consensus, whilst not universal, was about choice. In fact, the battle over abortion and a woman’s right to choose was fought and won 20 years ago. I am amazed that the question of abortion and a woman’s right to choose can still dominate headlines and community debate as much as it is at the moment. Yet today we are back here once again debating choice. This seems to be becoming a recurrent theme. I am somewhat perplexed that those that espouse choice the most are the greatest advocates of further government controls. I am very much concerned that governments the world over seem to be obsessed by total control but are afraid of being tagged as authoritarian, although some, I must admit, have given up that pretence a long time ago.

If we profess to be a minimalist government—that people should have a greater say in their lives, that they are responsible for their own actions, that they should have greater choice—why should this matter be treated differently? We want people to take responsibility for themselves and their own lives, yet time and time again governments just cannot help themselves and jump on the morality bandwagon, saying, ‘We know better.’ It seems to me that if an individual is prepared to live with the consequences of their own actions after having come to that decision, hopefully with the support of their family and their doctor, then it must remain their decision, not one decided by government or an individual politician.

However, I acknowledge there are many people who would like someone else to make a decision on their behalf, particularly if the matter is unpleasant. That is unfortunate. We need to bring this into perspective. Alcohol, tobacco, drugs, illicit sex and even obesity are things that impact on the greater community. It is right that the government, as the representatives of that community, have a say. The costs associated with dealing with the fallout from abuse of alcohol, tobacco, drugs and even food is great and costly. In that respect I think the government has a right to regulate these matters.

Unwanted pregnancy is a different matter. It does not matter whether the abortion is surgical or chemical, the same approach should apply. How much harm to the community will there be if a woman prefers a chemical intervention to a surgical one, remembering that it is legal to do so? The government needs to decide whether RU486 is inherently harmful to the individual, and, if so, whether this harm, as a result of wholesale use, will impact on the greater community. I have not seen any evidence that, under controlled clinical administration, it is as harmful as drug abuse, alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse and, for that matter, overindulgence in food. It seems on the evidence, given its widespread availability in other countries, there is sufficient experience to be able to determine that on the balance of probabilities it is relatively safe to use under medical supervision.

If that is the case, this debate comes down to a question of morality: pro-life or pro-choice. I have made myself clear in earlier debates as to where I stand. As far as I am concerned, a woman’s body is her own. If there is no detriment to her health as a result of a chemical intervention, then the choice should be given to her in the full knowledge of the consequences of her actions. Whether these consequences be physiological or spiritual depends on the path she chooses to follow.

This debate is somewhat personal to me. I emphasise once again that I am not pro-abortion. My own daughter, because of her physiological make-up, is unable to tolerate anaesthesia, so a surgical abortion for her would not be an option. Surely someone in such a position deserves whatever medical options are available to her. A medical intervention, regardless of what it is, is an issue between the patient and their doctor. They should be allowed to make an informed decision in consultation with those who have expertise in that area—I speak of the TGA, who are the authorising agency for all other drugs within Australia. No bureaucrat and certainly no politician should be responsible for judging the worthiness or safety of a drug.

I do not want to go back to a time when backyard abortions were necessary because of the moral and ideological imperatives of the time. We have gone beyond that. RU486 is just another option to terminate a pregnancy, but neither should it be considered and used as a ‘morning after’ pill. The sanctity of life must be respected. It is abhorrent to me to resort to abortion as a contraceptive, but I know there are instances where it is necessary, and it is then we need to give women the choice of what is safest for them.

What we should be discussing is whether people are sufficiently informed to make that decision and what should be responsibly done to ensure that they are informed. If they are, and have made an informed decision, then frankly it is academic whether they use RU486 or a medical instrument as a conclusion. My view is that this drug should be made available, but that certain protocols need to be followed as a qualifying criteria for its use. It should not be made freely available and certainly not without the approval of a medical practitioner. The clinical protocols need to be satisfied and the medical practitioner should be satisfied that the harm to the woman is minimal.

I do have concerns with any philosophy that delivers absolute powers to any one individual, because that is not the nature of the democracy that we deserve and expect. Having said that, I wish to clarify my total support for Minister Abbott. He is an excellent minister. My decision to support the bill must in no way be construed as a lack of support for him. I take offence at my colleagues, particularly the comments by the member for Indi and the member for Solomon, who say that this bill is about a lack of confidence in the minister. To me that is an insulting and provocative statement that should never have entered this debate. This debate is not about pro-abortion; it is about experts, not politicians, deciding if a drug should be available.

It might be appropriate for me to mention that I agree with comments made about too many abortions, and it behoves me to ensure that in government we do establish more family planning clinics in the hope that we can reduce the incidence of abortion and perhaps encourage the alternative of adoption. There are many in my electorate who have gone down this path to try to adopt, with little success.

I do have a concern—that is, if we are to allow liberalised access to this drug then we must be satisfied that we are not opening ourselves to future harm litigation of thalidomide proportions. It matters not what the drug is being used for; the same guarantees should apply.

This is not a clinical or even a governance debate; it is a debate about religious morality and what beliefs we choose to subscribe to. If that is the case then it is a matter for the individual and not for the state. It is true we are elected to represent the people of Australia and our electorates. With an emotive issue such as this, there is no possibility of achieving a result that would allow all to be satisfied, particularly in Gilmore, by my decision. May I reassure the residents of Gilmore that this has been one of the most difficult decisions to make. Ultimately it is a vote of conscience. Governments must look after the physical welfare of individuals, and the spiritual welfare aspect is the domain of the individual. May I say that I am grateful to have been given the opportunity of voting on my conscience and that in this debate my conscience is clear.

Let me put this question in closing: how would men feel if it was made compulsory that they use contraceptives so no woman would have to have an abortion? It could make for an interesting debate. I too would like to thank all my colleagues from both sides of parliament for their contributions, be they for or against the bill. I fully understand their decision and how emotionally difficult it has been for us all. I also need to express my disgust at and disappointment with Senator Kerry Nettle’s choice of words on her T-shirt. They did nothing to lift the image of the debate; in fact, I found them greatly offensive. I support this bill and, in doing so, say to my critics who have accused me of being non-Christian because of my vote: nothing could be further from the truth. This decision will be a matter between me and my God. May I also ask my colleagues to look at the intent of the amendments to this bill. To my mind it is a tactic to distort the original bill and should not be supported.

See this speech in context