Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is a very historic time in our parliament. There are very few times that one has the opportunity to have a responsibility for making a decision about a defining social issue that will permeate through the annals of our nation. It will be acknowledged as a personal position of commitment by the senators in this chamber. As with many other historical debates in other parliaments throughout the world, your position on this shall be written down in history and your role judged by history accordingly. As it is a conscience vote, it does the unusual thing of definitively stating who you are and the ethical issues that drive you.

This is a debate about the role of government and on the question of its determination in the lives of others and on the question of life itself. So many at times brilliant speeches have elucidated on the proficiency of this parliament to deal with a complex issue such as this while obviously reflecting the social inclination of the constituency from which those speakers were elected.

No doubt there are doctors more qualified than a minister without a medical degree, and they would be far more abreast of medical issues; no doubt we could find accountants more qualified to be a minister overseeing the Treasury; no doubt there are natural resources engineers more capable than a minister with oversight over the environment; no doubt there are telecommunication technicians who would be more apt to oversee that role of the government than an elected representative.

Are we to have rule by experts in their field rather than elected representatives? That would be a very disturbing brave new world. If you believe that, then what on earth are you doing here—unless by some outstanding coincidence you are a technical expert on every issue on which you proffer an opinion in this chamber? We could outsource basically every job in this parliament, and maybe that is a debate that would ultimately give greater technical expertise to the management of the nation. But it would, at the very least, assuage the whole role of the democratic process.

The vote tomorrow is about whether parliamentarians believe they have a role on the most crucial social issues or whether we start running away from difficult issues and start diminishing the parliamentary role further. I have always stated that the Senate has been usurped, and this is a further step that moves members and senators to a more honorary position than to one that actually reflects their position in government.

If this is not an argument about abortion but, as stated, an argument about the most appropriate and most qualified body to assess a drug, then those who vote for this motion must, by reason of this, support the further removal of other areas of governance to those who, though not elected, are better qualified. What is the recourse of the voter if the appointed panel of the TGA is a complete affront to their personal views? Will they accept the decision, or will they apply for a political remedy, most likely at the next election? Irregardless, I believe strongly they will try and pursue a political manipulation of the committee to suit their political purpose, even though they put their hand on their heart stating that their key motivation at this stage is to remove the assessment of this drug from the political process.

There is one thing that has definitely been portrayed during this debate, and that is that this is a highly contentious issue by reason of the closely held views of the citizens of Australia. The proponents of this bill believe that this ethos of political representation should not be respected. They believe a direct political remedy, reflected in the ministerial authority, should be subordinate to an unelected bureaucrat. By removing the path of authority on an issue, we allow the progression of unelected bureaucrats to attain the mantle that we believe, and the community believes, we have been elected for. The minister should be responsible for reflecting a hands-on role on contentious issues.

I believe that the contentiousness of this issue is exactly why this decision should be attached to the process and should be immediately answerable to the parliament. I believe that enacting a decision that endorses the disenfranchising of the citizen by the removal of ministerial control is itself an admittance that the parliament is not up to the job and does not have the qualifications to make decisions affecting contentious issues—and I believe that political parties and members of political parties who endorse this position reflect that no-one in their ministerial authority would ever have the competence to be able to deal with these issues.

We cannot after this say that this issue is peculiar when other issues in other areas could be handed to those with better qualifications. This is going to lead to the corporatisation of government—the final frontier—and it will unfortunately be endorsed by many on the opposition benches and on our own. Many have stated that this is not an abortion debate and that they are not driven by strong bias on that issue. I am afraid I do not believe you, as I certainly have a strong view and it drives my motivations. I am sure if you were honest you would acknowledge it is driving yours. Others have launched schools of red herrings to further their cause and assault the primary truth—that they are really driven by pro-abortion motivations. It reminds me of reading about the Hon. TB Van Buren, who said that his role as an abolitionist during the slavery debate in 1865 was to proffer the argument that slavery should be abolished because it ‘banished free white labour’. It was a very noble outcome based on a very ignoble premise. No doubt history would advise that the ownership of one individual against their will totally and absolutely by another is repulsive. But people did not say that at the time, and there was wide and acknowledged acceptance of slavery.

No-one benefits from abortion; all are hurt. Let us make that the starting point, rather than stating that there is nothing unusual about the process or the number of abortions currently being done in Australia. The RU486 process, with the culmination of little hands and legs, glazed eyes and a skull being flushed by the mother down a toilet, is especially psychologically and physically brutal. It is important for the honesty of my motives that I once more put on the record that I believe that a person has the right to proceed through life without another person believing they have the right to kill them. I object to the action, not to the person, and obviously have grown up in association with many friends who have had abortions.

The right to your life is inalienable and commences at conception. The fact that you are not conscious of your right is irrelevant in a just society. Neither a person asleep, a child born or a child unborn should have their right calibrated by consciousness. Furthermore, there is a philosophical morass if rights develop with your own physical development, or inherently it would stand to reason that a person’s right to their life would continue to change between the in utero, childhood, adolescent and geriatric stages of life. Because of this, throughout this chamber there would be varying degrees of a right to life. The value of the lives of the various senators would, because of their age, be different. This is, of course, implausible and repulsive. The argument that one form of abortion is allowed therefore all should be allowed is to state that because there is a train line that takes people to a place of imminent death, there is nothing wrong with building a highway there as well.

Likewise, I am not embarrassed to say that I have a Christian faith—2,000 years of which have inspired the freedoms that our culture here in Australia is based on. It is obvious that the respect of all human life is a fundamental tenet of that faith. I am guided by my faith and make no excuses for that. A vast number of my constituents in Queensland hold similar views.

Finally, there is a strong link between RU486 and the death of women who would have survived had they had a surgical abortion. The argument that this number will be small and therefore is acceptable repulses me, as it will the child who loses their mother or the husband who loses their wife or partner. The deaths of those women, which will happen, must rest on those who decide tomorrow. It will remain as a stigma far greater than all others in the processes that follow or have come before. Because this chamber is the instigator of the act that leads to the deaths, we have to be responsible for those deaths.

If for no other reason than that I do not want to meet the child who lost their mother because of my vote or to meet the father who lost their wife because of my vote or to meet the parent who lost their daughter because of my vote, I will be voting against RU486. I do not believe there is an acceptable level of collateral damage when it comes to human lives when there is an alternative which is far safer. As to RU486 and the safety of the child, it kills virtually all of them, so the argument that is stated about the safety of RU486, while ignoring half the people it affects, is completely disingenuous and dishonest.

However, I acknowledge that this is a parliamentary process, and I acknowledge that people want to come to a just parliamentary outcome. As such, I hope that the belief that we can come to a just outcome can be furthered and that if amendments are suggested they are taken on board. If there is an absolutist position and no amendment is ever contended or changes anybody’s views, it just goes to show and justify that this was purely a pro-abortion, pro-life debate.