John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

It has been said that the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 is not a debate about abortion. That proposition is both right and wrong. It is right in the sense that we are not debating a change to the law governing abortion, but it is wrong in the sense that we are debating the process whereby a drug to terminate a pregnancy can be approved. To suggest that RU486 is just another drug is patently absurd. I believe that to treat it as we would any other drug is unsustainable. That is why—for the reasons I will enumerate—in the end I will vote for the status quo.

These are never easy issues. I want to say at the outset that I think this has been a very good debate. I am not somebody who shirks from free votes. They are good to have from time to time on these issues. I think parliament rises to its greatest heights when we have debates of this kind. A free vote encourages people to examine their beliefs, to reflect upon their experiences, values and attitudes, and to deal sensitively with a difficult issue.

Every man who enters this debate should be conscious of the reality that abortion is something that has for women, and particularly those who have experienced it, a special impact and a special character. No man who enters a debate of this kind should forget that. He should not lightly pass over the trauma that would face any woman who decided on a termination of pregnancy. I do not think there are any women who have abortions happily or willingly or capriciously. As somebody who has quite conservative views on the subject, as you all know, I hold that view strongly.

This debate has confirmed the fact that the Australian community is unhappy with the high level of terminations in our society. I think there are too many terminations and I think people on different sides of this debate would agree with that. I think a significant majority of the Australian community would oppose any change in the current law on abortion. I do not think a majority of Australians would support a tightening of the law. That is my view, as a representative, however inadequate, of the Australian people, and I think that is their view. However, I believe that, side by side with that conviction, they are of the view that there are too many abortions. That does not mean to say that I am happy myself with that majority view, but it happens to be the reality.

All of us must bring to this place a combination of idealism and pragmatism. In those circumstances, we have to ask ourselves: given the majority view of the Australian community about the present law, what can we do as a nation to reduce the number of terminations? I believe that more can be done to provide people, on a voluntary basis, with counselling and support in relation to alternatives to terminations. I believe very strongly that more should be done, and I will be putting forward that view in the appropriate places in the weeks and months ahead.

I think the Australian community is saying: we do not want to take away the choice that exists under the present law, but we want to provide women who might not want to have a termination with greater support and encouragement to continue their pregnancy. That attitude probably encapsulates what the majority of people who think seriously about this issue—and I am sure everybody does—would want to bring to this debate.

The issue is, very simply: what should be the approval process? We are not dealing with a flu tablet. We are dealing with a drug that has the capacity to terminate a pregnancy. I acknowledge that, if you are looking at the morality and the ethics of this, a surgical termination has the same moral and ethical implications as a termination using this drug. It cannot logically be argued otherwise. There are obviously safety issues and there are obviously medical considerations.

In relation to those who support the bill, I do not cast any aspersions on the people in the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I am sure that, if they are given the power, they will bring to this issue conscientious, professional, responsible consideration. They have served this country well. I do not reflect in any way on them. In defence of my great mate the minister for health, I do not believe for a moment that if this parliament passes this bill it is a reflection on him or a reflection on his government. Uniquely, perhaps, I had an opportunity a couple of weeks ago to reflect negatively on the minister for health and I chose to retain him in the portfolio he now occupies because I think he has been an outstanding health minister. While he performs in that outstanding fashion he will continue to be not only the best friend that Medicare has ever had but also an absolutely outstanding health minister.

If I am forced to choose between the status quo and the bill, the reason why, in the end, I will vote against the bill is essentially the reason outlined by my colleague the member for Deakin in a very thoughtful and moving speech a few moments ago. It is a question of us performing our representative duties.

There is just a whiff in this whole debate—if I may say so, with the greatest of respect to many close friends and colleagues of mine who are going to vote differently from me on this issue—of ‘This is a little too difficult and controversial so let’s give it to somebody else.’ I am disappointed, may I say, in that attitude because, in the end, we are elected to make decisions on difficult issues. Life can be very difficult; it can be complicated; it is never simple. I do worry about a proposition which says, ‘We have got this difficult issue so let’s give it to some experts.’ In the end, on an issue like this, aren’t we, with proper advice, as expert as anybody else?

It is said by some, including a number in this debate, that parliament can always come back and change the law if it is not working. The difficulty is that we all know that, once you pass control of something like this out of the hands of the parliamentary or government or political process, it really does not occur. In the nature of things it goes on and becomes all too difficult to change and that really does not happen.

I have looked at the existing provisions. Whilst I prefer the status quo to the bill, I think there is a lot to be said for the amendment that is proposed by the honourable member for Bowman. I think his amendment is a very good one because it really says to those people who say, ‘Why can’t you go through the process that exists in relation to other drugs,’ that, because of the importance of this, you have a disallowance procedure at the end which is available to a majority in either house of the parliament. I think that strikes a good balance, if I may say so. There are those who argue that this is like any other drug—it is patently not like any other drug; we would not be having this debate if it were—and that we should therefore leave it to the experts.

Under the amendment of my friend the member for Bowman, we are leaving it to the experts to give the advice but we are specifically reserving to ourselves, in relation to this particular drug, a power of disallowance. I think that is reasonable. I do not think it is extreme. I think it strikes a balance. It recognises the strength of feelings. It pays proper respect to the role of the experts. But it also reserves unto us, who are ultimately accountable to the Australian people, a decision-making device which is more likely to be invoked when the public really wants it than the more tortuous process of going through an amendment.

There are things that should properly be assigned by parliament to others. But I say to those who may not share my view on this issue that it is never an excuse to the Australian people to say, ‘It’s not my decision; it’s been made by somebody else,’ because, in the end, if they do not like it, they will hold you accountable. That has been my experience in life. In politics, if I say, ‘I’m sorry, that was made by an independent authority,’ their normal response is, ‘You’re the Prime Minister. Fix it.’ That is not a bad response, because the Australian people have a healthy idea of what democracy is all about.

We all passionately believe in parliamentary responsibility and we believe that there should be a greater esteem for our institution. We worry, in this very iconoclastic age, about the decline of respect for parliament. We should not worry too much about that because we do live in an iconoclastic age, but we contribute to that view, in my opinion, if we vote in favour of this measure.

I conclude by saying that I think this has been a very good debate. This brings out the best in people. It has been characterised by the odd contribution that I wish had not been made—particularly, I have to say again, the quite offensive remarks made about a devotional practice which all of us know is peculiar to Catholics in our community. That was highly offensive and deserving of the rebuke that it received.

That is not to say that people who hold the opposite point of view have not come to this debate in very good faith. And it is not something that should be determined solely on religious grounds. Whatever our own religious faith is—and mine is well known—people of no religious faith can hold a similar view to mine and equally people of strong religious faith can hold an opposite view from mine. I am not seeking to divide people—none of us should—on the basis of religious belief.

But in the end I will not support this measure. As a member of parliament and somebody elected by the people of the division of Bennelong to represent them, I feel that on something as important as this I should reserve a final say to myself as their representative. That is why I will vote as I have explained.

See this speech in context