Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to make it clear from the outset that I will be supporting the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005 introduced by the member for Moore. I congratulate him and all those associated with bringing it forward. Coincidentally, I am the first male from our side of the parliament to speak. This is significant only because the Senate vote showed a dramatic gender divide in support for this legislation. It reflects a history of male domination breaking down in our country. On most issues this makes no difference. There has been a lot of rhetoric about how much change it would make, and in most issues it is absolutely irrelevant. But this is one example where the breakdown of the male domination of Australian politics is leading to a change in outcomes, and I welcome it.

Fundamentally, the legislation before us is about process. I want to focus mainly on that question of process. I do not want to repeat the arguments that others have made. We have all been asked to keep our comments brief to allow as many people as possible to speak, and I will seek to do that. The argument in the broad has been put well by many, including the minister who has just concluded her remarks, whose views I share. But we cannot pretend that this is not a process debate without moral overtones, otherwise we would not be having a conscience vote about it. I make my position clear on that: I have always been pro-choice and I remain of that view.

But the process question has been somewhat confused, deliberately. There has been an attempt to render it into an argument about whether in some way the parliament should be supreme, whether elected people ought to be more accountable. It is true that this is the forum in which moral decisions about how the country should be run should be made, not by people with only technical expertise. But what we need to do to implement a majority view in both Houses of the parliament as to issues of morality and conscience is pass a law, not come up with a backdoor process to ban a method of implementing something which is lawful. We are creating here a de facto ban by process.

There are other drugs which the law bans in Australia. It is illegal to possess them and it is illegal to import them—it is not a question of anybody assessing them. You cannot possess these drugs. They are illegal because the parliament has resolved that should be so. But in this instance what we have is a legal process, which is being undertaken in Australia in significant numbers, and a de facto ban on one safe process for implementing it. I am concerned that this process debate has been subjected to a little bit of a red herring.

I am strongly of the view that good governance and accountability matter, that the Therapeutic Goods Administration have the skills and the appropriate level of responsibility to undertake the primary task of review, and that, provided they are allowed to appear before the estimates committee, they are decision makers accountable to this parliament. If the government, the parliament or the anti-abortion lobby want to ban abortion in this country, they should pass a law to do so, to ban the outcome—not put in place a de facto process to ban one method.

As I say, I am unequivocally and long-term pro-choice. The nation supports trusting the women of Australia and recognises that, if we change the process of approval of RU486, there will not be a headlong rush for more abortions; in fact, the international evidence does not suggest there will be any increase at all, with the access to RU486. It will be simply a change to a more convenient and, in many instances, safer and more appropriate method.

It is not that anybody welcomes abortions. They are a necessity for many women that the Australian people have resolved should be lawful. We are debating whether one method should be available to women in undertaking this lawful but not lightly taken path. Women should have access to all the reasonable options available to them so that they can make a safe, informed choice about their future. We should not be making it difficult, embarrassing or risky for them by some technicality, simply because those who are opposed to what they are doing cannot get the numbers to make it illegal.

There are a large number of other arguments that, if time permits, I will come back to. But I want to divert briefly to talk about a parliamentary point in the handling of this issue which I regard as very important. The worst thing that could happen would be for a misunderstanding of process to lead to an outcome not intended by those, when they vote, in this parliament. I refer to the amendment that the member for Lindsay moved in the second reading debate. It is an amendment that is within the standing orders and I do not say that there is anything wrong with moving it, but those who are contemplating supporting the amendment should do so clearly in the knowledge that carrying it will constitute the effective defeat of the second reading of the bill. The wording of the amendment makes that clear and, in my view, that is clearly the intention of the amendment. But whether that is the intention of the amendment or not—and I believe it is—it will be its effect.

If people wish to achieve the outcome of subsequent parliamentary review of TGA decisions—and I do not—the only way of doing so with this bill is to pass the second reading and then support amendments at the consideration in detail stage. If you think voting for the member for Lindsay’s amendment will achieve that outcome, you will be mistaken. That amendment will, if passed as a second reading amendment, effectively defeat the bill. There is some ambiguity in that matter and, if people are in any doubt, I would advise them, as I did when the amendment was moved, to consult House of Representatives Practice. But I am in no doubt and, in my view, the Minister for Health and Ageing and the member for Lindsay are in no doubt that the effect of the passing of the amendment would be to defeat the second reading of the bill.

I urge every member, when considering how they vote, to consider that fact. Some will still vote for it because that is the outcome they want to achieve. While I do not agree with them, that is a proper thing for them to do, if that is their view. But I would hate to see a result achieved by inadvertence or because a second reading amendment is a bit tricky and, by accident or design, people achieve a purpose by a technical amendment with regard to the standing orders.

I will not support that amendment; nor will I support the amendment proposed by the member for Bowman. I thought the member for Bowman spoke well in this debate, but I do not share the conclusion that he came to about process because I do not want to see the second-guessing of the TGA brought here to the parliament once, twice, three times—as outlined by the minister who just spoke—or at all. The core principle of that matter, as it relates to abortion, is resolved in our law at the moment and I do not wish to change it. But, if people wish to change it, they should bring in a bill to do so. To my chagrin, they could do it with regard to my constituency because this parliament could pass a law to make abortion illegal in the ACT. I would be vehemently opposed to that bill, but it is within the power of the parliament to do it. However, nobody has proposed doing it and, in my view, nor should they.

But I do not wish to see a backdoor method of banning a process that has been endorsed as safe and effective by the World Health Organisation, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Public Health Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the AMA, the American Medical Association, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. All those bodies have said that this is a safe and effective process for achieving a legal objective. Therefore, we should not be putting in place a procedural, technical process that would deny effective choice to Australian women in consultation with their doctors. This option should not be closed off by a special one-off process in order to achieve by administrative means what could not be achieved by legislation.

I think the amendments make the situation worse and not better. I see them rather as ‘Groundhog Day’ amendments, where we go again and again over the same debate that we have just had. I urge people, in considering whether to support the amendment moved by the member for Lindsay in the second reading debate, to realise that, should they do so, they will effectively defeat a second reading of this legislation. If that is what they wish to do, they should simply vote against the second reading, as I know many of my colleagues will—although I hope not a majority—and not do so by subterfuge through the member for Lindsay’s amendment.

See this speech in context