Alexander Downer (Mayo, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Like other members, I have thought long and hard about this issue and the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 that has been presented to the House. The first observation I would make is that many of the speeches that I have been able to follow that have been made during this debate have been of great interest to me. I am impressed with the thought and the effort that so many members have put into considering this issue.

Let me begin by saying that my view on the issue of abortion is that I feel comfortable with the laws that we have in the various states and territories of Australia. I think they strike the right balance, and I do not think that in this parliament we should be taking steps which will change the implementation of those laws. Having said that, I can obviously see—and this is why we are having a debate on this matter—that RU486 is a controversial and difficult issue. If this were simply a technical matter, we would not be having a great debate on it. The time of the Senate and of the House of Representatives would not have been so substantially devoted to it.

I have said publicly before now that my in principle decision is that, if a drug is deemed to be safe and can be prescribed by a doctor, I do not have any objection to the drug being used. And it is my view that, if that were to happen in relation to RU486, that would not change the abortion law in this country at all. A lot of members have spoken about the issue of abortion. For me, this debate does not really boil down to being about abortion laws, because it is my judgment that, in the end, this is not going to change the abortion laws in this country.

This debate is actually about whether the decision on final approval—not on preliminary approval, not establishing the technical safety of the drug, but the decision on final approval—should continue to rest with the Minister for Health and Ageing, or whether instead it should be approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition about this; the Therapeutic Goods Administration is a body of public servants. Many public servants work with me and for me, and I have enormous respect for the Australian Public Service, but it is a decision that is made by public servants using the delegated authority of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing. So the choice for me is whether I think that, in the end, the minister should make the decision on something which is obviously highly controversial, as is proven by the fact that we are having a debate on it, or whether the decision should be made by the delegates of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing through the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

I am an elected member of parliament myself. I represent the people of Mayo in the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island. They send me here to Canberra, and have done so on many occasions, to represent their interests and make decisions on difficult issues. I sometimes wrestle with difficult issues, but it is part of the job. In the end, I am happy to make decisions on difficult issues. I am accountable to the parliament and ultimately I am accountable to the people of Mayo.

Having said all of that, the two proposals that have appealed to me most in this debate have been the amendments put forward by the member for Lindsay and the member for Bowman. In fact, of the two, I think the member for Bowman’s is the better amendment. If the first of those amendments does not get up, I am going to vote for the second one, which will be the member for Bowman’s amendment. The whole concept here of having a preliminary judgment made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration or the minister and then the parliament having the capacity to disallow that decision puts the matter back into the hands of the parliament. On something as controversial as this, I think that is entirely appropriate. So, as I have said, I am going to support the amendment of the member for Bowman in particular. I think that is a very good and very sensible amendment, and I hope other members will consider doing that. It is a compromise. It does keep the power to make the final decision with the parliament. It leaves the final decision on something which is manifestly very controversial with the representatives of the people. But, having said that, obviously the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s judgments about the safety and appropriateness—in a technical sense—of the use of this drug will be a very important consideration.

I do not want to detain the House for long in expressing my views on this matter, but let me say in conclusion that some people—in the media, substantially, and one or two parliamentarians—have interpreted this debate in the context of the Minister for Health and Ageing. My view of the minister for health is that he is a person of enormous principle. Of all the members of parliament I have known over 21 years—and you can imagine that in 21 years I have known a few—I do not know any member of parliament more principled than the minister for health. He passionately believes in things. He is not just here to fill a seat or to get a parliamentary salary or a ministerial car; he is one of those people who has come here to make a difference because he believes in things. Usually I agree with him and sometimes I do not, but he is a person who deserves the admiration of the country for his passion and his principle.

I have to say, without wishing to inject too harsh a tone into this debate—because it does not deserve too harsh a tone; it deserves consideration—that some of the criticisms of the Minister for Health and Ageing have been quite effective in pushing me away from this bill. I have felt very uncomfortable with some of the things that have been said about the minister for health. I was especially offended by the T-shirt worn by Senator Nettle—I was appalled that it was produced by the YWCA, or so it said on the T-shirt; I do not know whether that is fair or not—because it had not only a tone of abuse towards the minister for health but a tone of sectarianism.

I am a Christian—I am actually an Anglican—but the Catholic Church is the great spiritual leader of Christianity in the world. There is no question about that. Even though I am an Anglican, I concede that point. The Catholic Church is the great Christian church. Even though I do not see the Pope as my leader, the Pope nevertheless is the great spiritual leader of Christianity. Sectarianism in Australia was one of the truly ugly components of our past, which I myself thought was well and truly out of the way and that I had seen it die in my lifetime. Some of the comments that have been made about the Catholic Church and Catholicism have caused me great offence, and I do want to put that on the record. The Catholic Church has stood for great things and does stand for great things, and it deserves great respect, even if you do not agree with them. I am an Anglican,  so there is obviously some point of theological disagreement there, but it is not substantial.

My position, in conclusion, is as simple as this: I support the amendments. If either of those amendments is carried, then the amended bill would win my support. However, if the amendments fail, I will not support the bill and I will vote against it.

See this speech in context