Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I begin by thanking the members of the secretariat for their hard work, Ms Hodgkinson and Mr Humphery in particular, and thanking all my colleagues for their participation in an interesting, at times complex and often emotive inquiry, and that includes thanking the chair for his work. I introduced the Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005 to regulate pregnancy counselling services insofar as they would be prevented from misleading or deceptive advertising in relation to their notification of pregnancy counselling services. The bill is designed to ensure that those particular organisations which do not refer for terminations declare that fact so that women seeking advice on whether to continue a pregnancy know exactly what kind of organisation they are contacting.

The urgency of this issue was highlighted only this year in March when the government announced that it would allocate $51 million over the next four years to establish a National Pregnancy Support Telephone Helpline and introduce a Medicare rebate for pregnancy counselling. Currently, in this country, there are no federal government funded, dedicated, pro-choice pregnancy counselling services, which means that no pro-choice service is able to provide a national, 24-hour pregnancy counselling helpline, and thus they are not eligible to advertise for listing in the 24-hour listings in the White Pages. The federal government must address this, at a minimum by allocating a similar, comparable amount or the same amount of money to funding a pro-choice dedicated pregnancy counselling service at least equivalent to that of the pro-life Australian Federation of Pregnancy Support Services.

Unlike organisations that charge for the services they provide and thus are subject to the Trade Practices Act, pregnancy counselling organisations are not prohibited from engaging in deceptive behaviour or misleading advertising, and this bill was designed to address that loophole. The committee heard a range of evidence, including from anti-choice pregnancy counselling services that did not support regulated, transparent advertising because they were concerned that fewer women would contact them if the women knew that they did not refer for terminations. Festival of Light, I acknowledge, reinforced this point, claiming that the bill would result in women ‘missing out on vital information that they needed about the risks of abortion’.

It is hard to imagine how anyone with women’s best interests at heart could believe seriously that receiving a high volume of phone calls is more important than women receiving up-front, unbiased, objective advice about their circumstances and about the options available to them so that they could make the best informed decision for themselves on the basis of that information. My definition of ‘non-directive’ may have been opposed by some, but I stand by the notion that ‘all options’ means all options, and there are only three options—adoption, keeping the baby or, indeed, having a termination, which is a legitimate and legal option in this nation.

Evidence presented to the committee reinforced the urgency of this issue and highlighted the misleading and deceptive information that women do receive. Dr Susie Allanson, a clinical psychologist from the Fertility Control Clinic in Melbourne, provided case studies to the committee. One woman in particular had received information that resulted in quite a traumatic experience. She reported:

My boyfriend and I went to a pregnancy counselling service ... They showed us a film that was really frightening showing the baby trying to get away from the instruments the doctor was using. Then they told us how bad it was to have an abortion and I would never be able to have any children. They said my boyfriend would leave me if I had an abortion. I said my parents would kill me and kick me out if they found out I was pregnant. They said they would give me baby clothes and somewhere to stay till I had the baby. I said I wanted to finish school and I had to get an abortion. I did not want to live with strangers or adopt the baby out. I was so furious and scared after seeing them.

Ms Brigid Coombe, from the Pregnancy Advisory Centre in Adelaide, also presented the committee with evidence of examples of deceptive counselling practices. There are case studies, there is anecdotal evidence and, although witnesses generally supported the principle of transparency in advertising, there was debate about the terminology used. I do not deny that. It was particularly about the definition of ‘non-directive’ and the words ‘to refer’. Indeed, there was strong support from the people who gave evidence in favour of the bill for the terminology that was used.

Anti-choice organisations and individuals argued, I claim incorrectly, that the bill ‘intends to put out of business any pregnancy counselling service which will not refer for abortion’. That is wrong. The bill is not designed to disadvantage anyone, to obstruct pregnancy counselling services or to ensure that people have a particular philosophical or ideological opinion. I defend the right of a diverse range of services to exist, but I insist, as would many other people, on seeing these services being up-front and honest about what they do and how they advertise.

I thank the cross-party support that I have had, particularly from women, including Senators Adams, Brown, Moore, Webber and Nettle, and my colleagues in the Democrats. I also acknowledge the work of everyone in this committee, regardless of perspectives. This has been another great example of people working together with women’s interests at heart in an attempt to ensure not only that women’s reproductive rights are protected but that counselling and pregnancy services are up-front. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Senate Moore) adjourned.