Mark Baker (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the member for Braddon, I wish to thank all those from my electorate and from all corners of Australia who have written, faxed, emailed and phoned to put their point of view forward. Many have said, and I wholeheartedly agree, that this debate is not about abortion. It is not for this House to debate the rights or wrongs of abortion, because abortion is lawfully available within all state and territory jurisdictions of Australia. This debate is about whether or not the availability of an abortive agent like RU486 should be subject to the administrative processes of a bureaucratic body which is not accountable to the constituents of Australia or subject to ministerial accountability.

This debate is concerned with the proper regulatory process for the approval or disapproval of a drug designed to terminate a pregnancy. The role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is to regulate the availability in Australia of therapeutic drugs that are designed to prevent or cure an illness. Herein we have a dilemma. Is pregnancy an illness? Is an unwanted pregnancy an illness? In my conscience I have to say no, an unwanted pregnancy is not just another illness requiring a cure but rather the result of a range of attitudes and the consequence of behaviour.

It is a tragedy that in Australia up to 100,000 abortions are performed each year. Along with many constituents in my electorate, I struggle with this sobering figure. As a parliament it is our responsibility to promote greater family planning in an attempt to reduce the number of abortions and the associated consequences, both physical and psychological.

One of the arguments for increasing the availability of RU486 to rural and isolated women is that it provides choice where surgical abortion facilities are not available. However, lost in this argument is the fact that genuinely rural and isolated women do not have ready access to emergency facilities, and any time delay in reaching appropriate help could be very serious and even fatal. Therefore, this neutralises the argument that there are widespread benefits for rural and isolated women.

The greatest gift in life is to create another life, and I acknowledge the agonising decision for those who decide to end the life of an unborn child—a decision not taken easily.

I do not believe that it is the role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration to consider the ethical and moral questions that this drug raises, and those questions are unavoidable. The role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia is to regulate the availability of therapeutic goods. It is required to consider public health and safety. Therapeutic goods are those given to prevent or cure an illness, to promote wellbeing. My conscience cannot resolve that RU486, an abortion drug, is a drug designed to end the life of an unborn child. Further, the Therapeutic Goods Administration is neither elected by nor accountable to the community.

Accordingly, mindful of the concerns of the majority of my constituents and after wrestling with this issue, I cannot support this bill. However, I note the proposed amendments on the table, and I will support those amendments which retain ministerial responsibility or provide parliamentary scrutiny.

See this speech in context