John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The central objective of the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill 2013 is to remove Medicare funding for abortions which are undertaken solely for the purpose of gender selection. It is universally acknowledged that abortion for the purpose of gender selection is abhorrent. This is evidenced by the overwhelming support given by both the government and the opposition to a motion passed in this place last week. I wish I could presume the same overwhelming support for this bill that echoes those exact sentiments and aims to unequivocally send the message that gender selection abortion is unacceptable and that Australian taxpayers will not support it.

Unfortunately, the politically based roadblocks that have been thrown up against this bill and against the yet-to-be tabled committee report are not encouraging. That was universally acknowledged by our fellow Australians, who provided 1,150 submissions and other correspondence to the inquiry into this bill—99 per cent of which supported the removal of Medicare funding for gender selection abortion. Included in those 1,150 submissions were several that opposed this bill. One of those submissions, by the Fertility Control Clinic in Melbourne, the largest private abortion provider in Victoria, states that they do receive requests for gender selection abortions. Despite this evidence that gender selection abortions are being sought, despite the overwhelming number of submissions received and despite my own objections, the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee flatly refused to hold a single public hearing—not one. I was told that while attending a public hearing on an inquiry that had received just 27 submissions.

From the outset, I want to say clearly that this bill is a bill of very limited scope. It is limited entirely to Medicare funding for gender selection of abortion—no more, no less. It has been rumoured that this is the beginning of moves to restrict the availability of abortion. I make no secret that I would like to see abortion eradicated but I am not so naive as to believe that it can happen without also providing for the needs of families and women. I firmly believe that abortion should not be used to shame women or make women feel guilty. Every abortion is a tragedy. It is a failure to care and a failure to provide assistance; it is a failure of economics; it is a failure of relationships; and it is a failure of respect for women. These are all issues for another time.

With the incredibly rapid advance in our abilities to detect certain traits in DNA, there may be a time in the future when I will introduce a bill seeking to stop funding for abortions based on the selection of blue-eyed children over brown-eyed or of a dark-skinned child over a white-skinned child. At some point the widely looked for gay gene will no doubt be identified. When it is, will people be happy to support the principle of aborting a child because its DNA suggests it to be gay? Do we allow the deciding factor in whether or not that child should be allowed to live to be whether or not it is gay?

I can tell you now that I am not the one to fear when these decisions are being made. I will not deny life to another human being based on physical features or on race or on sexual orientation. I will be the one fighting for their right to live whether brown-eyed, dark-skinned or gay. As I said, these are fights for another day. But how we approach those fights will be determined greatly by how we vote on this bill. Make no mistake, when those issues arise—and they will—it will be this debate and this parliament's decision on this bill that will be one of the determining factors on who we allow to live in our society.

This bill is solely about restricting the availability of Medicare funding for abortion for the purpose of gender selection, a practice which is morally reprehensible in any circumstance. There is ample evidence that gender selection abortion occurs in countries such as China and India. A recent screening of the film It's a Girl showed how devastating these practices are in those countries. In some places there are over 130 boys born to every 100 girls. The consequences for further generations are frightening as these children approach marriageable age. Already in China girls are being kidnapped as prospective spouses for sons. But there is a more frightening aspect to this.

The root cause of gender selection is a profound disrespect for women. We have heard a lot from members in the other place about misogyny. There is no greater misogyny than choosing to abort a baby because she is a girl. There is no greater misogyny than treating women as breeding machines for future male heirs This attitude of treating women in Third World countries as breeding machines is also evident in the use of Indian women as baby incubators for First World couples. That too is an issue for another time.

There is no argument that gender selection abortions are happening in India and China. The United Nations report Sex Imbalances at Birth. Current trends, consequences and policy implications, published in 2012, documents the spread of sex selection around the world. It is no longer a problem just in China and India; it is also widely encountered in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia and, in south-east Europe, Georgia, Albania and Montenegro. The United Nations has repeatedly called for action to bring an end to this practice. Australia is a signatory to the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, 1994. This means that Australia has agreed to take all necessary action to achieve its objectives. These include action 4.23, which reads:

Governments are urged to take the necessary measures to prevent infanticide, prenatal sex selection, trafficking in girl children and use of girls in prostitution and pornography.

Australia unequivocally voted in favour of action to eradicate prenatal sex selection at UN conferences on women in Cairo in 1994 and Beijing in 1996. We have an obligation to act to prevent this practice. This bill is one way of achieving this. We are kidding ourselves if we believe that this does not happen here. Gender-selection abortion does occur in Western countries. The Council of Europe notes that prenatal sex selection is not confined to Asia. In its resolution on prenatal sex selection it warns that altered sex ratios have been observed in a number of member states. It condemns the practice of prenatal sex selection as a phenomenon which finds its roots in a culture of gender inequality and reinforces a climate of violence against women.

Social and family pressure placed on women not to pursue a pregnancy because of the sex of the foetus is to be considered as a form of psychological violence. The UK Department of Health has also launched an inquiry, following a newspaper investigation into gender-selection termination in British clinics. Sex ratio imbalances have been seen among children of parents of Asian origin in the United States. In 2011, the United Nations Population Fund reported in its guidance notes on prenatal sex selection that, according to the 2000 census of the United States, immigrants from China, India and the Republic of Korea had a sex ratio at birth almost as skewed as in their countries of origin. In Canada, figures show that certain communities with large proportions of immigrants from China and India are also experiencing the same unusual sex ratios as those seen in those Asian countries.

There is no obvious reason why this phenomenon would not also be occurring in Australia. In fact, we have evidence of gender-selection abortion in Australia. Recently a Melbourne GP, Dr Mark Hobart, came forward with a case which occurred in his practice. A couple of Indian origin requested a referral for abortion when a 20-week ultrasound revealed a female foetus. Dr Hobart refused to refer the couple, but they were able to abort the child at an abortion clinic.

As an aside here, I want to bring to the chamber's attention the despicable way in which some have tried to discredit Dr Hobart because he is a member of the DLP. Does being a member of the Greens discredit the medical authority of Dr Richard Di Natale? Does being a member of the Liberal Party discredit Dr Mal Washer and Dr Sharman Stone? Further evidence has come from a sonographer, who described being left with the feeling that she had given a child a death sentence when the female gender of the child was revealed to an Afghani couple. Here we have two cases of gender-selection abortion. Yes, we certainly need more data but we do have evidence.

Many have suggested that this bill was ill conceived because it is difficult to determine that gender-selection abortion takes place. But I have just provided evidence. Others have suggested that there was no evidence that certain cultural groupings where such a practice is common were engaging in gender-selection abortion in Australia.

Interestingly, the same can be said of female genital mutilation. It is difficult to determine how prevalent it may be. Prosecutions are rare. It is practised amongst certain cultural groups. But, in the case of female genital mutilation, a number of educative and legal initiatives have been put in place through the government's National Compact on Female Genital Mutilation. There is no ambiguity in the Compact on FGM. It states clearly that FGM is unacceptable. The compact also declares Australia's commitment to stand by its obligations to the UN, which include taking action to end the practice of FGM for women and girls living in Australia, and for women and girls settling in Australia and throughout the world, who are or may be in the future affected by FGM.

The National Compact on FGM is unswerving in its commitment—and rightly so. We will not excuse or ignore the practice of FGM. The initiative aims to educate migrants and refugees from areas where such practices are culturally acceptable that such a practice is not acceptable in Australia. FGM is illegal in all states and territories, despite the fact that it is difficult to detect.

In their 11 December 2012 press release entitled 'Gillard government to act on female genital mutilation in Australia', the then Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, and the Minister for Health, Ms Plibersek, referred to the practice of FGM as 'barbaric' and 'horrific'. The joint statement continued:

We do not know how widespread this practice is in Australia but we know there have been instances, and anecdotal evidence suggests these are not isolated.

The Prime Minister and the health minister stated that, although there was only limited, apparently anecdotal evidence that this practice had been occurring in Australia, one such procedure in this country is one too many. I suggest that gender-selection abortion is also horrific and barbaric. For gender selection, too, anecdotal evidence suggests it is not isolated. I am willing to give the former Prime Minister and the health minister the last word:

One such procedure performed in this country is one too many.