Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to encourage the parliament to see an opportunity today to arrive at something approaching a consensus view on this bill. We have that opportunity. I am one who did not support the bill when given the opportunity during the second reading debate. A lot has been said about the bill. Speakers from all perspectives have had their say on it. And do you know what? We are all respectful of our representative democracy—our parliamentary representation.

We would be mugs if we did not accept the outcome of this vote, which very clearly will be to see the passage of the bill through the parliament. I may not be very happy about that; I may prefer that it fail. However, in good faith, what anyone of us can do is to least accept the outcome. The verdict of this chamber will be that the bill, either amended or unamended, will pass this chamber—hopefully amended—and returned to the Senate to be ratified.

But let me ask this: why don’t all the speakers who have begun their speeches by saying ‘I respect the view of others’ put that into practice and show some respect for the people who, in good faith, have put up an amendment which basically seeks to deliver the broad outcomes of the bill, which is the repeal of any ministerial involvement in the approval of an abortifacient drug? Show some good faith. In fact, both the Kelly and the Laming amendments sought to give some ground in good faith.

We are now only debating the member for Bowman’s amendments. I think they show good faith; they give some ground. Equally, it has to be said that not one member who has spoken against the Laming amendments has been willing to concede the point that abortifacients do amount to a different and separate class of drug—not one. Why can’t we hear somebody acknowledge—if you are not a fundamentalist on this issue then please acknowledge—that a drug which does not have a therapeutic use, a drug which does not actually cure a medical disease, should be treated differently?

This is not a difficult intellectual argument. If you are not an ideologue, if you are not a fundamentalist on this issue, then please take some sense from this. Equally, if this is not in any way linked to a moral issue then why are we having a conscience vote? Why have our respective party leaders recognise that this is not just about process, that there is more to this issue than just expert advice?

With great respect, the Minister for Workforce Participation said that it is not our political task to assess the safety and efficacy of medicines. I absolutely agree. That is quite true. The purpose of the Laming amendments is not in any way to molest that concept. In fact, one of the Laming amendments supports what the minister has said but adds a further dimension by recognising that members of the TGA are not appointed on the basis of their ethical background or ethical expertise.

To say that this class of drug should be the domain of only scientific experts is greatly disrespectful of parliamentary democracy. I am prepared to concede that to say that the TGA is not able to provide advice is disrespectful to science and to the Public Service. I ask this chamber to again consider whether it is fair and reasonable to obtain consensus on this issue. We can deliver it. We can send a message to the Australian people that we believe that the parliament has an important role in assessing the future use of these drugs while, at the same time, accepting expert medical advice where that is appropriate.

I urge all my colleagues and others involved to show good faith, to give some ground and to acknowledge that we have an opportunity to achieve consensus on this issue. So I beg you, I urge you, to support the Laming amendments.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Laming’s) be agreed to.

See this speech in context