Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This inquiry has been one of a series of difficult inquiries conducted by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee in recent years. It was difficult because it blended the apparently straightforward issue of transparent advertising with the morally fraught issue of abortion. The committee attracted significant interest from the community. There were more than 6,000 contributions; most of them were in the form of email contributions, but there were many submissions as well. The committee travelled to Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide to take evidence and also held a public hearing in Canberra.

The report which I have just presented explores a variety of issues that were raised in the evidence that the committee received. As senators will see, the committee has divided on the issues presented in the report, in particular on whether the bill which is the subject of the report should be supported by the Senate. The majority position is that the bill should be rejected. There are a variety of reasons for coming to this view. Essentially, the majority of the committee viewed the bill as having a number of significant flaws. Those flaws may be discussed at greater length if and when this bill is brought on for debate, but I want to touch on a few of them now.

There was significant concern on the part of the committee majority about the constitutionality of the bill; that is, whether the parliament has the power to pass a bill which effects these changes to the law. I understand that Senator Barnett will speak at greater length on that issue.

The report highlights a series of problems with terminology used in the bill. For example, the term ‘referrals’ in clause 6 of the bill presented a particular problem. The bill requires that a pregnancy counselling service that does not provide so-called ‘referrals’ for termination of pregnancy must include in the advertising and notification material for that service a statement that it does not do so. It was pointed out to the committee that there is considerable difference in the way in which the term ‘referral’ is used here and the way it might be used with reference to the services provided by a doctor. The term ‘non-directive’ also gave witnesses some concern. The term is used widely in health and counselling services around the country, but it is used in a different sense in the bill, at least on the evidence of some witnesses, to that used in the sector.

The proponent of this bill claims that the bill imposes on the sector rules which apply in the course of trade and commerce; that is, things which apply in the general community are made to apply to this sector. But I think this approach is a troubling one when it applies to a sector which offers services based on the work of volunteers. There is an imposition of commercial requirements in this bill backed by massive fines imposed on organisations which are largely staffed and operated by volunteers.

The bill purports to offer a balanced approach, one which is even-handed. It says that the law applies to everybody, irrespective of their particular service in the community. As I heard the evidence in this inquiry, a famous phrase from Anatole France sprang to mind:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread.

This bill purports to be even-handed, but it dramatically affects one part of the pregnancy counselling services much more than others.

Where is the equivalent requirement for pregnancy counselling services with financial links to abortion clinics to declare that fact? Where is the requirement for such services to declare that they do not offer, for example, information about adoption? That is missing from this legislation. There is a provision in clause 7 of the legislation to ban a pregnancy counselling service which does not ‘refer for abortions’, using the language of the bill—even one which openly declares that fact, pursuant to the legislation—and prohibits that service from advertising its services in the 24-hour help section of the telephone directory. That is utterly outrageous. These services have a right to provide information to women. It is the impression of the majority of the committee that what this legislation does is to target services which do that without making referrals for abortion. In the interests of providing other senators with time to speak, I intend to close my remarks here.