I would like to start my contribution by thanking very much the many
constituents of Western Victoria Region who have contacted me in relation to
this bill. We have been inundated with letters, emails and telephone calls, and
that in itself is testimony to our democracy. However, the health of our
democracy lies in our understanding of differing views.
It is about recognising areas of disagreement, engaging in
debate and moving on.
I became acquainted with abortion reform some 30 years ago.
Many of us are very familiar with these issues as they have been around for a
long time, but media misrepresentations in the last few weeks have prompted me
to speak in the second-reading debate and to lend my support to the bill. The
fact is that the bill is not about abortion per se. It is about taking abortion
out of the Crimes Act. Abortion is prohibited in the Crimes Act 1958. Various
versions of sections 65 and 66 have been operational since 1864. Section 65
provides that an abortion is unlawful at any stage of pregnancy, while section
66 prohibits the supply of an instrument or substance knowing it will be used
unlawfully to terminate a pregnancy.
The Menhennitt legal judgement of 1969 provided the
circumstances in which abortion would be lawful: the term used was ‘therapeutic
abortion’.
However, this legal judgement did not provide guidance as to
what should be taken into account by a medical practitioner when determining
risk and harm to the woman or how to determine whether an abortion was the
appropriate or proportionate response to a woman’s particular circumstances.
Legal jurisdictions interstate and overseas have grappled with
these and other related issues ever since that time, so there has been a general
recognition that clarity is required. Clarity is required for the women
concerned; clarity is required for the medical practitioners involved and, I
would argue, definitely for the community as a whole. This clarity has been
needed for some time, and I was pleased that the government saw fit to refer the
issue to the Victorian Law Reform Commission.
The government did so with clear terms of reference for the
commission, which called for options which would remove abortion offences from
the Crimes Act 1958, where performed by a medical practitioner, reflect current
clinical practice and reflect community standards.
There was widespread consultation, and the law reform
commission received over 500 written submissions. The report addresses the terms
of reference the VLRC was set and provides factual information on current
clinical practice and community attitudes. I take this opportunity to commend
the report for its ability to distil the key issues and for the very focused
dialogue it has with the terms of reference. It is a report that is very accessible to the reader, and the arrival at
the options crystallises and segments the pertinent issues, free from
value-laden bias and emotive discussion. The commission found that 94.6 per cent
of abortions occur before 13 weeks gestation and 4.7 per cent occur after 13
weeks but before 20 weeks. Less than 1 per cent are performed after 20 weeks
gestation.
The bill is based on option B and reflects the two-stage
approach based on 24 weeks gestation. This is current clinical practice. After
24 weeks gestation a registered medical practitioner may perform an abortion
only if the medical practitioner reasonably believes the abortion is appropriate
in all the circumstances and has also consulted at least one other medical
practitioner who reasonably believes the abortion is appropriate in all the
circumstances.
The report from the commission also recommended that any new
abortion laws should not contain the following: a mandated information provision
— recommendation 4, a requirement for mandatory counselling — recommendation
5, a compulsory delay or cooling-off period — recommendation 6, and
restrictions on where abortion procedures may be performed — recommendation 7.
The commission made these recommendations because it considered the current
regulations to be sufficient in the stated areas. I raise these recommendations
now to flag my support for them and my opposition to the proposed amendments
that will be before the house later this evening or tomorrow.
It is not my intention to go through all the provisions of the
bill. Prior contributions explaining the bill have already taken the house to
the pertinent aspects of the legislation. In particular I would like to make
specific mention of the very eloquent contribution made by Ms Broad, a member
for Northern Victoria Region.
I also want to say at this time that I concur with the comments
made by Ms Pulford and Ms Broad about women in regional and rural Victoria and
the specific issues that confront women who are pregnant — the advice, the
access, the cost, the travel and everything they face, as well as a view that is
not pro-choice that is quite prevalent in rural and regional Victoria. I was
heartened to see that there was a significant amount of reportage of this in the
VLRC’s report. In particular I recommend that people read page 47 of the report.
As legislators, we can establish greater surety and greater
clarity, and create an environment through legislation where an individual has
the opportunity to make their own decisions and where other people’s views
cannot be imposed. This includes views owned by people in this chamber. In this
case it is abortion, which is a women’s health issue. As long as women have
conceived, there has been abortion. As women, many of us directly or indirectly
know of the experience. It is a very private issue.
The decision to proceed with an abortion is never taken lightly
and is an extremely difficult time in a woman’s life. For me it is certainly an
experience that automatically generates empathy and solidarity.
I also take this opportunity to acknowledge women, past,
present and in the future, who have or will face a decision on whether or not to
proceed with an abortion. Obviously many of those women will have very intense
and intimate discussions with their partners, medical practitioners and trusted
friends. But it is that very serious conversation within yourself as a woman,
that inner conversation, that is the core of the matter. The capacity to make
that decision must not be eroded. Regardless of what final decision a woman
makes, it is the woman who knows the real meaning of the decision, and under all
circumstances and in every sense this must be respected.
I concur with Minister Maxine Morand, the Minister for Children
and Early Childhood Development in the Assembly: I believe this bill
acknowledges and reflects community attitudes and current clinical practices
that exist in relation to the care and management of women seeking an abortion.
I take this opportunity to thank all the women and men who have been involved in
bringing about abortion reform and who continue to be involved in making sure
that we have access to safe and legal abortion and that women are afforded
dignity, space and privacy in their deliberations. These are the very same
people who want to see a reduction in abortion, greater provision of sex
education and greater knowledge about reproductive health.
At the beginning of my contribution I mentioned recent media
coverage on this issue which I believe has been misleading the Victorian public
into believing the current practice is to allow abortion at 20 weeks and that
this bill will extend the time to 24 weeks.
There has been a lot of coverage in terms of radio interviews,
straw polling and talkback radio, and clearly this perception is not correct. I
was buoyed this morning when I read what I consider to be a balanced editorial
in today’s Herald Sun entitled ‘Time for a decision’, which says:
- While it is understandable that many Victorians oppose the bill, the move to
decriminalise abortion is welcome, as the current legal situation is messy.
- It is banned under the Crimes Act 1958, yet thousands of abortions are
carried out each year under a 1969 court ruling that allows ‘therapeutic’
terminations.
- The clause in the new bill forcing anti-abortion doctors to refer patients
elsewhere has been hotly contested, especially by the Catholic Church.
- However, in the circumstances, the provision seems reasonable.
- Many MPs are rightly troubled that abortions will be easily available until
24 weeks. They should take comfort from the fact that the vast majority of
terminations now occur before 13 weeks gestation.
- Passing the bill will unleash strong emotions on all sides, many of them
negative.
- Nevertheless, on balance, the legislation is a practical response to the
vexed subject of abortion and deserves to be passed.
I echo that last sentence:
- Nevertheless, on balance, the legislation is a practical response to the
vexed subject of abortion and deserves to be passed.
I commend the bill to the house.