Bruce Baird (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like many other members in this House, I have been subject to some strong lobbying in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. Some are in favour, some are against. Of course, a number of those lobbying have targeted me because I am known by many as a committed Christian. Until I stepped down at the end of last year, I served as the President of the Australian Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. Therefore, there is an expectation that I will take a similar view to that of many Christians in Australia and of course take note of the views of church leaders.

I would say up front that my Christian faith is a very strong and significant part of my life and one of the reasons I came into this House. I have attempted to be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. It is clear to those who know me well that I have often failed, but still I press on towards the mark. However, I have taken views on issues in the past that did not reflect the popular Christian view of the time—namely, I voted for the amendment in 1984 which proposed the decriminalisation of homosexual relations between consenting adults, when the Crimes Amendment Bill was put before the New South Wales parliament; I voted for stem cell research in 2002; and now I will be voting for this bill.

There is not a uniform Christian approach on these issues, and there are a number of members of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship who plan to vote for the bill before the House. I am unashamedly a Liberal on these issues of social conscience. I believe it is healthy to have a range of views amongst Christians. One thing I am sure of is that Christ’s significance in my life does not diminish because of my support for this bill. Tolerance, acceptance and forgiveness are hallmarks of the Christian life, and my approach on these issues is motivated very much by the Christian concept of grace. It is this philosophy and approach which motivated me to take a strong interest in the treatment of asylum seekers in this country. I was compelled to be part of a reform agenda when I was confronted with stories of detainees who had been held in detention for some years. There were many who opposed my stand on these issues, but I was encouraged by the support I was given by many church leaders.

The bill before the House separates out the decision on abortifacient products from the minister to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The minister appoints a group of experts who examine the suitability of pharmaceuticals on medical grounds for release to the general public. I believe it is inappropriate for the decision to be made by the minister and should rather be made by those who are expert in the field and who, by virtue of their training, are better equipped to make a sound medical judgment based on empirical scientific fact.

It is clear that the opponents of this bill are trying to turn this debate into one that is focused on the issue of abortion. They are a little late, because this issue was the subject of at times heated debate up to 30 years ago. In every state, either the parliament voted to allow abortion or common law was extended to permit it. I am personally opposed to abortion, but we are legislating here for the people of Australia and we must separate out the issues of church and state. The fact is that any woman who wishes to have an abortion in this country is already able to have one. Presently, termination of an unwanted pregnancy is carried out by a surgical procedure. The introduction of RU486 would provide for an alternative method, thereby providing a simplified and less invasive means of terminating a pregnancy. There is no doubt that we need to provide more funding for counselling services both before and after abortion and more funding for sex education and for child support for those who decide to have the child.

Some would argue that there are risks of death from RU486, as has been evidenced overseas. However, it is clear that the incidence of mortality has been very low, and lower than for other drugs. The drug has already been prescribed extensively in Europe, North America, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, to name but a few. In each of these countries, RU486 has been found to be effective and safe.

According to opponents of RU486, 10 deaths have been linked to the use of the drug. This is indeed a great tragedy, as is the avoidable loss of every life. However, the Australian Medical Association and Rural Doctors Association advised the Senate committee that the proper and supervised use of RU486 is no more dangerous that the use of the off-the-shelf pain killer aspirin.

The President of the AMA, Dr Haikerwal, believes that, in relation to the deaths caused by infection and septicaemia:

The cases reported of people dying from infections really are the same... complications that you get with any gynaecological procedure.

But he goes even further. He states that he believes that in some cases the use of RU486 is indeed safer than the current practice.

The use of RU486, being a non-invasive method of terminating pregnancy, could in fact improve health outcomes for women. The current surgical method means that if things go wrong, such as a doctor perforating the cervix during the procedure, a woman can be rendered infertile or have reduced likelihood of having a successful pregnancy later on, when her circumstances may be different.

It is also argued that the availability of this drug would lead to a significant increase in abortion. This has not been the experience in overseas countries where the drug has been introduced. Some would also argue that the approval of an abortifacient is a moral decision and would be more appropriately decided by this parliament. This may have been the case when the legality of abortion was decided, but that issue was settled long ago. We are now debating the question of the means of termination and who should make the decision on what medical and surgical options are available to women who have decided for one reason or another to terminate their pregnancy.

Because we are talking about a medical procedure, surely this decision should be taken by a medically trained and expert board. The minister has the ability to appoint not only people of professional expertise but also people of moral integrity.

Then there is the question of the amendments proposed by the members for Lindsay and Bowman. I believe these amendments are basically red herrings to the real issue. The creation of disallowable instruments will simply mean that any member can raise the issue again anytime, and this parliament will end up having this debate again, again and again. No, I will be supporting the bill and will not be supporting these amendments.

I have been criticised by some for saying that men should butt out of the debate and allow the decision to terminate a pregnancy to be left to the woman to decide. I certainly listened to my wife and daughter. It is women who have to deal with the issues of disruption to their career and the provision of care for a child and to bear the social stigma that can accompany single parenthood. We have come a long way since the wearing of the scarlet letter, and well-meaning men may express their affirmation, but it is certainly not them that have to deal with the consequences of finding they are pregnant. Yes, I am a Christian, but I am also conscious of the real issues facing many young women in Australia each day. The provisions of the bill will ensure that important issues affecting women and their reproductive health are decided by a panel of experts, based on the best scientific information, and not by the minister of the day, who in many cases would have no real expertise in the area. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context