Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the matter of urgency before this chamber. In doing so I'll look at both the issue of urgency and the issue itself, noting that it is my view that this particular urgency motion should not have been put forward in the manner that it has been.

Standing order 75 provides for urgency motions to be put before the Senate as a question about whether a particular matter is urgent, not whether the Senate agrees with a particular position on a matter beyond its urgency. This motion attempts to do both, and, in my view, it can't. The issue with this motion in particular is that, if the premise of the motion is to be accepted, the Senate is also then accepting its urgency. The problem then turns to the acceptance of the premise. As I will go into further, the premise of the urgency motion cannot be taken at face value.

We will now be asked to vote on this matter, which is really a position of the Senate on the substantive point, not the element of urgency. With only a few hours' notice—as opposed to if this were a debate, where it should be an item of general business—it is not right or reasonable to expect senators in this place to do so in a limited debate capped at 30 minutes without the opportunity for context, without the opportunity to question, without the opportunity to scrutinise the information before us.

This matter has been subject to some examination in the Senate and its committees. In particular it was subject to an inquiry by the Community Affairs References Committee, which reported about a year ago. That was in relation to the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill.

What is critically important in relation to this issue—and any other issues, for that matter, that this chamber addresses—is that we keep in mind the language that we use, the accuracy of the information that we share and the transparency for the reasons that we share them. This is not our playground. The things that we do here matter. There are also questions as to the accuracy of the information contained in this motion. This is a matter of great sensitivity. There is no question about that. The motion, as set out, is very black and white. The matters which it deals with are not. And also let me be clear that the Senate is not a forum for a pseudo-debate on the matter of abortion. That doesn't belong in here. In addition to this, our Constitution is very clear—this is not a matter for the Commonwealth; this is a matter for the states. Both my state of New South Wales and the state of South Australia have already dealt with it.

More broadly, the complex issues that arise from the contents of this motion are challenging for most people but particularly for women, and they are deeply personal. They are not decisions that are made either lightly or flippantly and should not be open to judgement by others. In many cases these decisions are informed on the basis of medical necessity, and we should think very, very carefully as to the appropriateness of elected representatives making healthcare decisions for Australian women. That is not why any of us have been elected to serve here.

The underlying nuance of this motion is a matter of conscience. I'm proud to belong to a party that not only recognises the rights of the individual but empowers those rights, not just in everyday life but also in our roles in the chambers of this place and of the other place.

I would like to address the premise and go through some of the evidence that was tendered through the committee process on the corresponding bill to assist the Senate in forming a view on this matter of urgency. In one of the submissions received, evidence was provided that the premise of the corresponding bill relied on an inaccurate and misinformed understanding of the complexities of foetal gestation, survival, healthcare providers, professional roles and women's vulnerabilities.

It is critical that, in discharging our duties, particularly in the Senate, we reflect on our obligations to appropriately scrutinise the matters that come before us, particularly complex matters, which this one is. We have to consider all information, whether we agree with it or not. We should be deeply concerned, when considering such matters, that we are allowing what are personal decisions on issues between an individual and their healthcare practitioners to become politicised and serve agendas that have very little to do with medical care.