Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Disabled Women DISABLED WOMEN The Hon. K.L. VINCENT Legislative Council DISABLED WOMEN The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (14:48): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Minister for Health questions regarding the sterilisation of women with disabilities. Leave granted. The Hon. K.L. VINCENT Legislative Council The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The sterilisation of women with disabilities is an issue regularly raised with my office by women with disability, advocates, media and constituents. The stories of the culture pervading much of our medical profession, and some in society, surrounding this issue are of great concern to me. Similar to the patriarchal attitude that is sometimes seen in the abortion debate, for example, many people seem to think they should have a say over the reproductive rights of women with disability, in particular. So concerned about this was the Senate's community affairs committee that they are now conducting an inquiry into the matter, and I am aware that the United Nations is also looking into the issue. In investigating the matter we have found it difficult to get accurate or detailed data, so on the eve of International Women's Day my questions are: 1.	Does the minister acknowledge that this is an issue that needs to be looked into by the Department for Health directly? 2.	Does the minister acknowledge that the data available is not adequate since it does not tell us whether the person sterilised has an intellectual or physical disability, for example? 3.	Will the minister conduct an inquiry into the extent of sterilisation procedures on women with disability in South Australia? 4.	Does the minister agree that improved sex education for all people with disability, particularly women with physical and intellectual disability, might prevent some of the circumstances that arise for these women, their family and their carers? The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council Minister for Sustainability Minister for Water and the River Murray Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for her very important question. As I understand it, the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion led the South Australian government's response to the Inquiry into Involuntary or Coerced Sterilisation of People with Disability in Australia, and I certainly do recall that body of work. Under current legislation, as I understand it, involuntary or coerced sterilisation of people with disability is illegal in South Australia. I have been told that there is no evidence to suggest that it is occurring. In South Australia, only the Guardianship Board or the Family Court can consent to procedures that lead to sterilisation of people who are unable to make their own informed decisions. Nonetheless, we have a commitment to ensure that the rights of people with disability are upheld in our society and that people who have difficulty making decisions are actively supported to make their own choices. I would have thought that the control of one's body is and has to be a primary consideration for all of us. Government and non-government partners are committed to ensuring that people with disabilities are supported to access sexual health, contraceptive and family planning services to ensure alternative options to sterilisation are available. The sterilisation of people without their consent denies their basic human right to control their own bodies or to plan a family and does nothing to reduce their vulnerability to abuse or neglect. South Australia's submission is due with the commonwealth government very soon, with the committee due to report its findings by, I understand, 19 June 2013. On 18 July 2011, the United Nations wrote to the commonwealth government requesting a response to a formal submission by Women with Disabilities Australia that requested intervention on non-therapeutic and forced sterilisation of women and girls in Australia. In response, the commonwealth government committed to undertake an inquiry into the matter. I am advised that, on 20 September 2012, the Senate referred the matter of involuntary or coerced sterilisation of people with disabilities in Australia to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs for inquiry and reporting. Statistics cited by the Guardianship Board of South Australia from 1996-97 to 2010-11 indicate that of the 22 applications for sterilisation, eight had been approved. The Guardianship Board does not report on whether approval was given on therapeutic or other grounds. There were no applications to the Family Court in South Australia for sterilisation of minors from July 1992 to June 2011, I am advised. In late February 2013, a media outlet published an article reporting, 'Health department figures show 24 SA girls were sterilised by hysterectomy in the five years to 2010-11'. SA Health has advised that it does not know the origin of the figure quoted in the article. It has confirmed that it does not publish any information and did not receive any requests for information from the media outlet on this issue, is my advice. The article did not indicate the age of the girls or young women or whether they had a disability. Although the article described girls undergoing 'forced hysterectomies', it is unclear if the quoted figure relates to forced hysterectomies or hysterectomies generally. Although it is difficult to speculate without knowing the source of the data, the hysterectomies may have been a result of a medical condition or complications during pregnancy or the termination of a pregnancy. They may have been performed on girls aged over the age of 16, who are legally able to make decisions about medical procedures. I am told that the article also tells a very distressing story of a woman with disability who was eventually killed by her partner while pregnant with her eighth child. Her seven other children were in the care of the woman's parents, who were seeking authority to have her sterilised. This is a tragic situation, but it is inaccurate to imply that a sterilisation would have prevented this woman's death. I come again to my most important point: the control of one's own body has to be a primary consideration for all of us in this place. I will take the other detailed question the honourable member enumerated and seek a response from the Minister for Health and Ageing in another place on her behalf.