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

He cannot dampen my enthusiasm today, no matter what he tries. It is very rare for private member’s bills to be introduced and debated in a way that they become law or maybe have an influence on law. That is what I hope for with this piece of legislation. I would love it to be voted on at some stage in the near future, but more importantly I would love it if the government took the initiative to introduce legislation to cover up what I perceive is a loophole in current trade practices law on transparency in advertising when it comes to certain not-for-profit groups—in this specific case, pregnancy counselling.

I said that this was a historic day; I actually think it is a ‘herstoric’ day because it continues something that we have seen in this place in recent times which gives me great joy and which I hope will continue long after I leave this place—that is, cross-party female senators working together. That is something we have seen in recent times that has given us much joy but has also worked towards very positive policy contributions.

It has almost been two years since I introduced my original private member’s bill, the Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005, into the Senate on 23 June 2005 to regulate pregnancy counselling services to prevent misleading and deceptive advertising or notification of pregnancy counselling services. Today, following the introduction of the Pregnancy Counselling (Truth in Advertising) Bill 2006 to the Senate last December, which was cosponsored by Senator Troeth, Senator Nettle and Senator Carol Brown, we have the opportunity to finally lay our cards on the table and debate the simplest issue: requiring pregnancy counselling services to be subject to comparable laws regarding misleading advertising as those organisations that are engaged in trade or commerce. What is so difficult about achieving this? We are not singling out particular organisations, as some people and services may claim. Nor would we dare suggest that or force those organisations to provide referrals for terminations. All this bill does is require all pregnancy counselling services, whether they have a certain philosophy, principle or perspective, or are anti-choice or pro-choice, to be up-front and truthful in their advertising.

I originally raised the issue of transparency in pregnancy counselling services in this chamber back in August 2004 and subsequently wrote to Sensis, the company which publishes and distributes the white pages, urging it to remove Pregnancy Counselling Australia from the emergency and community help pages of the white pages and replace it with a non-directive pregnancy counselling service. Sensis responded, highlighting that, following concerns raised the previous year, 2003, it had, in conjunction with Pregnancy Counselling Australia, already altered two previous listings. ‘Abortion trauma’ and ‘Crisis pregnancy counselling’ were altered to read ‘Pregnancy Counselling Australia (Pregnancy termination alternatives and post-termination counselling)’. This response, along with my increasing awareness of a number of other counselling services which do not mention that they do not provide termination services in their advertising and notification material, encouraged me to investigate and push for greater transparency.

What does this bill do? While I have already outlined broadly what this bill sets out to achieve—and, of course, I did that in a fuller form when my original legislation was introduced and at the beginning of my second reading remarks when the bill was reintroduced—I want to outline the objectives very clearly so that people are under no illusions. Firstly, this legislation prohibits pregnancy counselling services, whether the services provide the information in person or over the telephone, from publishing, distributing, displaying or broadcasting via internet, television, telephone, radio or like service, or by post, any material that is misleading or deceptive as to the nature of the services it provides or any material that is likely to mislead or deceive as to the nature of the services it provides. Secondly, the bill ensures that services must be up-front about whether or not they refer for terminations. Thirdly, it requires services which do not provide referrals for terminations of pregnancy to include in any advertising or notification material a statement such as ‘this service does not provide referrals for terminations of pregnancies’ or like statement. I am not wedded to a particular use of words or terminology; to make it clear is the most important thing. Finally, this legislation requires services which do provide referrals for terminations of pregnancy to include in any advertising or notification material a statement that the service does provide referrals for all pregnancy options. Basically, it does not matter what you do, you have to be up-front about it. You cannot give the impression that you do something that you do not do. You cannot deceive; you must be up-front. What is wrong with that?

Obviously, there are penalties for breaching conditions. The bill also ensures that Commonwealth funded pregnancy counselling services are ineligible to receive a grant for financial assistance unless the Commonwealth discloses whether it is a pregnancy counselling service which does not provide referrals for terminations of pregnancy or a non-directive pregnancy counselling service which provides referrals for all pregnancy options.

Additional reporting requirements contained in the bill include that the minister must report annually on the amount of each payment to the states and the name of each service provider receiving the payment and whether each service provider is a pregnancy counselling service which does not provide referrals for termination of pregnancy or is a non-directive pregnancy counselling service which provides referrals for all pregnancy options. All you need to do is disclose it. It is not about saying that the Commonwealth will only fund certain types of pregnancy counselling organisations, because I know that is a criticism that has been levelled at the bill. It does not say that; you just have to disclose what you do and what you do not do in order to get taxpayer dollars. It could not be simpler.

For the record, there is currently no pro-choice federally funded pregnancy counselling service in operation. That is something that we have heard about before in this place. During estimates I have repeatedly questioned the government about its continuation of funding to the previously anti-choice pregnancy counselling helpline, Pregnancy Help Australia, despite the closure of the counselling operations and the establishment of the government’s new pregnancy counselling hotline to the tune of around $15 million. The previous hotline, Pregnancy Help Australia, has not been providing counselling since late last year, with callers instead receiving a recorded message.

There are a number of reasons why this issue is timely. Anecdotes and information have been brought to our attention, a Senate committee has exposed some of these issues and there are many heartfelt stories that have been recorded. There are organisations, women’s groups, social workers, individuals, fathers of daughters who have been affected, police and other people who have brought to our attention a range of issues that have highlighted the fact that, if women do not have the right information up front, especially when they are in a traumatised or highly emotional state, a state of crisis, if they do not have clear, concise, honest, up-front, unbiased information, things can go wrong. This bill is making sure that the advertising at least is up-front and honest. It would put Australia at the forefront of not just women’s rights but the recognition of human rights, highlighting the commitment to transparency in advertising as well as beginning the debate on the regulation of pregnancy counselling services. Anecdotal evidence that has been presented to us over the years reinforces the urgency of this particular issue and highlights the fact that misleading and deceptive information is being provided to women.

Essentially this bill does hold pregnancy counselling services accountable for the information and the advertising that they provide. It creates a safety mechanism for protecting some of the rights of women and their families and their partners, ensuring that they have access to non-directive counselling on all three options. All three pregnancy options are pretty obvious, but for the record they are: adoption, keeping a baby or having a termination. Women have said that they have felt bullied and pressured into continuing their pregnancies, that they have been offered baby clothes and assistance in that form and through government funding if they continue. Again, there are a range of mechanisms or options people may use to try to talk to someone, assist someone or counsel someone. It is not necessarily my definition of non-directive—obviously women have the right to receive information if they request it in those areas—but what we are more concerned about are some of the anecdotes which suggest not just misleading information but downright harmful information being given to women about what would happen to them if they chose to get a referral for a termination. I am sure my colleagues are happy to put some of those issues on the record.

A 37-year-old mother of two contacted my office after a recent experience with Pregnancy Counselling Australia. She had an unexpected pregnancy and she wanted to be fully informed about all of the options available to her before she made a decision. She said:

I am pro-choice but abortion is something I have always hoped I never would have to contemplate. I rang up Pregnancy Counselling Australia and the local Pregnancy Help line looking for specific information. Now these national counselling services had absolutely no idea about services in the Northern Territory and when it came to RU486 the best that anyone could say was that they didn’t think that it was available. And these services were quick to steer me towards the disadvantages of abortion. I got told that my uterus could get perforated, that I could suffer a haemorrhage or infection, that I could retain products of conception. I could potentially risk infertility and of course there were the psychological aspects of guilt, anxiety and depression. And potentially risk not bonding with any future babies. They did not give me any statistical information at all to give an indication regarding the actual incidence of these occurrences. They did not give comparative statistics comparing the risks of these problems post termination with the incidence of the same problems in pregnancy itself.

It is hard to imagine how anyone with women’s best interests at heart would provide that kind of information without some kind of substantiation. A woman who contacted an emergency number from the front of the white pages in Adelaide also reported:

I have had an abortion before and they told me if I had another one I would never be able to get pregnant again. They said I was a definite high risk to get breast cancer and that there were plenty of couples who would adopt my child if I didn’t want it. I said to her ‘you won’t give me information about abortion will you’ and she told me ‘No I don’t believe in it, no-one here does.’

I put on record I do not have a problem with people having those differing views; you have just got to be up-front. If a woman thinks she is contacting a counselling or other organisation in relation to these issues expecting to get unbiased, up-front advice on the options available to her, of which there are three, she needs to be able to tell from the advertisement that that is the organisation she is contacting, not be misled into thinking that they provide other services or stand for something else. Another woman—