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

It is relatively rare that I find myself in absolute agreement with the previous speaker, Senator Patterson, and I do about the way she has approached this matter. Like her, I voted to prohibit euthanasia, for reasons that I outlined on that occasion. This is the third time during my almost 16 years in this place that we have been allowed a conscience vote. The bill before the parliament in this case is the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005. I think the title of the bill aptly outlines the issue and the purpose of the bill. A conscience vote is very rare and is usually allowed on issues that affect human life. I welcome and accept the responsibility that is placed on my personal judgment, and I hope that those who disagree with the conclusion I come to will understand that I have given the matter considerable thought. I have read much—though not all—of the correspondence and I have spoken to a number of people and listened to the views of people on both sides of the issue.

I thank all those who have written and spoken to me and I also thank and commend the members of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Although their report was tabled only a few short hours ago, I have had the chance to look at their considerations. It is not easy; these issues are never easy. It is a well-written and thoroughly researched report, so I thank all the members of that committee who participated.

Previously I participated in two other debates with a conscience vote: the prohibition on euthanasia and the restrictions on stem cell research. On those occasions, as I explained, my principal concern was for what is referred to as the sanctity of life and its importance to Western society. Our society is based on a Judaeo-Christian ethic of respect for individual human life. I am an amateur student of history, still reading and learning, and unfortunately throughout history practice has often horribly deviated from the sanctity of human life. But I strongly believe that that central principle is still very important in our society. As I said in my two previous contributions on conscience vote issues, I try to approach each issue with practical questions: will it work, and what will be the adverse human consequences of a particular policy? I found my decision to support the prohibition on euthanasia relatively easy, and I voted to support the prohibition, for the reasons I outlined in my speech on that occasion; similarly, in respect of restrictions on stem cell research, on which I found it more difficult to reach a conclusion. Much of the debate on this bill has been characterised as being for or against abortion. I do not believe the central issue of this bill should be whether one supports or opposes abortion. With respect, I think that is a simplistic approach. It is not the central issue on which I ultimately base my decision.

On the issue of abortion: I do not agree with abortion. To me, it is the destruction of evolving human life and I find it highly disturbing that abortions are carried out in the community. However, abortion is legal in Australia. Frankly, I have to say that reversing that is very unlikely. There are significant indirect human consequences of backyard illegal practice. As a consequence, if I ever were faced with a decision in this place, I would find it difficult and I would be unlikely to vote to outlaw abortion. However, if it is to continue to remain legal, abortion should be a truly last resort after the exercising of reasonable, independent and, I would argue, mandatory counselling in addition to medical advice. It should certainly not be late term. Obviously, there has been a rapid improvement in the life expectancy of premature babies. They are living healthy lives thanks to medical science. Abortion is primarily, but, in my view, not exclusively, a decision for a woman to make. I think the interests of the father should also be considered.

I have to say that I do get somewhat annoyed at the simplistic slogan of ‘choice’ being applied to complex issues. Issues of this type—in fact, issues of most policy types that we deal with in this place—are rarely simple. I note the growing tendency in public policy terms to wrap controversial and complex issues in the simplistic notion and slogan of ‘choice’. Choice has become a mantra. The real world is often more complex than simply being able to say, ‘It is an individual’s choice.’

Whilst the consequences of this bill are closely linked to the issue of abortion, I have not regarded that as the central issue. There may or may not be a greater number of abortions—I simply do not know—as a consequence of the passing of this bill. I would certainly hope that there were fewer abortions in our community. But I am simply not in a position to make that judgment. I respect the views of those who have made the judgment, but I am certainly not in a position to make that judgment.

So the principle on which I have made up my mind relates fundamentally to what is appropriate, independent, expert, arms-length decision making about the use of or prohibition of particular drugs in Australia. I do not believe that the decision making belongs with an individual minister. If we allow such a process to continue—I point this out to those who strongly oppose abortion and, in this case, the use of RU486—what happens when the current Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Abbott, concludes his position and a new minister with a different point of view is appointed? That seems to me to be a ridiculous approach to the legal use or otherwise of a drug in this country. Presumably, a new minister at some point in time will have a different view and simply reverse the prohibition. I think that is not an appropriate approach to decisions on any form of drug and in this case RU486.

I do not agree with all of the views of the current health minister, Mr Abbott, on abortion. I share many of his concerns. I note that he does claim that he can exercise independent judgment based on expert advice. I do not accept that argument from the minister. I do not believe that anyone on an issue such as this can exercise independent, arms-length judgment. I do not believe that the minister, Mr Abbott, can do so on this issue. If he truly asked himself whether he could, I do not believe he could conclude that. I certainly do not believe I could if ever I were a minister with that decision-making power. Therefore, the decision on the evaluation of a drug and its particular merits should be made by, in this case, the TGA.

As I said earlier, to some extent this issue has turned into a de facto debate on abortion and the parameters on which abortion should be allowed in Australia. I would welcome that debate. In fact, I would welcome a bill before the parliament. I know it is currently a state responsibility but I certainly believe that, in this day and age, a constitutional head of power could be found to ensure national, uniform laws on abortion that are consistent across the country. As I indicated earlier, whilst I have significant concerns about some aspects of abortion and the parameters in Australia, if ever I were in the position I would cast my vote in the way in which I have indicated. Any particular amendment to the parameters for the exercising and use of abortion in this country I would consider on its merits if I ever had the opportunity to consider such a piece of legislation. For the reasons I have outlined, I will be supporting the legislation before the Senate.