Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the report of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee’s inquiry into the Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005. Pregnancy counselling services are just that: they provide counselling relating to pregnancy. This bill is about advertising and whether these service providers should be required to advertise whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. Mrs Pat Gartlan from my home state of Tasmania made the following observations in her submission to the committee:

It is a fact that everyone is biased about all manner of topics in the sense of holding a particular view. There is no such thing as an unbiased person. However, a counsellor is trained to recognise their own attitudes and to leave them outside the counselling situation.

A marriage guidance counsellor may be biased against divorce as a solution, but abide faithfully by the rules of counselling set out by the organisation.

It is a matter of interest that marriage guidance counsellors are not required to state in any advertising, whether or not they are inclined to favour divorce as a solution to marital disharmony.

In another submission to the committee, Dr David van Gend said that it is inappropriate and unnecessary to force pregnancy counselling organisations to state their stance on abortion in advertising material. Logic would surely prevail in that women who are seriously set on abortion as the only course available to them would not necessarily contact a pregnancy counselling provider if alongside such a provider in the phone directory they were to find pregnancy termination services. We must remember that this issue is separate to that of abortion, but the sad fact is that many women who find themselves pregnant and thinking about abortion would not contemplate approaching a pregnancy counsellor as they may not even consider themselves to be pregnant.

Instead of focusing on the issue of whether or not a counselling service should advertise its pro-life or pro-choice persuasion, our focus would better serve Australian women if we ensured that women who do seek abortions by contacting a termination provider receive adequate counselling before and after the procedure. Pregnancy Counselling Australia commented during the hearings that the wide range of pregnancy counselling services available throughout Australia cater to the differing needs of women dealing with unplanned pregnancies. This would suggest that women who have been able to find a number for a counselling service would readily be able to find a number for a termination service if that were their wish.

Among the conclusions of the committee is the point that I believe is the real issue concerning unplanned pregnancies in Australia. There should be a comprehensive approach to sex education in this country. Our aim as legislators should be to ensure that more is done to reduce the overall number of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies so that the demand for pregnancy counselling services is decreased and thus the number of abortions is drastically cut. That would be the best possible outcome for everyone. But instead we have this misguided idea that, because some counselling services are not advocating or endorsing abortion as a readily available option, they are breaking women’s trust and that there needs to be legislation in place to ensure that they raise the topic of abortion.

Abortion, for all women, should be an absolute last resort. I am concerned, as I know some of my colleagues in this place are, that all too often in today’s world women see abortion as a secondary form of contraceptive. This should not be the case. Abortion is not a preventative measure. Whichever way you prefer to look at it, abortion ends the life of what would otherwise have become a baby—a human life in its own right.

People have been quick to point out that this bill is not about abortion, and that is correct. However, we have not seen nearly as much focus on counselling services which do offer a multitude of advice on abortion, while failing to point out the assistance that may be available to mothers if they continue with a pregnancy, for example, or other options such as adoption. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

Coming back to my point about education and prevention, a recent study in Europe found that children who discussed sex at an early age with their parents held off having sex longer than those who did not talk about the subject when they were young.

The study also found that those who learned about the birds and the bees from a young age had less sexual encounters that involved alcohol or drugs then those who had not.

While education will not prevent all unplanned pregnancies in Australia, with close to 100,000 abortions currently performed each year, it is most definitely worth looking at greater education as a solution.

The committee in its conclusions found that the community is widely in favour of transparency in advertising, but whether this extended to forcing organisations that are primarily made up of volunteers who give their own time for the betterment of women in need, I am highly doubtful.

The majority position of the committee, shared by myself, Senator Humphries and Senator Barnett, found that the evidence presented to the committee during the course of the inquiry cast doubt over the efficacy and effect of the Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005.

It is my belief, and the belief of other majority Senators, that it would be irresponsible to recommend that the Senate look to pass this bill into law which could fail to apply to applicable situations.

Overall it is considered that the bill seeks to hamper efforts of those pregnancy counselling services who are offering services which offer women free and sound advice in the midst of what can be a very confusing and traumatic time. The intention of the bill to intimidate and pressure services to refer for abortion or impose specific requirements for transparency without imposing equivalent provisions on other services, such as those linked to abortion providers, is biased in the very least.

The majority Senators are in agreement that the apparent effect of this bill would be to increase the likelihood of ready referral for abortion, and with the abortion rate in this country already at obscene levels, this is certainly something we must strive to prevent.

The fact that it was not presented throughout the committee’s inquiry that there are women who want abortions but are unable to gain access also suggests that the need for this bill is unfounded.

It also reflects on the widespread community consensus, as was evident at the time the RU486 legislation was considered, that there are too many abortions in Australia.

The majority Senators believe that, rather than obstructing the work of pregnancy counselling services that seek to assist women dealing with unplanned pregnancy, by offering genuine alternatives to abortion, that the public and the Parliament should be thankful for these services which are largely carried out by a dedicated and caring bunch of volunteers.

I thank all those that provided evidence and submissions.

The committee majority therefore recommends that the Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005 not be supported.