Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

In considering the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 two issues have exercised my mind: firstly, the issue of abortion; and secondly—and in the context of this bill more importantly—the role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, or TGA.

Firstly, I come into the abortion debate with a commitment to the concept of the sanctity of human life. Every human life is unique and is to be treasured and valued by society. Most people accept this proposition without much hesitation. Unfortunately, equivocation enters the debate when the question is asked: when does human life begin? The only logical, scientific and consistent answer to this question is: at conception. At conception our unique genetic make-up has been determined, and there is no logical, scientific, moral or other consideration which can establish after conception a time certain for the commencement of human life. Interestingly, no-one argues that human life commences before conception. But if human life does not start at conception, it is incumbent on those arguing that proposition to tell us exactly when human life does commence. No-one has done so with a satisfactory and consistent construct.

Secondly, this bill is designed to take away ministerial responsibility for the approval of one drug, and one drug alone: an abortifacient. The responsibility for its approval would instead be given to a group of officials. I have agreed to limit my comments this evening, so I encourage those interested in this issue to read the excellent column in today’s Sydney Morning Herald by Senator Fierravanti-Wells, and the additional comments of Senators Humphries, Barnett, Fielding, Polley and Joyce, as well as the Family First additional comments, to the Senate committee report that was tabled today. Looking across the chamber, I also invite people to read the excellent speech given by Senator Polley. In short, they represent a clear, logical and democratic approach to the issue before us. Their insurmountable advocacy urges a no vote.

I will be voting no for the following reasons. I support the sanctity of human life. The TGA deals with therapeutic goods—goods designed to prevent or treat a disease, illness, defect or injury, to quote Dr Baldwin—whereas RU486 is designed to kill and expel from the mother’s womb the developing child. Therefore it is not therapeutic, unless we describe pregnancy as an ailment. As an aside, I cannot accept that a developing child is just a bundle of cells, as some seek to describe it. Those that have suffered a miscarriage will quickly tell you that it is more than just bumping your knee and losing a few cells. There is not only the physical side but also a deep emotional hurt, suggesting more than simply a few cells being lost. In any event, our humanity is surely not to be determined by the number of cells we may have on any particular day.

RU486 is not therapeutic. The TGA is not designed to deal with the moral, social and ethical issues surrounding any particular drug. It simply deals with technical, not moral, issues. That is why I am attracted to the proposition of referring these issues to an expert ethics committee and that the minister’s decision become a disallowable instrument. Parliamentarians are elected as representatives of the community to make these judgment calls, difficult though they be. No matter what our views on abortion, we fail in our duty if we want to outsource or subcontract our responsibility to, albeit decent, but nevertheless non-elected and unrepresentative, officials.

There are also genuine health concerns based on peer reviewed studies and questions about the usage of RU486, which have been canvassed in this debate. I am willing to accept that the TGA is possibly the best body to determine some of these claims and counterclaims as to the efficacy of RU486. But I do not accept that the TGA is expert to deal with the moral and social issues that have arisen as a result of this matter. Indeed, in all conscience, I cannot outsource the moral and ethical issues arising from this debate to an unelected body when I am elected by the Australian people to make these judgment calls, fraught with difficulty though they be. In short, the case for change by the proponents has not been made out. That is why I believe ministerial responsibility should remain, albeit with the addition of parliamentary oversight. I thank the Senate.