Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak about the process that occurred in the Senate in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005the bill that was debated today, on which we divided and came to a conclusion. I certainly do not wish to reflect on the debate. We have had that debate. It has been quite extensive. Rather, I wish to mention the process, in particular for those listening to this broadcast and for those who may read Hansard in the future. I am sure other senators have had the same experience today that I have had—that is, they have received calls and emails wanting to know exactly how the process transpired, what really took place and what happens from now. I understand, through my election campaign and through discussing issues with constituents, that there is a great deal of difficulty in comprehending the process of the Senate, let alone understanding the total role of a senator.

The only reflection I wish to make upon the outcome of the debate and the vote today is that I am disappointed with the outcome. However, I completely respect the process that we went through. I think we have one of the best institutions in the world to allow for the democratic process to be fully exhausted, as it was in this debate. Some of the questions I received today and yesterday related to how the bill was initiated. For those who do not understand or who have not followed that, it was a private senator’s bill. The bill was initiated not by the government or the opposition but by private senators. That enabled the coalition to allow a conscience vote, as did other parties. It was a very emotive issue and one that certainly required a conscience vote. I think that there was a very clear winner in today’s debate, and that was democracy in this country. Again, whilst I did not agree with the result, I think we certainly should be proud of the system that we have and we should always defend that.

Prior to addressing some of the mechanics of the reading processes and the bill itself, I would like to place on record the expression of my appreciation to a lot of my colleagues. I have had many discussions with colleagues concerning this issue, not just today but in the days leading up to the final vote. Colleagues from not just my own party but other parties who shared my views and who opposed my views have debated the matter in a very mature way. That occurred in a formal and informal manner. I am so proud that I have mature senators around me who can discuss these matters in a rational and very well educated manner.

For those who are not familiar with the legislative process—and I apologise to those who are extremely familiar with it—three readings are required in each house of our parliament. In this house we had three readings of the bill. The bill must go through three times before it can pass. The first reading of a bill is normally a formality, where the bill is accepted into the chamber, into the Senate for example. The second reading of a bill, which was when the first major division occurred today, is when senators decide that the bill should be read a second time. Debate can ensue upon that second reading motion. The second reading motion today was opposed by senators like-minded to me. Unfortunately, we lost that vote and the bill proceeded to the second reading. If we had won that vote the bill would not have proceeded any further.

After the second reading debate, the bill moved into the committee stage. The committee stage today considered two amendments, which have led to some confusion, certainly with some of my constituents. The committee process enabled two major amendments to the bill to be considered. Both of those amendments reflected upon the manner in which the drug RU486, or that category of drug, could be processed and whether it required ministerial or parliamentary discretion. It was basically a watering down of the ministerial discretion to allow parliament to consider the process or to allow an ethics and medical council to consider the process as well. Both of those amendments were also defeated, as the record will show. Therefore, the bill went to a third reading stage. The third reading stage is when the bill can again be either accepted or rejected. The bill was accepted. For those who have not followed the exact votes, the votes in relation to the second reading were 45 for the bill to proceed and 26 against. In the third and final reading stage, 45 senators were for the bill and 28 disagreed. The bill was passed.

The other confusion that I have heard expressed by constituents is that they want to know whether this is the final stage of the bill. Because this bill originated in the Senate it will now go to the House of Representatives for a similar set of circumstances, where it will be processed three times. There will be three reading stages in the House of Representatives. So the bill can be defeated on the floor of the House. That remains to be seen when the bill moves to the House of Representatives. As far as the Senate is concerned, that process is now exhausted unless the House of Representatives sends the bill back for any form of amendment.

I felt it important to place that on record. It is something I will possibly circulate to constituents who inquire as to the process. I also encourage members of the public and students alike to access the Australian parliamentary website, because that explains in detail some of the processes. The Parliamentary Education Office also explains the process of the passage of bills. By researching on the website, members of the public can follow accurately what transpired during the stages I have just outlined.

Also, members of the public can access speeches in Hansard. Some of the speeches, I must say, were of extremely high quality. Some senators put a lot of research into those speeches, which can be accessed in the Hansard, as can the results of the divisions and how senators from which parties voted. I think it is important that the public has access to that information and is fully informed of the process. I am sure that senators would be only too pleased to take inquiries from members of the public concerning how the debate transpired in this place.

Again, I place on record my appreciation of the efforts of senators in the committee stage, at the inquiry of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, in handling a mass of evidence and presenting it to us concisely so that we could consider the matter further. I also appreciate the manner in which the debate was conducted. I know there are some disappointed senators today—I am one of them—but democracy has served this country well and has served the Senate well, and we cannot reflect on the process. As far as I am concerned, the process is infallible and is the best process that we could possibly go through. This is the outcome, and we move forward.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think Senator Parry has made some very sensible points. I did not contribute to the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005 except to incorporate a very brief speech to place my views on that piece of legislation before the Senate and to explain that I had agreed to pair votes with Senator Rod Kemp, who is representing Australia overseas on very important and, I am sure, strenuous ministerial duties at the Winter Olympics. I, like many others, was overwhelmed by the interest but not surprised. But the point I would like to make very briefly here, because everyone wants to head to various corners of our beautiful continent and get home—

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You got that right!

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going the furthest distance, no doubt.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not as far as Rod Kemp!

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, but can I say that I think it is worth reflecting on both the words of Senator Parry and the earlier words of Senator Humphries in relation to the stresses and pressures of the job and the need to treat with respect and courtesy not only colleagues but also all of those people we encounter in our lives, and try to smile at them and say ‘G’day’ from time to time. It is easy to get carried away with the importance of what we do and not share the time for a smile. This debate has had generally very good elements and some that have been a little less fortunate. There is a tendency, with some of these debates, for people to become very self-righteous and sanctimonious and to reflect on other people’s morals and consciences. I think that is very much the exception, but I wanted to get that off my chest.

But, generally speaking, it is wonderful to be part of such a great democratic institution and a member of such a great democratic society. We have all received enormous numbers of emails, carefully thought out and crafted letters, and endless telephone calls. And as we move around the community we have also bumped into people who know that we are members of the Senate and want to share their views with us on an issue that is very important to so many people. To come into this place, have a debate, deal with it in a sensible and timely way and then move on is a quite wonderful thing. It makes me feel proud to be part of this institution and proud to be a citizen of such a wonderful democracy. So I commend Senator Parry’s contribution and look forward to your next statement, Mr President.