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

Again, another startling contribution by Senator Julian McGauran to this debate. Again, it will not dampen my enthusiasm for the legislation before us. It is incredibly important; it is needed. Another story from my electorate in South Australia illustrates why this is so important. A woman was told she should name her baby. She was also told that her baby did not have a place in heaven, and the young woman was asked if she thought having an abortion was sinful. A woman also told me of the advice she received form Birthline in South Australia. She said:

I rang them to get information about the Morning After Pill, they told me it can make me have an abortion, and that it can cause foetal defects if I was already pregnant.

These examples are a small number of the hundreds that I have seen over the years. I am not the only person in this place, let alone these organisations, who has received comparable stories. It is not about whether you have a particular opinion, Senator McGauran. I am very up-front about mine. What I am saying is: everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but do not mislead, do not deceive. Get the advertising up-front, transparent and honest—just as we would expect of everybody else in society, including businesses that make a profit and organisations that are subject to the Trade Practices Act. I want these organisations to be covered by comparable legislation so that women and others are not misled, particularly in what could be the most vulnerable and emotional state they could be in.

I am proud of the support this bill has received and the genuine commitment it has received from organisations. I acknowledge the work of people involved in organisations like Marie Stopes International, Children by Choice, Reproductive Choice Australia, Australian Reproductive Health Alliance and, of course, GetUp, who are actively involved in asking men and women of Australia what they think of legislation like this and what they think of some of the stories they have heard and collating signatures for an online petition last year. A campaign jointly sponsored by RCA and GetUp resulted in 20,000 signatures supporting legislation of this kind. I obviously also thank my cosponsors again.

It is worth putting on record some other key facts. A recent survey commissioned by Marie Stopes International produced findings highlighting that 81 per cent of women believe that a pregnancy counsellor should refer for all three options. A further 12 per cent of women confirmed that when they had been faced with an unplanned pregnancy, they relied on pregnancy counsellors for support. There are many other results in that survey that are also of interest. I might add that, during estimates a couple of weeks ago, we learnt that each call to the government’s $15 million pregnancy helpline costs around $442. These are taxpayer dollars. I acknowledge those call costs may change as the service becomes well known; women will be more interested in using it or at least more aware of its services.

Seventy-five per cent of women surveyed in this Marie Stopes commissioned survey said they did not want to talk to a counsellor before making a decision about their unplanned pregnancy. So, yes, pregnancy counselling is important—it is a valuable service, from whatever perspective it may come—but it has to be honest, it has to be up-front in its advertising and it has to be transparent. I prefer non-directive counselling—and I have a very strong view as to what constitutes non-directive counselling—but counselling is not necessary, nor should it be compulsory, for women who are in a situation where they are facing an unplanned pregnancy. The majority of women have said they do not necessarily want it. But for those women who do want it, when they go to the yellow pages or the internet or see an advertisement on the back of a bathroom door, it has to say more than, ‘Pregnant? Upset or distressed?’ It has to explain what services it does or does not provide. At least in those circumstances the woman, her partner and her family are aware of who and what they are contacting and what services and/or counselling may result as a consequence of her picking up the phone or walking in the door and meeting with someone and talking about some of those most personal issues.

The results of the Marie Stopes survey further highlight the need for the regulation of pregnancy counselling services to ensure not only that women are fully informed but also that they have services of a high standard. Across the board, regardless of people’s perspective in the Senate inquiry on this particular bill or its predecessor, there was a strong view that we could look at the regulation and quality of counselling. It did not matter which perspective people came from. Maybe the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, should be looking into that to ensure that, regardless of what perspective people come from, there is quality assurance. That is not my particular debate today; mine is much more simple than that. Again, it is a bill about advertising.

This bill is necessary because, although the Trade Practices Act outlaws ‘conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose or the quantity of any services’, the majority of pregnancy counselling services are, of course, not bound by the Trade Practices Act because they generally do not charge for the information and other services they provide and, therefore, they are not considered to be engaged in commerce or trade.

I want women to feel safe and secure when they are calling or visiting pregnancy counselling services. I do not want people bullied, I do not want people frightened and I do not want people misled or deceived. It is one of the most delicate and, arguably, traumatic times in a woman’s life. Providing false or misleading advertising to women who are confused or unsure about keeping or not having a child is something all pregnancy counselling services should be held accountable for.

Why would anyone question this basic principle in this legislation? If they are proud of their philosophical beliefs, whether they be anti-choice or pro-choice, then what is the problem? Surely, people are still going to receive calls to this service. Regardless of their perspective, people cannot seriously deny that this is long overdue. (Time expired)