Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This bill is a matter of conscience. It is to be considered by every member of this House according to their background, their religion and their personal beliefs. It is sponsored in this House by the member for Moore, my very good friend Dr Mal Washer. Dr Washer is a reputable medical practitioner of many years standing. Dr Washer has a reputation in this House that is unblemished. No fair-minded person could question his ethics or motivation. That view has been supported also by a member of the other side, the member for Cowan.

The member for Moore has also made it clear that Tony Abbott, as the Minister for Health and Ageing, has no bearing on his reasons for supporting this bill. On the contrary; the member for Moore made it clear that, in his view, Tony Abbott is the best health minister he has seen in this parliament. I have been in this parliament longer than the member for Moore and I am inclined to agree with his comments. This bill, whatever its outcome, should not be seen as any vote of no confidence in Tony Abbott.

At this stage of the debate, I need not go over the technicalities involved in the TGA and its role in the approval of therapeutic substances; the ‘restricted goods’ comments that other members have made complete the record. That issue is on the record many times over.

I have to say that I do not agree with those in this debate who have attacked the integrity of those good people who work in the TGA. TGA personnel do an exceptional job in carrying out their duties and obligations, as laid down in the act. They are skilled professionals who are recognised worldwide as world class. They have my total confidence. Any criticism of their motivation or questioning of their professionalism is grossly unfair. TGA employees are also members of the voting public. I have no doubt that there would be TGA employees who would support this bill and there would be those who would oppose it. To blame the TGA and paint them as ‘faceless’ men and women is hysterical nonsense. They are fallible human beings, as we are all fallible human beings.

Like all other MPs, I have been subjected to an avalanche of emails and other communication. I doubt that there is an argument for or against RU486 that I have not heard or read. I have sought other people’s views. I have canvassed the opinions of many groups, including medical groups, church groups, members of my own family and friends. I have found that opinions are divided on this issue, even within medical groups, even within church groups and even within families. I have spoken to Catholics who oppose RU486. I have spoken to Catholics who oppose abortion, except in exceptional circumstances, such as when the life of the mother is at risk. There are people who have contacted me as Catholics and who claim to be Catholics who support RU486 as an alternative to surgical abortion. I have been contacted by women who have had abortions and many years later are suffering from the psychological guilt that lives with them. Some have pleaded with me not to support this bill; some have pleaded with me to support this bill.

All members are under pressure from different views in this debate. I have carefully considered every argument and every representation made to me. I will mention some of these arguments and counterarguments. One is that the availability of RU486 will increase the number of abortions. The counterargument to that is that, when a woman chooses RU486, the decision to have an abortion has been made already. Another argument is that, if the ban on RU486 is in place, why don’t we ban the production and importation of instruments used in surgical abortions? RU486 is not a therapeutic substance such as other drugs but a drug designed to kill the foetus, to take a human life—but so are surgical instruments.

There are those who argue that this bill is not about abortion. Let us not kid ourselves: this bill is about abortion. The fact is that abortion is legal in all states of Australia. Whatever the outcome of this bill, abortion will still be legal in Australia—whether or not we pass this bill.

My dilemma is this: my heart tells me one thing and my head tells me another. I am a Catholic because I was born a Catholic. My heart tells me abortion is wrong, and I have always declared myself openly to be pro life. However, I have always respected the right of anyone to believe differently from what I do, and I have never tried to force my views upon anyone else. I am not going to start now. My head tells me that RU486 is not inconsistent with the laws of the land, as enacted by the states under democratic process. My head tells me a decision made by a woman and a legally qualified and registered medical practitioner is their choice and right by law.

My heart tells me that I love this parliament and I would never act in a way to diminish its authority over the executive or the administration. As I said before, the TGA, like each one of us, is not infallible. The member for Lowe drew our attention to the TGA and the Pan Pharmaceuticals crisis of recent years and, in turn, the Auditor-General’s criticisms.

I understand and respect the views expressed by colleagues on both sides of this debate. I understand the pressure felt by colleagues who hold marginal seats by a mere handful of votes, but when the bells ring we will all have to be counted on this issue. The fact is that the community is divided, and it is impossible to vote in such a way as to please everybody. Each member has to vote according to his or her conscience. I ask the people of my electorate of Fairfax to understand this process and believe that I respect the views they have expressed to me. I ask them to understand and respect the decision I take.

I agree with the Treasurer’s comments earlier today that this bill does not diminish the sovereignty or the supremacy of the parliament over the executive or the administration. It is within the power of the parliament to repeal this legislation at any time. If the TGA acts in a way outside of its charter, under the act it will be held accountable. For instance, the Audit Act makes the Auditor-General an independent officer of the parliament. The Auditor-General does the work of the parliament to ensure accountability of the bureaucracy and agencies to the parliament. The fact is that we as politicians do not have the skills to perform those performance audits. We rely on the Auditor-General to do our work for us. Likewise, we do not have the medical or scientific skills to assess the safety and efficacy of RU486—but the TGA has. There are many checks and balances in the system to safeguard the public, and parliamentary scrutiny through the audit process, the parliamentary committee process and the Senate estimates process are but a few.

My public opposition to abortion is well known, but the debate on the legality of abortion was concluded 30 years ago. Abortion is legal today and will be legal next week irrespective of the outcome of the vote on this bill. Like other members of this House, the Department of Health and Ageing advises that there are 91,000 abortions carried out in Australia each year. That is far too many. But, after listening to all sides of this argument, I am inclined to support the bill because I believe the checks and balances are in place to ensure that the safety of women will be paramount in the TGA’s considerations without diminishing the sovereignty or the supremacy of the parliament. I will listen carefully to the remainder of the debate before I finally decide how I will vote. The ethical and moral questions still remain unresolved. The parliament is the appropriate place for the moral and ethical questions to be debated and determined. Is there a moral or ethical issue in this matter? Are we asking the TGA to make moral or ethical decisions? I said that my head tells me one thing but my heart tells me another. That is the dilemma that I will have to resolve before I vote on this bill tomorrow.

See this speech in context