Santo Santoro (Queensland, Liberal Party, Minister for Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate and thank Senator Polley for her very thoughtful and even provocative contribution. I share most of her views and I commend her for putting them as sincerely as she has. I am on record in this place, including in June last year, as a supporter of any measures which will encourage a reduction in the rate of abortion in Australia. When I spoke on this issue last June I said that while I have my own private views I do not believe that government has any business regulating the life choices of citizens. And while my views remain unabashedly on the pro-life side of the abortion debate, I do not resile from my position that private views are private and should of necessity remain separate from the public duties of legislators. We are not a theocracy and, at least on this side of the chamber, we are not supporters of interventionist government. But with this private member’s bill, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, we are presented with what is quaintly termed a ‘conscience vote’, which in the Westminster system is a very peculiar beast.

My position on this bill is well known. I have received hundreds of representations against the passage of this bill and, surprisingly, as I think Senator Polley intimated, very few representations in favour of it. I want to stress that. It is something that I have found incredibly surprising. There are very, very few views in favour of it. A number of my colleagues have and will eloquently expound, as Senator Polley just has, on the social impact, safety data, and very strong arguments for continued restriction of abortifacients. Suffice to say, I am far from persuaded by the rather trite argument that, since the TGA gives the sole approval to many pharmaceuticals which are potentially harmful or fatal, there is no case for special treatment of RU486 and its ilk.

We tolerate risk with pharmaceuticals because we balance that risk against the likely impact of unchecked progression of a given disease or injury. Contrary to the bizarre commentary of some pro-abortion doctors in recent weeks, I cannot regard pregnancy as a disease. As both a father and a Christian, I regard pregnancy as a blessing, a gift, an opportunity and a life. I also note with some sense of irony that many of my colleagues who are most strongly in favour of assisted reproduction funding—which I also wholeheartedly support—are equally leaders in the laissez-faire approach to termination. In contrast, I support IVF because it is a miracle for parents, not as some abstract dimension of a values-free concept of choice. As I said, a number of my colleagues will make the detailed case against RU486, and I do not intend to duplicate their comments. Rather, I want to take this opportunity to comment on two aspects of this so-called conscience vote.

My first concern is that, while I recognise the reasoned position taken by some of the proponents of RU486 and this private member’s bill, I cannot help but feel that we are being asked to accept that only one side of the argument represents good conscience. I say this because it is implicit in the request for a conscience vote that we are asked to form a position based on our private views and legislate accordingly. If we were asked simply to reflect on the conscience of the nation, the evidence would be very clear. It is clear in the work done by the Sexton Marketing Group for the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, which showed that Australians want a reduction in the rate of abortion without a ban. And it is clear in the research carried out by Market Facts and released by the Australian Federation of Right to Life Associations just last weekend, which found that a slight majority of Australians oppose the decision to terminate a pregnancy for social or financial reasons. Those data certainly inform my conscience, but those propagating RU486 tell us that such democratic views are immaterial. We are told only one side reflects good conscience or good faith because, we are assured, there is urgency in this issue. That urgency is presumably to facilitate more abortions, which is against the valued and measured view of the nation. And that urgency is what has been used to rush this bill without time for considered and careful public debate on the merits or morals of chemical abortion. For that reason alone, I will vote to reject the bill.

My second concern about this debate lies with the elevation of abortion choice as an incontestable right, like some golden calf presented in place of a more complete debate over the philosophy and value of life. I am particularly concerned at the occasionally subtle—and in many cases quite open—attacks on my colleagues who hold a particular religious view which values life above casual choice. In particular, those who have claimed there is a greater need for this reform simply because the health minister of the day is a committed Catholic have introduced an ugly note of bigotry and anticlericalism into this place. To those who want unfettered access to RU486 and who may seek change of other legislation which is inimical to Catholic or other Christian views, I give this counsel: if you want a conscience vote then impugning the real conscience of those who grieve for unborn children does you no credit and reduces your arguments to prejudice.

Regardless of the outcome of this debate, I would sound a call to this chamber and to this parliament to never again accept denigration of Christian or any other religious views as biased, baseless or ill-informed. These are views which reflect our deepest history and our core values, and without them our society would be much the poorer. I will be voting against this bill.