Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Introspection must surely be one of mankind’s greatest strengths. The ability to contemplate vexing issues such as the one that lies before the House today, to question personal approaches and to deliberate on the shape and structure of our society are all, surely, most aided by careful introspection. For me, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 is similar to the conscience vote on stem cell research. It is deeply challenging and requires a well-considered philosophical approach that incorporates rather than balances the moral, ethical and technical aspects of debate.

This debate, and the issues embraced by it, labour me. In contemplating the merits and demerits of the issues, I have progressed slowly, not necessarily by choice but as a consequence of my promise as a representative to be considered, deliberate and informed—echoes of Edmund Burke, I would hope. In this debate, I am uncertain whether I am envious or critical of those who have professed to having established their viewpoint rapidly or of those who entered into the debate with their decision having already been made. For many it would appear that this debate is only about abortion, but it is not. This debate is much more complex.

Simplification of the issues into black and white is a betrayal of the role we all hold as parliamentarians. Simplification may make it easy to be recognised as being pro-life or pro-choice, and it may make it easy to portray yourself or others as being right or wrong, but simplification does not equal distillation. I cannot pretend to understand the reasoning of those who view this debate in black-and-white terms. I cannot pretend to understand the approach of those who stipulate their complete opposition to abortion or, indeed, those who preach an unfettered right for a woman to choose. In my humble view, an elemental examination of this debate must be multifaceted. It must consider whether the minister for health, in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, or perhaps the parliament, is an appropriate check and balance on the introduction of abortifacients. Consideration must also be given to the efficacy and the safety of RU486 and its associated prostaglandin, the circumstances of its availability and use and the issue of other medical support, as well as the view of the community toward the issue of RU486.

Proponents of this bill, in essence, have stipulated that the act should be amended such that restricted goods under the act no longer require the approval of the minister for health in order to be evaluated, registered, listed or imported. Restricted goods are defined in the act as medicines intended for use as abortifacients in women. All other drugs are evaluated and regulated by the TGA.

Proponents argue that the minister for health—and, effectively, through him or her, the parliament—is not the appropriate person—or organisation—to determine whether an abortifacient should be allowed to be evaluated and regulated by the TGA. In advocating this position, it is apparent that proponents are of the view that the only consideration should be the safety and efficacy of RU486. Even if the TGA is viewed as being a delegated authority, the same proposition holds true. This is an argument I do not support.

Abortifacients such as RU486 raise more issues than simply the issues of safety and efficacy. There is a moral dimension also. The mere fact this debate is occurring is evidence of this. I appreciate that those who believe in a woman’s unfettered right to choose, unclouded by moral considerations, would promulgate the view that these considerations are the only considerations. I, however, do not. For many years in Australia it has been the case that a woman is able to obtain an abortion in particular circumstances. These circumstances are generally met when a woman’s mental or physical health is threatened. The administration of this threshold is determined and settled by the various state governments across Australia. This bill does not alter this threshold, and this is a threshold that I personally support.

There exists a threshold, however, because abortion is a contentious issue in society. I was grateful for the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute’s report Give women choice: Australia speaks on abortion. This methodically sound survey sought to capture a snapshot of Australian attitudes to abortion in December 2004. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the survey found, inter alia:

Fewer than one in four thinks abortion is morally justified outside extreme cases involving disability or a danger to the mother’s health, and only 15 per cent believe abortion is morally acceptable when the foetus is healthy and there is no abnormal risk to the mother.

To my mind, this finding and others in the report highlight what I suspect all in this parliament know. The Australian people view the issue of abortion as serious and one which requires fundamental consideration. I cannot think of any body more appropriate than the parliament, which represents the will of the Australian people, to consider the issue of abortion and all associated issues.

I recognise also that I have myself stated that the debate before the House is not a debate about abortion per se. I am not seeking to make this the case. However, it is not possible to separate RU486 from the issue of abortion. RU486 is an abortifacient. Consideration of its use, control and evaluation automatically includes consideration of thresholds for abortion. RU486 has implications for the very circumstances in which an abortion takes place. As such, it rightly should be considered by the parliament, which is the organ that exercises the will of the Australian people.

Currently the operation of the act serves to require the minister for health to provide written approval before an abortifacient can be evaluated, registered, listed or imported. To my mind this is a deficient process. Certainly there must be a role for the parliament. However, this role should occur following a recommendation of the TGA. In this respect, I am supportive of the amendment to be introduced by the member for Bowman in this bill’s third reading should it be reached. Similarly, I am also supportive of the member for Lindsay’s amendment as an improvement on the current process. An amendment making the decision of the TGA on restricted goods a disallowable instrument by the parliament appropriately provides the check-balance between the safety and efficacy considerations undertaken by the TGA whilst also ensuring the parliament has oversight of a drug which directly relates to an issue Australians feel very strongly about.

In the absence of amendment, this bill would provide for an outcome which places a decision well within the appropriate consideration of the parliament solely into the hands of the TGA. The effect of this bill is to pretend that there is no moral element to a decision on RU486 and that safety and efficacy are all there is to be considered. I stress that in acknowledging a moral element to this debate I am not seeking to impose my will on anyone. Rather, it is an argument that there is a moral consideration. Irrespective of whether you support or oppose RU486 on moral grounds, it exists. As such, the parliament should rightly adjudicate. In the absence of a successful amendment along the lines of those I have mentioned, I will be voting against this bill. Although the current process is clearly flawed, it is superior to one in which we pretend that there is no tough moral element to be considered. Why is this debate polarising the nation if this is not the case?

The rapid development of science means all of us will be increasingly exposed to moral and ethical ambivalence. As parliamentarians, we must steady ourselves for growing numbers of tough decisions on difficult issues. Surely these issues must be determined by us, representatives of the people, and not by unaccountable bureaucrats who have no mandate to exercise such judgment.

Finally, I have listened to much of this debate in both the House and the Senate chambers; read hundreds of letters, emails and messages from constituents and others; read various articles and media commentaries; and been both inspired and disgusted. It has been with sadness that I have observed indefensible distortions of fact and unreasoned claims in this debate, on both sides. As someone with personal faith, I have been disappointed in the conduct of some who have claimed their position as absolute, with a certainty that I distrust. Similarly, the trivialisation of the moral side to this debate I believe to be out of step with the views of three in four Australians who, although not all people of faith, do recognise the moral consideration to this debate. Therefore, recognising there is a moral element to this debate, the parliament must remain the ultimate adjudicator.

I thank all who have contacted me over this debate. In many respects your contributions have been well meaning, considered, sincere and of tremendous benefit. For those who may not agree with the approach that I have ultimately taken, I consider it to be a reflection of the great diversity of opinion on this issue that exists in the community. I trust you, too, might recognise the inherent strength our nation enjoys as a result of this democratic keystone.

See this speech in context