Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand to strongly oppose the Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005. Firstly, I wish to thank the secretariat for the work that they did under difficult and challenging circumstances. I also wish to thank many of the witnesses who appeared before our committee—particularly the pregnancy counselling services which at times felt targeted and under attack. I believe those services felt at times that the services they provide to the Australian nation were in fact not valued or appreciated. I want to stand here and say that I do support them and thank them for the services that they do provide.

The net effect of the bill would be to increase the likelihood of ready referral for abortion. The bill does have a narrow focus and, in my view, it is irresponsible. Rather than the parliament obstructing the work of pregnancy counselling services, which offer an invaluable service to the community—and specifically to women in the community dealing with an unplanned pregnancy—it should be grateful for the community service performed by those organisations. As has been noted by the chairman, Senator Humphries and Senator Polley, it is my view as well that the abortion rate in this country is already at an unsatisfactorily high level of close to 100,000 abortions each year. That is unacceptable. It is certainly something that we all, in this parliament and across the community, must strive to prevent.

In my view, the legislation is also significantly and potentially constitutionally flawed. As I indicated, it unfairly targets a particular pregnancy counselling group while leaving out those linked to abortion clinics. The Commonwealth should look at ways of fostering and enhancing the work of these groups and do all it can to prevent the number of abortions in Australia rising. In terms of the majority report, a great deal of evidence was received regarding the terminology of the bill, especially the terms ‘non-directive’ and ‘referral’. The proponent of the bill has accepted that there are, and were, serious objections to those terms and has intimated that amendments may be proposed to address these concerns.

Finally, I want to address the constitutional issues raised by the bill. It is my view that significant parts of the bill itself raise serious questions about its validity, especially in its attempt to regulate non-broadcast advertising by noncorporations which are not engaged in interstate trade or commerce. I refer specifically to placitum (i) of section 51 of the Constitution regarding trade and commerce, and placitum (xx) of section 51 on the corporations power.

I note that the minority report even refers to advice from Mr Charles Francis, who argued in his submission:

It ... seems to me that the requirements of the Bill in so far as it seeks to deal with those who provide counselling services free is probably beyond the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and is a matter for the States only.

That is in the minority report. Their report then concludes:

Mr Francis’ view that this is a matter for the States is one that is definitely worth pursuing.

Maybe that is a matter for the proponent to pursue. I will leave it there and thank the Senate.