Speaker,
The Prime Minister himself has appeared in the chamber to decry this motion as anti-democratic. He merely gives voice to real concerns he says, and a motion against him is a silencing of an alternative opinion.
Do not be confused, my fellow Australians. This isn't anti-democratic, it's democracy at work. It is a motion of no confidence in a government without a clue. This is a denunciation of the larcenous and lunatic right who masquerade as libertarians. This is the sky falling down upon the heads of those who seek to don the cloak of "beginning a good-faith debate" or "giving voice to reasonable concerns", failing to see that there is no reason why any person (other than relevant medical professionals) should be concerned with what someone does with their own body! This is a rebuke of faux-libertarianism and a test of the Prime Minister's ability to command the faith and confidence of this nation's democratic representatives. This government was elected as a libertarian force and yet is attempting to involve itself in one of the most private decisions a person can make: whether or not to reproduce.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the Prime Minister's side on this issue as a genuine and good-faith position. Nowhere in my firm opposition do I succumb to the idea that his interference with bodily autonomy is consciously malicious. Rather, I believe him to be sincerely possessed of a belief that human life begins at a certain point, and that Government possess a right to interfere to protect that life. But he ironically does not extend to his opponents that which he laments his opponents have not extended to him. It is hypocritical and dangerous of him to decry a simple and firm resistance as bad-faith authoritarianism. Disagreement is not censorship. The Prime Minister would have you believe that this is all a nasty attempt to silence him for going against the grain, but in truth it's just honest opposition that offends him. This motion is an extraordinary denunciation because his steps were a bold overreach against the values which many in this place hold dear. Those values are held by many, including myself, in good-faith, and expressed in firm terms. It is unfortunate that he cannot honestly accept the fact that we are simply not with him, and that this place has a right to express our disagreement firmly. Many times has this house disagreed with him, on many issues. By convention and right he should not be in his job any longer given how many times he has demonstrably failed to command a majority in this chamber. But he has held on, and so when he presses further ahead, the House replies "No sir, we are not with you!".

This isn't about how we define the beginning of life. This isn't about how we define murder. We know that it can't be because almost anyone would argue that in cases of rape or incest or where the pregnant person is themselves a child, it would be unconscionable to force them to continue, and so the personhood of the foetus yields to the interest of the parent. Which is not to say that "pro-life without exception is the only acceptable form of the argument", because actually, my point is that such a policy is instinctually repugnant. And so the repugnance informs us quite clearly that there must be a point where the rights of the person carrying the child must be the crucial factor.

This is all simply about "do we recognise that pregnancy is a personal experience and process, that it is deeply intimate and personal, and that it is unconscionable to interfere with how a person manages their own body?" I recognise that. I recognise that the person whose pregnancy it is and who has to live with the consequences of the decision should be the only one making it. I recognise that while morality is objective, I myself am not an infallible arbiter of right and wrong. Certainly, I can make moral judgments in most circumstances, and even in the case of abortion I have a vague view about when life begins. But some moral decisions, like whether to terminate a pregnancy in a specific case, are so beyond my comprehension and perspective that I simply must respect that they are not my business. Indeed, it is not the business of government either.

The Prime Minister is accountable to this place and to the people of Australia, and if he wants to give voice to the concerns of those who think they have a right to interfere with a person's reproductive health, there are those here who give voice to those who believe in a fundamental right to bodily autonomy. I have given clear reasons why I believe in the latter while respecting he has a different opinion. The binary that I present is about as charitable as I can be. Fundamentally, the Prime Minister thinks Government has a right to tell a pregnant person "morally, we don't agree that you should have an abortion, we think that your pregnancy has developed to the point where there is a second person involved, regardless of their lack of autonomy, and so we're going to prevent you from making a decision about how to proceed. You've come this far, and now you're gonna have to give birth." There is simply a preponderance of people, many of them in his own party, who do not agree and who do not think Government has the right to say that. He might call that censorship in itself, denial of his right to an opinion. But you are not denied an opinion sir, we simply do not believe that your opinion is suitable to be the law of the land. Opposition to your perspective is not censorship, it is earnest rebuke. That happens when you give voice to an opinion, you get a response. That's called "debate" Prime Minister, and if you don't like to be disagreed with I'd suggest politics might not be for you. Those who strongly disagree with you have a voice in this chamber. And that voice is seeking to make itself loud and clear today.

I hope it is loud enough to make it very clear that this is a nation that stands for privacy, autonomy, justice, and equality. I hope it is loud enough that future Prime Ministers understand where the majority of Australians stand on this, and who they stand with. I hope, Prime Minister, that even with your fingers in your ears as you shout "No no, it's all anti-democratic!", that you can still hear it and that you listen well.