Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

You should not be such a sensitive petal. The context of the matter is that either his predecessors or his successors as minister may have absolutely different views that people might perceive as driving them. In that context, I do not really care what those views are. I think that we should see this as a drug that can be treated in the same fashion as other drugs. It is on that basis that I have come to this conclusion.

I once again thank those from my electorate that have approached me. I look forward to continuing to discuss matters such as this with them. We have to come to a mutual understanding of what drives us. In the past I have appreciated that people have realised that we, as a collective of individuals, bring value systems and beliefs from a variety of backgrounds but with great honesty, with great directness to our electors and on the basis that we think we are using our conscience votes in the best interests of those the legislation will serve.

In all conscience, if there is a process that might give a woman an alternative to consider in consultation with her medical practitioner and her family, of course those decisions will be made on an assessment of the risk and what is best for the situation. Nothing changes because of this legislation in the way that we do those things. There is risk not just in procedures like terminations, where we discuss the use of the drug in a medical procedure or the alternative surgical option. In many other processes that have a degree of risk, whether it be the use of a drug or a surgical procedure, these decisions have to be made between the medical practitioner and the patient.

I believe that in this debate the chamber has done itself great credit. I indicate my support for the legislation that is before us and my opposition to the amendment that is before us and the amendment that has been foreshadowed.

See this speech in context