Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

There is a temptation, when talking about abortion, to skim over the tough emotional reality of the procedure and to try to engage with the issue of the termination of pregnancy on a more technical and removed level. When you do that, the emotional reality is sometimes not considered. We try not to think about abortion because it is such a difficult and troubling issue. But, as senators, we need to really engage with this issue. We need to acknowledge the emotions and the desperation of women who consider abortion and we need to acknowledge the reality of the unborn life that was lost.

The issue of whether the Senate should disallow Medicare item 16525 can seem like a technical issue. But it does have an impact on the lives of women and their unborn children, and that is why Family First has taken the issue so seriously. Family First opposes abortion and believes more should be done to help women facing a difficult pregnancy, which would help reduce the abortion rate. How can we make our community more supportive of mothers and their babies?

The proposal before the Senate is to disallow Medicare item 16525, which provides a direct subsidy of $273 for second trimester abortions. Disallowing item 16525 is unlikely to cut the number of abortions but it would send a clear signal that the parliament is not willing to give financial support for the abortion, at up to 26 weeks of gestation, of an unborn child, some of whom are old enough to be delivered.

But the issue is not that straightforward. Item 16525 covers a range of procedures other than second trimester abortion. Family First is concerned that these other legitimate procedures should continue to be offered. For example, item 16525 includes subsidising medical help for women suffering a spontaneous intra-uterine death—or, in lay terms, miscarriage. That assistance should obviously continue to be offered to women. The Department of Health and Ageing gave evidence that it is possible to relatively quickly redefine Medicare item numbers, so a subsidy for these non-abortion items could still be provided if item 16525 were disallowed. But, in evidence given to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, it became clear that, whether item 16525 continues to exist or not, all of the procedures will still be offered at public hospitals. There were claims that abolishing item 16525 would impact unfairly on lower-income women. But those claims are not credible given that the $273 fee covers only a small proportion of the full cost of procedures. For a second-trimester abortion, a woman would have to cover the balance of the cost, which ranges from $1,250 to $4,000. Clearly, low-income women would attend a public hospital rather than go to that expense.

Family First do not believe second-trimester abortions should be allowed to occur in private for-profit abortion clinics. Family First believe that public hospitals are the only place where second-trimester abortions should be provided because they offer a greater level of safety for women. Private for-profit abortion clinics can be too easily distracted by financial and commercial interests and are not bound by the same level of public scrutiny and accountability that is required of public hospitals. Family First’s preference for public hospitals is relative because we still oppose the abortions offered. But at least the abortions are offered at an improved level of safety for women, and the number of abortions is not at the same risk of being driven by profits.

On a different matter, evidence given to the committee revealed a disturbing view that unborn children with disabilities should be aborted to save the public purse. That is unbelievable. I will say it again: evidence given to the committee revealed a disturbing view that unborn children with disabilities should be aborted to save the public purse. This view was even contained in a submission by the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development. Nobody is perfect. It is exceedingly arrogant for people to both assume that the lives of people with disabilities are not worth living and to advocate that they not be allowed to be born because their care would cost money. It is clear that children with disabilities and their parents deserve much more support than is offered by governments and the community. Family First supports the motion to disallow Medicare item 16525 whilst wanting the other procedures under this item to be covered. Therefore, Family First will support the motion to disallow this particular item.