HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE (TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 July 2011.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:46): I rise to speak to the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care (Termination of Pregnancy) Amendment Bill. I indicate that I will not be supporting the bill. The doctor/patient relationship is special and governments should be cautious in interposing in it, but this parliament has asserted the primacy of the rights of the patient to medical self-determination. In that context, the parliament has legislated for informed consent. There is no right to medical self-determination if there is no right to appropriate information.

Under section 15 of the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act, a medical practitioner is already obligated to provide the information suggested by this bill in the context of a termination of pregnancy. Section 15 of the act states:

15—Medical practitioner's duty to explain

A medical practitioner has a duty to explain to a patient (or the patient's representative), so far as may be practicable and reasonable in the circumstances—

(a) the nature, consequences and risks of proposed medical treatment; and

(b) the likely consequences of not undertaking the treatment; and

(c) any alternative treatment or courses of action that might be reasonably considered in the circumstances of the particular case.

The bill before us proposes to insert a new section 15A which, in the context of the termination of pregnancy, seeks to give more detail to this right to be informed. The section reads:

15A—Termination of pregnancy

Before any treatment for the termination of a pregnancy in accordance with section 82A(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 is carried out, the medical practitioner who will be performing the termination must, at the time of the personal examination of the woman referred to in that section, ensure the patient has been given a pamphlet in the form prescribed by the regulations, which contains the following:

(a) information with respect to the option of having the baby adopted including general information about the processes involved; and

(b) information with respect to the option of having the baby placed in foster care including general information about the processes involved.

In my view, the information about adoption and the information about foster care are the types of alternative treatment or courses of action that might be considered in the circumstances of a person facing a termination of pregnancy. The question is: is this specific provision (the proposed section 15A) an improvement on the general provision section 15? I think, for a number of reasons, that it is not.

I thought the Hon. Kelly Vincent made a very strong point in her contribution where she highlighted that this information comes relatively late in the process. The information, according to the bill, would be provided at the time of the personal explanation of the woman referred to in that section. That, as I understand it, is a woman who has already made the decision to have a termination, so it is not information to contribute to her decision-making; it is, in effect, an after-the-event impost.

Secondly, the issue of the pamphlet. I would stress that the general duty is a duty not to provide a particular document or a particular set of resources but a duty to explain. The medical practitioner has a responsibility to take whatever resources or whatever steps they believe they need to take to make sure the patient understands the information they need to have informed consent. In that context a pamphlet may well fail. A person with a disability, particularly a cognitive disability, will not be helped at all by a pamphlet. Many people will find, particularly among the younger generation, that information is more accessible and more relevant to them if it is delivered to them in a website or the like.

I am concerned about the one-size-fits-all approach of specifying a pamphlet. I also believe that effectively it gives the opportunity to the medical practitioner the opportunity to dumb down their duty to explain. The Hon. Paul Holloway, on behalf of the government, indicated that there are a range of resources available. I am not so naive to think that these resources are being effectively deployed to provide support to people making these choices, but let us look at it this way: if medical practitioners are currently ignoring their statutory duty to explain under the current general provision, why are they any more likely to comply with a duty that is more specific?

I indicate that I do not support the slippery slope argument offered by the Hon. Ian Hunter. I do not like those arguments when they are offered by conservative members of the house. I know that this Labor government provides itself on being conservative, but I am not attracted to it in this context either. I am not opposing this bill because I do not want to give one chink of light to people who actually believe we should be more restrictive in abortion. I consider this bill on its merits and I do not believe it should be supported on its merits.

I will not support the bill. I would need to know more about what information is currently being deployed and how it could be more effectively deployed, and I would need to be assured that the intent of the legislation could not be better achieved with the flexibility of regulations, policies, improved resources and a better understanding by medical practitioners of their duty to explain.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (20:52): Following on from the Hon. Mr Holloway, who has already given the government's response, I reiterate that, unlike previous bills dealing with the issue, it is not a conscience vote for Labor members of parliament and the government will oppose it on the basis that it is unnecessary. The government believes it is unnecessary because there are legislative provisions that currently exist in South Australia.

Termination of pregnancy is regulated in South Australia under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and its corresponding regulations, Criminal Law Consolidation (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) Regulations 1996, and the act is committed to the Attorney-General. The Hon. Mr Wade has already covered section 15 of the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995, which requires that a medical practitioner, in the provision of medical treatment, which would include a procedure for termination of pregnancy, has a duty to explain the nature, consequences and risks of proposed medical treatment, the likely consequences of not undertaking the treatment and any alternative treatment or courses of action that may reasonably be considered in the circumstances of the particular case.

I also point out that there is available counselling for women considering termination of pregnancy. In addition to the current requirements to see two medical practitioners, as we have heard, who can offer counselling, a range of counselling services are available, including: the South Australian Pregnancy Advisory Service; public hospitals undertaking terminations; 24-hour National Pregnancy Counselling Hotline; SHine SA; Support After Foetal Diagnosis of Abnormality (SAFDA) provides support for people before and after the termination of pregnancy following the diagnosis of an abnormality; SANDS SA (Sudden and Neonatal Death Support) offers support to people who have suffered the death of a baby any time from conception through to after birth, and this includes miscarriage, neonatal death, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy and genetic/medically advised termination; and, also there are counsellors in private practice.

As indicated above, a range of counselling services is already provided by the metropolitan public hospitals where the majority of terminations of pregnancy occur. For these reasons, I recommend that honourable members oppose this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:55): I rise to speak to this bill on behalf of the Greens and I note, as the Hon. Mr Hood noted in his second reading speech on this bill, that abortion is a very difficult topic. There will never come a day when the two sides stand together in harmony, and some in this debate have referred to those sides as pro choice and pro life. I hesitate here to use that description.

Pro life implies that those in favour of providing abortion options to women are somehow not this. On the contrary, those of us who support reproductive options, including abortion, are very much in favour of life. We are in favour of the fully formed, completely realised life of the woman involved and the impact such a decision will have on her mental and physical wellbeing. Descriptions such as 'pro choice' and 'pro life' are therefore deliberately misleading.

As the Hon. Dennis Hood himself stated, those in the so-called pro life camp are very concerned that choices be provided to women facing unplanned pregnancies, particularly the choice of adoption. Similarly, those in the so-called pro choice camp are not just concerned with the life of the woman involved but also the life of the child beyond birth, should the mother decide to carry him or her to birth.

However each side may personally view abortion, as legislators it is far better to focus on the things that unite us here rather than those that divide. I do not think any but the most extreme of activists from either side should deny, or would deny, that our highest priority has always been trying to support women as they grapple with the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy.

I must also take this moment to acknowledge the Hon. Dennis Hood's view that, although circumstances may differ from case to case, no child is unwanted. There are, indeed—he is not going to like this bit—many thousands of couples and single people in South Australia who are not only desperate to become parents but also have the capability to provide love and security to children whose birth parents cannot care for them, and in that way that is some part of the story.

So, in a sense, I do agree with him: there will, in fact, always be people around who want a child. However, it is unrealistic, and perhaps disrespectful, to the woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy to disallow her the use of the term 'unwanted'. We do not know the circumstances that caused her to become pregnant.

Yes: there may be people desperate for children who could claim that they considered no child unwanted; but, for the pregnant woman who may have been perhaps raped, abused, abandoned or simply in a position where she cannot emotionally or financially care for that child, the sense that this is the very last thing that she wants is very keen.

Further, it is all very well and good to say that no child is unwanted but this is, sadly, untrue. There are, of course, many unwanted children in the world, both in Australia and internationally. We have evidence of children suffering horrific neglect and abuse throughout South Australia. The last decade has seen the revelation of terrible abuse within organisations and institutions that have claimed to protect children. Countless guardians have been exposed as having violated the trust and physical autonomy of children in their care. To this day in this state, we have children living in apartments without parents and without ongoing care, and that is a tragedy.

It is also no doubt tragic when loving couples and single people are desperate to become parents and yet they cannot have children of their own; but it is tragic when there are often narrow limitations on what kind of children people want. Typically, adoptive parents want children as close to new-born as possible. There is nothing shameful in this. The urge to parent a child from birth is strong. However, before we perhaps wax lyrical about the countless numbers of unborn babies that could satisfy the scores of willing parents in this state, we should also take a look at the current system of children in care, particularly those for whom the 'cuddly factor' has disappeared.

It is no secret that, past a certain age, the likelihood of a child being adopted diminishes rapidly. In fact, the majority of children adopted over the age of 10 are only largely done so by other family members. Similarly, the parameters we place on who we allow to become adoptive parents in South Australia also need to change. We enjoy the legacy of Don Dunstan and his role in claiming South Australia as a socially progressive state, yet, since the days of Dunstan, we have fallen dramatically behind the other states when it comes to law reforms around sexual orientation. We are, in fact, the only jurisdiction in Australia to deny single women and lesbians access to IVF, unless in cases of medical infertility, although perhaps members of the government might like to see that change soon.

We deny same-sex couples the right to access altruistic surrogacy. When it comes to adoption—supposedly one of the greatest gifts you can give to people unable to have a child, people with the very financial and emotional capability of raising that child, those same people who would view no pregnancy, no child, as unwanted—we say that the only people allowed to open their homes to these children are heterosexual couples in a married or de facto relationship.

Those who would see this discrimination continue claim that they are doing so in support of children's rights. They argue that children have the right to a mother and a father, but that is not really true. What children have an inalienable right to is to be raised in a home where they are loved, cared for and encouraged. Nothing is perfect in this world, yet I think every family, in its own incarnation, can be perfect.

There can be no sense of satisfaction in trying to put strict parameters on how children should be raised, because sometimes life has other plans. There are countless successful and well-adapted adults who were raised in single-parent families. There are many others who were raised by same-sex couples with no conceivable damage or spiritual malnourishment. We know that hundreds, if not thousands, of children in Australia have suffered neglect or abuse in a family home that consists of a mother and a father. There are no hard and fast rules when it comes to parenting, only that the ability to love and support your child be paramount.

Until we change the laws surrounding adoption and other modes of parenting in South Australia, what we are really saying is this: there is no such thing as an unwanted child, but your ability to provide a loving home for them is secondary to our belief that they will be better off with no parents than with just one, or with two parents of the same sex.

Perhaps we should be honest and call a spade a shovel. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby, but there are countless examples of unwanted children in our state. If we want to reduce the abortion rate while raising the adoption rate, we have to actually begin caring about what happens to these children once they pass the stage of total dependency into toddling and beyond. We have to be equally concerned with providing loving homes to troubled children or to children with special needs. We cannot use the argument that no potential children are unwanted when we routinely turn our backs on living ones who are.

As pregnancy and child rearing are such personal decisions, we have to ensure that all information provided to women considering their options is free of an agenda. I acknowledge that the Hon. Dennis Hood has gone to great lengths to attempt to achieve that with his bill, however, it is also to be acknowledged here that it is actually very difficult for women to gain access to clear, concise information regarding adoption in South Australia.

Additionally, there are emotional considerations for women should they carry a child to term. A far greater degree of counselling is required to help a woman come to terms with an adoption than with an abortion. There are a host of legal questions that will be paramount for women facing that choice. Can she change her mind? Is she able to access an open adoption here in South Australia? What form might that open adoption or perhaps a fostering arrangement take? Are private adoptions available? This information needs to be freely available—and I would also say that this area of the law needs to be reformed to make these options available—so that women can make an informed choice about the outcome of their pregnancy.

In supporting informed consent, we need to be careful about allowing political agendas to influence reproductive legislation. As with current abortion providers, we need to ensure that impartiality is maintained. No woman should be forced into having an abortion, but nor should they be guilt-tripped into having a baby. We have seen the terrible ramifications of what happens when women are forced to surrender their babies for adoption.

If we legislate to provide more information on adoption options for pregnant women, we must also ensure that counselling and care are provided to deal with the aftermath. We must also have better supports for women who want to actively choose adoption and fostering. There can be common ground here between the two sides of the abortion debate. We must not forget that the woman is actually at the centre of this debate. An unwanted pregnancy is not just an inconvenience, it is an incredibly painful and emotional experience marked not just by uncertainty but often, of course, by fear. Any legislation needs to reflect that the outcome is ultimately the choice of the woman concerned, and the best that we can do here is to provide her with all the information that she needs to make that decision and the widest range of options to support our children in South Australia.

We owe the children left to slip through the cracks the respect of not pretending that their welfare is contingent upon the gender of the parents who want to provide them with a home. We owe society the respect of knowing that we can be better than that—that we can be just the kind of community that cares about all children, not just the ones who have not been born yet.

With that, I indicate that the Greens will not be supporting this bill today, although we certainly do not join the chorus condemning the Hon. Dennis Hood for trying to make a difference in the lives of children in this state.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (21:05): I rise to speak to the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care (Termination of Pregnancy) Amendment Bill introduced to this place by the Hon. Dennis Hood. This is a simple and straightforward bill that requires women attending pregnancy advisory clinics and receiving information on abortion also to be provided with information on adoption as another option.

This bill has been turned around basically to be portrayed in this place as something that it is not. This is not about whether or not women will ever have to forgo their choice to have an abortion. This is about providing women with information of an option that should exist. I have a whole thing prepared here, but I might do one of my raves—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Not a long one. I do not buy the argument that the Hon. Ian Hunter tried to represent in his speech that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. If we are going to talk about slippery slopes and abortion we are already there. The legislation for abortion was introduced for women who had life-threatening conditions or illnesses, or for whatever medical reason it would be life threatening for them to see through the pregnancy.

I attended a function the other night where I heard that 98 per cent of abortions are now occurring because women can claim that it would be psychologically harmful for them to go through with the pregnancy. I do not deny that there are women out there who can go to a clinic and seek out information on abortion, have an abortion and walk out of that clinic and never give it another day's thought, or so they think.

I also believe that there are women and young girls who, when they find out they are pregnant, are in a distressed state and who are referred to these so-called pregnancy advisory clinics. Let me tell you that they are almost forced to consider no other option. There is one group of people who can cope with that, cope with an abortion, and recover and move on with their lives—free-for-all. There is another group of women over here who cannot.

There are young women at school (and I have heard this from a school counsellor) who, as soon as the school finds out they are pregnant, are referred to one of these clinics to make arrangements to have an abortion. This is the school intervening in that process. The family is cut out of this, and that young girl, that young teenager, is then forced to deceive her family and do something that may be against her very grain, and that leaves that girl scarred for the rest of her life.

There are certain things that we need to consider with this—that it is not just about a one-size-fits-all situation for women who are having abortions. If we do not consider both sides of this then we are doing one side a terrible disservice. No-one is saying that women who go into an abortion clinic or a pregnancy advisory clinic seeking information on abortion is going to be talked out of an abortion. What we do know is that many are talked into an abortion, and we have to level that out a little bit, I think. It is our responsibility to level that out a little bit.

The Hon. Ian Hunter also used the example of women who have been raped and have fallen pregnant from that experience, that they would automatically want to get rid of that baby. That is not entirely true either. There are women who have been raped who do not consider abortion, or would not have considered abortion if they had not been put into a situation where they felt that they had no support to have a baby.

I met a 19-year-old girl who was raped and fell pregnant. She was basically abandoned by her family because she would not agree to have an abortion. The mother toddled her along to the clinic. That girl said to me, 'Ann, my baby didn't commit a crime. My baby is being punished for the crime of the person who raped me.'

So, there are always two sides to these stories. There are always different circumstances, women who cope with different things in different ways, and I do not believe that the arrangements that we have around abortion manage the side of the female population who would rather keep their baby than have an abortion but do not quite know how to go about it, or would rather have their baby and adopt it out than go through the trauma of an abortion.

I have seen this in my own family and I have seen it in my years in drug treatment. Nobody picks up the pieces of this. We just had a list from the Hon. John Gazzola of all of the services that are available for women who are planning to have an abortion, have had an abortion, have lost a baby, etc. The fact of the matter is that these young women are not referred to those services, they are left to flounder on their own most of the time. These young girls end up very depressed, they feel ashamed and they feel guilt, and a lot of them turn to drugs and alcohol to try to forget the trauma of it.

We are basically in here tonight saying that none of that exists, that none of that happens and that this is all about pro choice. I am all for women having choices. I, personally, could not have an abortion, but that is me. As a legislator, I understand that is not the road we go down. I understand that there are women who would choose to have an abortion and I do not condemn them for that, but I also understand that there are women who, with the right sort of counselling, the right sort of assistance and the right kind of information, would be able to make an alternative choice that actually suits them and will help them to move on with their life in a much more functional way.

I support this bill. I support the sentiments of it. While we are talking about 5,000 babies in South Australia that are being aborted, on the other hand we are talking about access to reproductive technology for gay and lesbian couples. Does nobody else see the contradiction here?

We hear from the Hon. Tammy Franks, and I agree with her, that there are many children out there who are caught up in the state system. Those children are not offered for adoption. Let us not kid ourselves. It is not that people would not adopt them, it is that people are not given the opportunity to adopt them, even foster parents who express a need or a want to take on a child in that role are not allowed to do it.

All of those other arguments are peripheral to what this bill actually means, and that is that women are given both sides, both options, to make the decision for themselves, the decision that they can live with, and if they want to have the baby and adopt it out a pathway to be able to do that. That is all that this bill is asking. So, on those grounds I support this bill and I am saddened to hear some of the arguments that have been put up here tonight.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (21:14): I rise to support the bill as well. In doing so, I want to comment on a couple of contributions that have been made, both tonight and on a previous occasion. I have to say that one of the saddest contributions I have seen to the debate in this chamber was the contribution that the Hon. Mr Hunter gave on this particular bill. Sad from the viewpoint that the Hon. Mr Hunter seems to have a pathological hatred of Family First and organised religion, in some way.

We have seen that demonstrated on a number of previous occasions. Sadly, again, it was demonstrated in his contribution on this particular bill. These were the words that he was using about the bill, the Hon. Mr Hood, Family First and those who support the views being expressed by the Hon. Mr Hood and his party: 'offensive, condescending and, at best, insincere', 'Family First's paternalistic and patronising approach to women's rights' and so it went on.

I will defend the Hon. Mr Hunter's rights to have his points of view. He does not need me to defend them, but that is my view. He is entitled to his points of view, but I think it is sad and it is demeaning for him as an individual and for the party that he represents. So often, whenever we have these particular debates, because there is somebody in this chamber or in the community that has a different view on these sorts of issues, he (the Hon. Mr Hunter) resorts to personal abuse in a very sad and demeaning way of both the individual, the party and the people that they represent and the views that they represent in this chamber.

I do not have a problem with the Hon. Mr Hunter on this issue and on many others, strongly disagreeing and indicating where he has opposition to it. But from my viewpoint anyway, when it resorts on these sorts of difficult moral, social and religious issues with overtones of all of those elements in a particular debate, to approach the debate in the way that he virtually always does, I think, reflects poorly on him as an individual and by inference his own party.

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member should get to the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am talking about the bill.

The PRESIDENT: Including what you are accusing the Hon. Mr Hunter of doing.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, I have not called him anything—just sad.

The PRESIDENT: You're being sad, I think.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, your particular preferences, Mr President, are of no particular concern to me at all, frankly, in relation to this particular issue.

The PRESIDENT: And yours to Mr Hunter, I am sure.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If you want to express a view, sit down on the benches and give the Hon. Mr Gazzola the presidency and express the point of view that you wish on the bill.

The PRESIDENT: I can express my point of view from here.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, you could do it at the appropriate time but not whilst I am speaking. If you want to, you stand in your chair, Mr President, and ask me to sit down—

The PRESIDENT: I don't have to be told by you what I can do.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —and you can then put your point of view. But until then, please desist from interjecting. I have a contribution to make and I intend to. I will not be diverted by your intemperate—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Very good advice.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will not be diverted by your intemperate interjections from the chair, Mr President, trying to defend the indefensible in relation to the position of the Hon. Mr—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, he obviously does because you are providing the interjections from the chair trying to defend the indefensible—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wade will put a sock in it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: —on this particular issue. Even you, Mr President, are not going to be able to defend the position of the Hon. Mr Hunter on this particular occasion. As I said, I do not agree with much of what the Hon. Mr Hunter said in relation to the bill and other members (the Hon. Ann Bressington and others) have responded to elements of the contribution made by the Hon. Mr Hunter.

The other contribution that I wanted to comment on was a contribution this evening from the Hon. Ann Bressington because I thought it brought a refreshing insight to what is a difficult issue. Let me be the first to concede: the Hon. Ms Bressington's background knowledge and exposure to the issues that she addressed in relation to this bill are much more comprehensive than mine, and I suspect that it is much more comprehensive than a number of other members' who have made contributions to this particular piece of legislation.

She has had the experience, through her professional life, in assisting young people through these difficult issues, whereas, I suspect that most of us in this chamber have not. She has had to provide advice, she has had to provide counselling, and she has also had to assist after difficult decisions have been taken by young people, young women in particular, as she indicated, some as young as 13 and 14.

She has knowledge from a firsthand basis of a lot of the theory—not practical knowledge—that other members, myself included, do not have of these particular issues. Whilst some members have parroted government advisers in relation to the services available, the Hon. Ms Bressington was able to indicate the real world perspective rather than the comments that the Hon. Mr Gazzola parroted on behalf of the government on this issue.

The Hon. Ms Bressington raised the issues of the practical circumstances of young girls as young as 13 and 14, and the real world experience and the advice that pregnancy advisory services provide. Again, I am just not in a position—and I suspect that most members are not—to be able to say with firsthand knowledge what sort of advice is provided by those particular services and centres. We can, if we are members of the government, parrot what the government advisers tell us. We from the opposition, like myself, could perhaps parrot the advice of others who do not like the sorts of services they provide.

However, the Hon. Ann Bressington is the one person in this debate thus far who has stood up and been able to indicate from real-world, firsthand, practical experience a knowledge of what actually goes on and what sort of advice is provided to young girls and young women in particular. I think the rest of us are better informed for having listened to that.

I thought it was also refreshing because too often in this chamber I suspect there would have been pressure on the Hon. Ann Bressington from the female mafia out there in relation to this issue; that is, if you are a feminist, you have to have a particular point of view on this bill, and if you believe in women's rights you have to vote in a particular way on this bill. As the Hon. Ms Bressington said, they do not know the Hon. Ann Bressington—

The Hon. A. Bressington: They don't come near me.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They don't come near you. I think it is refreshing that the Hon. Ann Bressington stood up in this chamber tonight and provided us with some actual knowledge, some real-world knowledge, of what are difficult issues. Whilst acknowledging my views on those diametrically opposed contributions from the two members, to me this is a relatively simple measure. It is not, as some members such as the Hon. Mr Hunter have sought to portray it, an evil and sinister first step in changing the current position on abortion in South Australia.

It is what it is; that is, it is an issue of whether we do or do not support the provision of information to young girls, and young women in particular, who have to make a difficult decision. I heard stories that the Hon. Dennis Hood was really after distributing leaflets that would have on them grotesque images of aborted foetuses and those sorts of things. However, the information provided by his office is that the information will be provided by the department in line with government policy. It will not be prepared by the pro-life or pro-choice groups.

I suspect the Hon. Mr Hood in closing the debate will address some of these claims that have been made about what he was really up to and provide some facts from his viewpoint in relation to it. That is the advice that his office has provided to me and other members of parliament in relation to the bill.

The only other point I will make is that we have seen a number of bills come through this parliament—the Fair Work Act and the Child Employment Bill—which have provisions for the distribution of leaflets or pamphlets to outline the particular rights and responsibilities of employers or, in the case of the Fair Work Act, the rights provided to all employees. There are a number of other examples, of course, in legislation as well.

As I said, to me, it is what it is, and that is a proposal to provide information to young girls and young women, in particular, as they make a difficult decision, to at least highlight other options that are available to them, together with the options they might already have been considering that, if one accepts the facts and the advice from the Hon. Ms Bressington, they are being pushed into by various advisory services and others that exist within the broader health system as they make these decisions. For that reason, I indicate that I wholeheartedly support the proposal from the Hon. Mr Hood.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (21:26): I want to make a few brief comments. Like the Hon. John Gazzola, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the Hon. Paul Holloway when he responded on behalf of the government on 29 July 2011. I think that we should make it quite clear that the issues of abortion is one of conscience for members of the Labor Party. However, in relation to the legislation before us, the government is of the view that what we have here is about administrative matters.

Everybody has said that this is really a simple bill, but the government believes that what the honourable member is proposing is already available as part of the counselling and package of information available to women who attend at public hospitals. I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Ann Bressington. In relation to the Hon. Dennis Hood, I personally understand and respect the honourable member's good intentions. However, the government does believe that this bill is unnecessary, and members of the government will not be supporting it for that reason.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (21:28): I will be fairly brief in my summing-up comments, but I do want to commence by thanking people for their contributions, both for and against. We have had a number of people contribute, with various levels of passion. The abortion issue is one that brings out very substantial levels of passion in people. You do not meet many people who are on the fence, if I can put it that way. Generally, people tend to have strong feelings either way on this issue. It probably brings out the best and worst in all of us at some time.

I do want to briefly address some of the issues that I have been raised. I can count; this bill will obviously be defeated tonight and, I must say, that is to my great sadness. I have attempted to introduce what I see as a very modest measure—about as modest as I could possibly imagine—on this issue. It really was a genuine attempt and nothing more to simply provide information to women at a very sensitive time.

I think the Hon. Ann Bressington said it very well. In my experience and in my discussions with literally hundreds of women who have been through these circumstances, the truth is that a vast number of those women really never even considered they had the option to adopt that child or that foster care was an option; they were not even aware of it. The decision for them was a very quick one because they felt they were being encouraged in a certain direction in many, many cases. This bill would do nothing more than provide information to women in those circumstances.

Where I stand, more information helps people make a better decision, not a worse one. That is all it is: more information—simple information about how a women or a girl, as it often is, in that circumstance would go about placing that child up for adoption or placing the child into foster care. In fact, we have heard claims that all these measures are already explained. It is not entirely true: indeed, it is largely untrue. I have copies here, which members are welcome to look at afterwards if they wish, of the websites concerned at the pregnancy advisory centres, and there is actually no mention of foster care at all. It is just not there. There is a one-line mention of adoption in passing amongst the massive text of other material. The truth is that the suggestion that this is already well covered, as the government has put forward, just simply is not the case.

Currently, there is no mandatory requirement for consistent information to be provided to women in these circumstances whatsoever. There is no mandatory requirement, and what we see is that inconsistent information is delivered to women in these circumstances. This is an attempt to help and merely to provide information, nothing more.

I also think that it should be noted at this point (and I said I would be brief, and I will be) that we are at the very liberal end of abortion legislation in this country. In Europe, of course, they have much greater restrictions: they allow abortion, but requirements are placed on doctors in particular to provide information. Some countries even actively discourage abortion; Germany, for example, not surprisingly, has an abortion rate about half that in Australia. There are 5,000 abortions approximately in South Australia every year—about 20 every working day.

I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for his usual lucid contribution, as I do the Hon. Ann Bressington. At this stage, they are the only speakers who have spoken in favour of the bill. I thank them, but, as I said, I also thank those who have spoken against the bill. I appreciate that this is an issue that creates substantial sentiment.

For those who are interested, I also have a letter of support for the bill from the Archbishop of the Catholic Church. He has indicated in writing his support for the bill. I think I will leave it there. There is so much I could say, and I did have a number of points, but at the end of the day this bill will be defeated tonight. That is unfortunate, as I think it would have benefited many women in difficult circumstances.

The council divided on the second reading:

AYES (6)
Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Hood, D.G.E. (teller)
Lee, J.S. Lucas, R.I. Stephens, T.J.
NOES (11)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Franks, T.A. Gago, G.E. (teller)
Gazzola, J.M. Hunter, I.K. Kandelaars, G.A.
Lensink, J.M.A. Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W.
Wade, S.G. Zollo, C.
PAIRS (2)
Brokenshire, R.L. Wortley, R.P.


Majority of 5 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT