Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Having listened to the contribution of the member for Tangney to the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, I appreciate very sincerely the logic that he brings to it—and will make no attempt to emulate his capacity to get his tongue around the medical terminology. I extend that same appreciation to the member for La Trobe and the member for Port Adelaide, who spoke before me.

Because this is a conscience vote, I take the opportunity to put on the public record the reasoning behind my vote. I will be voting against the amendments and for the bill. As I am sure has been the case with all members, I have had extensive lobbying from both those who are supporters of the bill and those who oppose it. I will attempt to deal with what I see as the three main issues that have been raised with me in opposition to the bill and why I do not accept those arguments.

The first and most consistent position of those arguing that I should not support the bill is fundamentally an anti-abortion argument. There is obviously a deeply held and, I believe, sincere religious belief among many people who hold a religious belief—not all, but many—that abortion is not a moral option and that we should oppose it on those grounds.

I respect those opinions. It would be a sad day indeed in this country if we could not have civilised debates about those sorts of issues. What I do reject is what I find a very offensive argument made in some of those contributions that because I do not hold a religious belief I do not have the capacity to have a moral structure in my life. That is as offensive as T-shirts that may be worn offending those of particular persuasions or what I consider to be anti-Muslim comments made by the member for Hughes.

I am of an age where I have delved through the mysteries of life and the realities of living. I have a very profound moral structure that informs my life. It informs my position in supporting the right of women to access abortion. While I appreciate that some will not agree with the conclusions that I have come to, I would ask them to extend to me respect as a person who does not hold a religious view but is perfectly capable of having a profound moral structure to my life.

The reality for people who have raised with me their concerns about abortion is that this debate and the vote will have no impact on whether or not abortion is a legal process in Australia. That is the responsibility of state governments. At this point in time, in all states, abortion is legally available under particular constraints that are in legislation. My argument to those people is that in many ways it is raising a false hope to say that this is an abortion debate. It is not. Indeed, at the end of the day, when we vote, what we are voting on is a decision that a woman with her specialist can make after having made the decision about whether or not to have an abortion.

The second level of concerns that have been raised by people asking me to vote against the bill are the safety concerns around the drug. Clearly, there is some controversy in some parts of the world. I do not intend to cover that issue at all, because I have absolutely no expertise on which to make those assessments. In this country we have legislation that determines which types of drugs are available and which are not—indeed, there are some drugs that we completely prohibit, for good reason. But when it comes to the decision about how safe and under what circumstances a drug should be available, we do leave that to the experts. I think the TGA is the appropriate place to review all the situations across the world—all the current uses of the drug, the advice of the international drug organisations—and to make a determination on its availability and the circumstances and safeguards under which it should be used. So my response to those who have argued the risk factors to me is that I think that is a perfectly legitimate argument, and a perfectly legitimate concern, but it is most appropriately dealt with by the TGA.

The final level of issues that have been raised by those asking me to oppose the bill are those about parliamentary responsibility. Many people say that, because it is a contentious issue—that is, not the use of RU486 but the availability of abortion—that the parliament, as the elected representatives, should have the final say. What baffles me with that argument is: what on earth are we doing here over these two days, if not taking responsibility for that debate, for considering how we want applications for that drug to be processed? I reject the argument that it is a failure of responsibility by the parliament in this debate to make a decision. What are people actually saying—that, in each and every case of the use of the drug, this parliament should review the circumstances of that individual case and decide whether it is a legitimate use of the drug? Of course not. Are we saying that we should review this each and every time another practitioner or organisation wants to use the drug for the purpose of abortion? In what way is that a higher level of responsibility than making a decision now about where that responsibility should lie and whether or not we are comfortable with the medical experts making a decision on its safety and efficacy?

I know there are genuinely argued concerns, and they are deeply held and passionate beliefs for many people. So I have attempted to sincerely go through the three levels of the argument and put on the record why I reject them. The options we have before us include two amendments, one second reading amendment and one consideration in detail amendment. While I appreciate the motivation behind the consideration in detail amendment, I believe there is a hidden motivation behind the second reading amendment: to gag this debate at the end of the day. I hardly think that is representative of parliament taking responsibility, so I will not support that amendment. I will not support the consideration in detail amendment that has been foreshadowed, because I think our responsibility is to make a decision now and to let the TGA get on with assessing the issues that it faces.

I am pleased that by and large in this House we have been able to have a civilised debate. I am sure that many of us have had fairly intense discussions with our colleagues, within our families and within our communities about it. I am more than comfortable that this bill represents what I have reached as a well-considered view within my moral structure of life. I will be supporting the bill.

Finally, I want to put on record my appreciation for the men in this House, across all parties, who have appreciated that this debate does have a deeper resonance and significance for women. The reality is that when many women find out they are pregnant it is a moment of intense joy and excitement. But there is a different reality for women in the physical carrying of a baby and in giving birth. I think that has been recognised in many ways in our society. The challenges of this, for some women, are also pretty devastating. If you look at the data on abortion worldwide, there are many women of varied religious beliefs, various ages and various socioeconomic backgrounds in these circumstances. I do not like to portray them as defenceless, unresourced, poor women who have no other option. I think that is a very false structure to put around it. For many of those women it is a very difficult decision; for some it is not. For those women the reality of that decision and that choice is profound. The rest of us who know what that difficulty can be feel that it is difficult to listen to people who will never actually be faced with that reality express an opinion.

I see my colleague at the table the member for Grayndler, who I thought put it in the best words: if you do not have a womb, you really cannot quite appreciate this. I think that men who reach out and try to be empathetic to those women are to be profoundly congratulated. While it should not prohibit anybody from this debate I think an appreciation and an empathy with those issues is very much appreciated. I wanted to put that on the record as well.

See this speech in context