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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table the explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (MEDICARE FUNDING FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF ABORTION) BILL 2013

The purpose of this Bill is to remove Medicare funding from the abhorrent practice of abortion for sex selection. This practice has, for many years, attracted the attention of the international community to the tendency in many cultures to prefer a boy child over a girl child. Such a practice is prevalent in some cultures in particular where there is a cost burden associated with female children and where family size is forcibly restricted by a one-child policy. The enormity of this concern had been the subject of many discussions at the United Nations where five key agencies have joined in condemning the practice: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) and the World Health Organization (WHO).

To suggest that this situation is confined to Asian or South East Asian countries is either naïve or deliberately ignores the fact that this practice occurs in Australia and not only within migrant communities. There are documented cases of sex selection abortion in Australia not only for a preferred male child but for 'family-balancing'.

In the weeks since I announced by intention to move this Bill I have had contact from surprising people. I have had doctors offer evidence of this situation from within their own practice. Some of these doctors are pursuing the issue within their professional association, others lament that there is no recourse under present State laws to prevent abortion for sex selection. It is not illegal to have an abortion on the basis of the sex of the foetus. The law does not require women to give a reason for abortion.

Interestingly, it is illegal for couples to select the sex of the child when undergoing IVF—except for some medical circumstances. It is, however, common for sex-selection for 'family-balancing' to be requested by IVF patients. So far this has not received ethical approval anywhere in Australia, but there are many documented cases of Australian couples travelling overseas for IVF so that they may select the sex of their child. Again, I have evidence that requests for sex-selection to IVF ethics boards are growing, and many are concerned that these same couples may be resorting to sex selection abortion when their requests are denied.

It is obscene and offensive to suggest that the gender of a child can be its death sentence; that we select our own children on the basis of gender. As Australian families have shrunk, the pressure to have one of each has increased. Children are no longer a unique gift in themselves but are increasingly expected to conform to designer standards. Accessories to complete our chosen lifestyle—just check out the latest pregnancy magazines on your newsstand.

The problem of sex-selection abortion has been the subject of serious and on-going discussion amongst doctors in Canada, the United States and in the United Kingdom. The American Association of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists takes the issue seriously. The Canadian Medical Journal has carried numerous articles over the last twelve months discussing the best methods for controlling the problem.

To suggest that it does not happen in Australia, as some of my colleagues in this place have done, is an exercise in deliberate avoidance of the issue or to have some bizarre view that Australians are morally superior to the rest of humanity.

Sex-selection abortions do happen in this country. That they happen is of deep moral abhorrence. It is something we should not tolerate under any circumstances. That a child will be destroyed if it is not of the desired gender is obscene. In an era when we claim equality for women and men, it is even more scandalous. Human beings are valued for their dignity as human persons. If having a boy to 'carry on the family name' is out-moded then so too should we shun the pressure for our children to be complementary book-ends. Sex-selection abortion is a further means of entrenching sexual prejudice and devaluing the human person.

This Bill aims to remove any government sanction to these abhorrent practices of abortion for sex selection.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.