• Home
• /
• Opinion

To be, or not to be? Existential questions Down Under

The debate was emotional but civilised, centred about the controversial so-called abortion drug, RU486. It is used in more than 30 countries around the world, to induce an abortion rather than use surgical procedures. You might think that Australia would follow the example of its good allies, the United States and Britain, to allow the use of the drug. But it was effectively banned several years ago in a deal between the conservative government of John Howard and the even more conservative independent Senator, Brian Harradine. At the time he held the balance of power in the Senate, the upper house of Parliament.

In return for his approval of key government legislation, Howard agreed that the Health Minister would have the power to veto the approval of RU486. And so the drug’s approval was deferred indefinitely, whereas every other new drug in Australia is examined by a non-partisan expert body, the Therapeutic Drug Administration.

The de facto ban on RU486 was recently challenged by a cross-party group of female MPs. For a start, it was remarkable to see Liberal MPs put a challenge to Howard. It was just as unusual, in Australia’s adversarial parliamentary system, to see MPs from across the political divide co-operating on an issue. The MPs managed to convince Howard to allow all MPs to have a conscience vote on the legislation that would remove approval for RU486 from the Health Minister.

This is a rarity in the federal parliament, where MPs are used to being told how to vote by their parties. If they dare to "cross the floor" against their side, they risk losing their seat in Parliament. A notable aspect of the parliamentary debate was the support by MPs to remove a veto power from a fellow lawmaker. Usually parliamentarians want to gain or retain as much power as possible. In this case, however, they were voting to strip the Health Minister of a veto power.

Health Minister Tony Abbott is more conservative than Prime Minister John Howard, and was totally opposed to the legislation. He is firmly against abortion and did not want to give up the veto power, knowing that this would probably lead to the drug’s approval. He was supported in the debate by the prime minister. Because Howard had allowed a conscience voter, just about every Member of Parliament wanted to speak. Of the 150 lawmakers in the House of Representatives, about 100 got that chance, as the chamber was cleared of all other business for a week.

Getting to the vote on the RU486, legislation was incredibly slow, compared to the way the parliament usually ‘rubber stamps’ non-controversial legislation. In Australian politics, it has become routine to see every debate as revolving around leadership. When will Howard retire? Most commentators think he will keep going until at least the next federal election, due late next year. Costello, his anointed successor, naturally hopes Howard quits sooner. In fact Howard passes a huge milestone in early March —a decade as Prime Minister. Costello’s supporters hope that Howard will hand over power soon after that important anniversary.

Howard probably doesn’t know himself yet what he will do. However, it is clear that he will not slow down until the day he chooses to retire or is defeated at an election. Last December, Costello gave a guarantee he would not challenge Howard. In fact, he had to make such a declaration —Costello does not have the support to mount a challenge and the Liberal Party would not abandon the leader who has led them to four successive victories. The Costello declaration is again under the spotlight this week because he has chosen to give a keynote speech at the National Press Club in Canberra on the achievements of the Howard government during its 10-year reign.

After his speech, questions from the floor will inevitably turn to his leadership ambitions. That issue will overshadow his speech, unless he announces a new round of tax cuts. He cannot recant on his declaration not to challenge Howard and he can’t demand the Liberal Party’s hero should step aside.

Canberra is abuzz with speculation about why he is handing the media this opportunity to question him on a topic that he has to step around, and which will generate another burst of speculation on the leadership that the Liberal Party could do without.

Ross Peake is a Canberra-based political analyst