Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this private senator's bill, the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill 2013, brought forward by Senator Madigan, a DLP senator for Victoria. The bill seeks to remove Medicare funding for abortion procured on the basis of gender. This bill is not about abortion per se. Schedule 1 of the bill proposes to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 by inserting a proposed new section 17A. Proposed new section 17A(1) provides that a Medicare benefit is not payable if:

(a) the professional service involves a medical practitioner performing:

(i) a medically induced termination on a pregnant woman;

(ii) a service that relates to or is connected with performing a medically induced termination on a pregnant woman; and

(b) the termination is carried out solely because of the gender of the foetus.

The explanatory memorandum of the bill suggests that the bill would have limited financial impacts. The explanatory memorandum also states that the bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

It has been said—and certainly Senator Madigan recognised this in his speech—that this bill was brought before the Senate as a stunt by a senator from the Democratic Labor Party. Senator Madigan, however, in his maiden speech, clearly outlined for the Senate those matters in which he has a passionate belief and upon which he intends to uphold his principles. I just want to quote from Senator Madigan's maiden speech. He said:

During my time here there will no doubt be a number of controversial bills proposed. I do not intend to be deliberately controversial simply for a few cheap headlines but on some issues I cannot be complicit by my silence.

As someone who believes we live in a democratic society that places great value on freedom—freedom of speech, of thought and of expression—I support Senator Madigan's right to stand up and stand by his principles and bring this bill before the Australian Senate.

Whilst the issue of abortion is one that probably encourages and creates much debate, we should always support a position that encourages respect for the views and opinions of others. Plurality of ideas and views, underpinned by common values and goals, is the basis for a healthy democracy. Indeed, I am reminded of the words of French philosopher and social reformer Voltaire, who, in the 1700s, was known as a defender of religious freedom, free trade and civil liberties and was also a determined fighter against the limitations of censorship, religious dogma and intolerance. So many years ago, in support of the democratic right of others to express a view, he said:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The background to this bill is set out in the explanatory memorandum tabled by Senator Madigan when he introduced this private senator's bill. The explanatory memorandum sets out that in 2011 the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, and the World Health Organization issued an interagency statement entitled Preventing gender-biased sex selection. The report refers to the practice of gender selection as discriminatory and greatly prejudicial towards the girl child and women in society.

In addition to the interagency statement, the explanatory memorandum notes that the United Nations Population Fund has urged governments to fulfil the commitments made at the 1994 Cairo population conference to:

… take the necessary measures to prevent infanticide, prenatal sex selection, trafficking in girl children.

The interagency statement and the 1994 Cairo population conference identify that gender selection abortions do occur in countries such as China, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taiwan, South Korea, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Armenia and a number of other countries, and in such overwhelming numbers that they have drastically skewed the sex ratio.

I also note that the 2011 interagency statement entitled Preventing gender-biased sex selection from the UN agencies and the World Health Organization reaffirms the commitment of the United Nations to:

… uphold the rights of girls and women and to address the multiple manifestations of gender discrimination including the problem of imbalanced sex ratios caused by sex selection.

In speaking to Senator Madigan's private senator's bill, I note that the Australian Senate recently passed a motion put forward by Senator Madigan in relation to gender based sex selection. The motion called on the Senate to note that five United Nations agencies had issued a combined report calling for urgent steps to be taken to address gender biased sex selection. It also called on the Senate to note that, according to the 2000 United States census, the sex ratio at birth for migrants to the United States of America from China, India and the Republic of Korea was almost as skewed as in their countries of origin. At the UN International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1984 and at the Fourth World Conference on Women, in Beijing in 1995, Australia committed to:

… enact and enforce legislation protecting girls from all forms of violence, including female infanticide and prenatal sex selection.

It also called upon the Australian Senate to condemn the practice of gender biased sex selection and abortion, or infanticide, whether in Australia or overseas. The motion was passed with the support of the coalition and the government. It was not supported by the Australian Greens. However, I note that, in her statement to the Senate, Senator Rhiannon stated:

The Australian Greens condemn the practice of gender biased sex selection abortions.

I also note that the submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill from Family Voice Australia referred to a survey conducted by Galaxy Research, in February 2013, in relation to public opinion on gender biased sex selection. The survey found that 92 per cent of respondents were opposed to abortion due to the sex of a child, with only six per cent being in favour. The submission also noted that in December 2010 Rebecca Kippen reported that 80 per cent of Australians were opposed to sex-selective abortions. It would appear that public opinion is consistent with the sentiments of the motion that was passed by the Australian Senate. Even the National Foundation for Australian Women, a well-known left-wing feminist organisation, said in its submission to the Senate inquiry:

NFAW is aware of the existence in some countries of such practices [being gender based sex selection], and finds such practices abhorrent, as we find the cultural practice of female genital mutilation.

In relation to Senator Madigan's bill, on 21 March 2013 the Senate referred the bill to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The Senate inquiry received over 1,000 submissions, which I would contend is a reflection of the myriad contrasting and varying views surrounding the issue of abortion. As the coalition spokesperson on the status of women, I also note with interest that so many of the submissions to the Senate inquiry did not support sex-selective abortion, because in the view of the submitters it reflects deeply entrenched gender inequality.

Senators who have taken an active interest in this issue over the years will be aware that in some countries and cultures traditions supported by particular customs and practices are now able to be combined with technology, and the predetermined result has been millions and millions of sex-selective abortions. A significant body of evidence indicates that these sex-selective abortions relate to unborn baby girls. The practice of sex-selective abortions occurs particularly in societies where poverty is prevalent or where the cultural preference is for a firstborn son. The increase in this practice regrettably means that an unborn baby girl becomes a potential victim of a sex-selective abortion merely because she is a girl. This can only lead to the further entrenchment of gender inequality, which we as a society should be working hard towards eradicating. In its submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill, Family Voice Australia state:

The use of ultrasound technology to determine the gender (sex) of an unborn child combined with the traditional cultural preference for sons and the availability of abortion has led to increasing imbalances in the sex ratio in countries such as India, China, Nepal, Vietnam, the Caucasian republics and parts of the Balkans.

The range in the sex ratio at birth if there is no interference in normal biological processes is between 102 and 108 boys for every 100 girls. Any ratio outside this range points to human intervention.

A number of submissions to the Senate inquiry refer to the fact that, whilst the practice of gender based abortion does occur in a number of countries, there is no comprehensive or reliable empirical evidence to suggest that it occurs in Australia and that Medicare is being used for the purpose of sex selective abortion. Women's Health Victoria, in their submission to the Senate inquiry, note:

… Australia has an entirely normal ratio of male to female births, which would suggest that sex selective abortion is rare,

…   …   …

Just over half (51%) of all births registered in 2011 were male babies, resulting in a sex ratio at birth of 105.7 male births per 100 female births. The biologically normal sex ratio at birth ranges from 102 to 106 males per 100 females. It is also worth noting that most abortions occur early on in pregnancy, before the sex of the foetus is known.

In relation to the coalition's position on abortion law, Mr Abbott has stated that an incoming coalition government will not be changing the laws on abortion. Mr Abbott has also stated—and I believe his position is shared by numerous policy makers—that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I do not believe that there would be anyone in this chamber who would disagree with that sentiment.

The issue of abortion itself is predominantly a matter for the states. In this regard, I note that, in relation to the substance of this bill, whilst the Commonwealth does have responsibility for the Medicare funding of abortion, the states and territories have responsibility for most laws and regulations relating to abortion law in Australia. In most states across Australia, gender selection is generally prohibited, and I note that three states have enacted legislation specifically in relation to this issue. The ban relating to gender sex selection came into force in 2004, when the National Health and Medical Research Council was established under the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 and outlawed it on moral and ethical grounds. The council's guidelines state:

Sex selection is an ethically controversial issue. The Australian Health Ethics Committee believes that admission to life should not be conditional upon a child being a particular sex.

Bills such as these draw attention to the implementation of policies that directly relate to the delivery of real outcomes for women in Australia. In that regard, I note the achievements of the former Howard government when it comes to delivering real policy outcomes for Australian women. In particular, I note that when Mr Abbott was the health minister in Australia he introduced a pregnancy support hotline to help women with unexpected and unplanned pregnancies. This is an example of the type of policy decision that makes a real difference in the life of a woman when she falls pregnant.

As the coalition's spokesperson for the status of women, I reiterate that the coalition acknowledge the evidence that sex selective abortion is known to take place in countries in which gender inequality is deeply entrenched and male children are more highly valued. Like so many submitters to the Senate inquiry into Senator Madigan's bill, we too support the global effort to end gender inequality. We agree with the statement made by Women's Health Victoria, in its submission to the Senate inquiry, which said:

It is through widespread societal change in attitudes towards women that lasting improvements to the lives of women will be achieved.