Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I join the debate tonight because those on the speaking list who are listed to come before me are not available, so I want to just make a few comments. I first of all want to congratulate the senators on both sides of the argument, who have argued their cases with dignity and with a calmness that is so often missing in some of these debates.

This is a fairly simple question: should decisions regarding access to RU486 be made by the minister for health or by the Therapeutic Goods Administration? I know this debate has reopened the whole abortion debate. In some ways, it has been used by many people as a proxy for that very important, serious, moral debate about abortion, how it should be regulated and how readily it should be available. But the reality is, as Senator Fifield said, that that is a matter for the states; it is not a question that is in the control of the federal parliament and it is not a question that we are considering here today. That is not the issue before the parliament. The issue before the parliament is the question of who should make the decision about this drug. It is also a fact that abortions are legal in Australia and do take place. That is not the issue.

There have been some excellent speeches. But I want to touch on an issue that arose today, and that is the claim by Mr Abbott, the Minister for Health and Ageing, that somehow he has been attacked because of his religious beliefs. This is not about Mr Abbott and it is not about any particular minister for health. I hope one day in a Labor government to be given the opportunity to serve as minister for health, but I would have the same view then that I have now: that it should not be left to me to make decisions about the efficacy of a drug proposed to be introduced into Australia. I do not have any expertise in that matter, and neither does Mr Abbott. The point is that that decision should be made out of a political environment; not by a politician, not by a person who is under the political pressures that we have all come under in recent weeks, but by an independent body, based on the best scientific and medical advice. It seems to me that that is a very clear and easy decision to make.

I do not think this is about Mr Abbott’s personal or religious views. He is entitled to those. I do not call those into question at all. But whatever one’s personal or religious beliefs, the point is that no politician in the role of minister for health is best placed to make that decision. And some of the arguments about accountability have been farcical, because I do not remember ever getting a say about these decisions when the minister for health makes them. There has been no parliamentary accountability since decisions have been taken.

I want to make very clear that in saying that the question of abortion is not before us today I do not wish to hide behind that. A lot of people consider this to be a debate about abortion. It is not, but I am very clearly and publicly expressing my position that I am pro-choice and have been for many years. I want to put that on the record, but it is not the point of this debate and it is not the point of the legislation. I have a fundamental problem with men trying to tell women how to handle issues of their own fertility and health. It seems to me that that is fundamentally wrong and that it ought to be the woman’s decision about what is best for her and any potential child that might come from a pregnancy.

I support a woman’s right to choose, but I want to make it very clear that people have to focus on the fact that that is not the debate before us. I am very aware of that, because we had the debate in Western Australia only some five years ago, when a close friend and colleague, Cheryl Davenport MLC, a member of the upper house in WA, led the charge to reform the abortion laws in Western Australia. That was successful. The WA parliament, which split much like we will—along non-party lines—supported legalising abortion. Abortion had been practised in the state for many years, but when a particular practitioner was arrested and charged for performing an abortion the issue was brought to a head. That matter was resolved in the state jurisdiction by the state parliament, as is our legal arrangement—and, as we know, various regimes apply in each of the states.

I know that there are very strong opinions in the community and the Senate about these issues. Given that the provision that gave the minister the role to make this decision arose out of a fairly murky arrangement without much debate about its merits, it seems to me that the debate today comes down to this: the opponents of the bill have to prove why this drug, and this drug alone, should be treated differently to every other drug that would be made available to Australians. To oppose this bill, the proponents of that view have to establish why this one drug alone should be treated differently to every other medicinal drug brought into this country. For every other drug, we deem that the TGA is the appropriate body to make the decision, but somehow this is special; somehow RU486 is different.

I do not think the case has been made for that. Sure, it involves in some of its uses the question of abortion, but the issues of safety, efficacy et cetera are for the TGA, just as they are for a range of other drugs—thousands of other drugs—that are now available in Australia. It is a decision for the TGA, to be made on scientific and medical grounds, not for politicians in the heat of a political argument. To pick out one drug with multiple uses and say, ‘No, we won’t allow this drug in; we’ll leave the decision about that drug to a particular member of the government,’ does not make sense. There is no consistency of approach. As far as I am concerned, no case has been made out as to why RU486 should be treated any differently to any other drug—and all those considerations that have been raised by some people about efficacy, potential safety issues, side effects et cetera are properly examined in a political-free environment by those with expertise and access to the best evidence. That is the way RU486 should be treated—just as all the other drugs are.

In closing, I make the point that I think that the parliament is growing in maturity. I think over recent years we have handled the euthanasia debate, the stem cell debate and now this debate in a very mature manner. It is not something that I thought would be possible at the start of the euthanasia bill, but we got through that and we got through a very difficult debate about stem cell research a couple of years ago with a maturity that I think has done the parliament a great deal of credit. People have argued their case fiercely, but they have done it with goodwill, maturity and an ability to see other sides of the argument. It is a credit to the parliament, and the fact that people are able to take different positions and the parties are able to relinquish control of those issues and allow a conscience vote has been taken as a very positive sign about the health of our democracy. But, as I said, I think the decision before us is fairly simple. I do not think there is any case as to why this particular drug should be treated differently to any other. I do not think that case has been made out, and I will be supporting the bill.