Mention: Reproductive Healthcare Reform Bill 2019

Second Reading debate:

The Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019 is a divisive issue in our community. There is a range of strongly held views across my electorate of Wagga Wagga and the State. I acknowledge that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is never an easy one and I do not wish to pass judgement on anyone in that situation. I bring to this debate my own personal perspective, which I have made clear on a number of occasions and which comes from my position as a Catholic and a doctor. Although this is a conscience vote, I have always maintained that I would listen to the views of my electorate. I have attempted to do that.

Since the announcement of the bill, my office has been inundated with phone calls, emails and letters from constituents who wished to share their views with me on the decriminalisation of termination services in New South Wales. Individuals and groups began contacting me as soon as it was suggested that the legislation could be introduced to Parliament. For that reason I share my great disappointment regarding the lack of community consultation and opportunity for public comment in the debate. It is disappointing that on such an emotive issue there has not been time for the views of the community to be considered in more detail.

As such, I am appealing for greater consideration to be given to individuals and groups who have not had the opportunity to review the legislation effectively and provide their feedback. I became aware of the bill only a few days before it was introduced. I believe work must have been done on the bill for many months and I do not understand why that work could not have been shared with a longer period of consultation and committee review. With that in mind, I thank all those who have taken the time to share their thoughts and who have discussed their concerns and beliefs with me. I realise many have contacted me as part of organised campaigns but many people personally have also taken the time to contact me.

I have been moved by the testimony and stories of many people, including members of Parliament, who have had the courage to share them in this Chamber. Listening to women members sharing their stories yesterday was particularly moving. I thank those whom I have contacted for advice and who have been generous with their time, knowledge and opinions. I thank the member for Sydney, who arranged for representatives of the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Family Planning NSW to be available for briefings this week. I thank the representatives whom I met today. I also note the respectful tone in which most contributions have been made in this debate. In making my deliberations on the bill I have been challenged like never before, but I realise that is nothing compared to the challenges women face in making the choice to terminate a pregnancy.

I have been researching the bill to gain a clear understanding of the legislation and health policies regarding access to termination services. I have consulted stakeholders representing both sides of the debate. I have learnt that the supporting arguments are as follows: similar legislation has been passed in every other State; the current legislation was passed many years ago and is arguably outdated; a woman has the right to make decisions about her body; the current legislation creates a situation where women feel they are treated as second-class citizens; and the legislation will make it safer for women to access termination services and will protect practising doctors. I acknowledge the bill's reference to the rights of women, who often continue to be a vulnerable group in our society. I accept that many women wish to have access to these services for their health. I also recognise that

there is an inequity in access to health services, especially for rural residents and for those of low socio-economic status. However, I have a number of concerns with the bill.

First, the fact that laws exist in other States or were made some time ago are not reasons alone to adopt a particular piece of legislation. Secondly, I note that terminations are currently undertaken in New South Wales—safely and legally. Decisions are made in the context of the mother's health. NSW Health has a policy clearly outlining a framework to support the review and development of local protocols for terminations of pregnancy and the policy supports access to those services. In the second reading debate members have indicated that 20,000 to 30,000 terminations take place in New South Wales each year.

I understand that the changes to laws in other States have not led to an increase in the number of terminations. Inequity of access to those health services should be addressed, but I do not believe that the legislation does that. Stigma created by the criminal code could be addressed without changing the current processes in which there is a mandatory assessment of the health situation. My concern is that the legislation makes termination of pregnancy legal up to 22 weeks without reference to health issues or reasons including matters of significant crisis for the woman involved. In my view, that makes termination of pregnancy less of a health issue, not more, and opens up the possibility of choosing termination because of unwanted circumstances. For example, a decision could be made about bringing a child to term on the basis of gender.

As a health practitioner of 30 years I have watched my health colleagues make great advances in the saving of neonatal life. When I first became a doctor it was unusual for a baby born at 28 weeks to survive. Now we have a quite reasonable expectation that those born at 24 weeks or younger will survive. It is likely that advances in technology will reduce that age further. Doctors and nurses in our health system and parents strive to save those lives. As a society we expend great resources on it, and so we should. Therefore, it makes no sense to me that a baby at 22 weeks should not be considered to have rights. The principle of the rights of potential human beings is being ignored. I do not believe that considering the rights of an unborn child downgrades the rights of women. I have listened to and read many stories about the difficulty women face in making a decision based on that principle. It is clear to me that almost all people regard it as a terrible decision to have to make. That says to me that almost all of us recognise that abortion is not just another procedure and there are issues to consider regarding the potential of unborn human beings.

That brings me to my third point, which is that the legislation does not include enough provision for counselling, access to crisis support, mental health support or other assistance to women in personal circumstances that might lead them to make a decision to terminate. Does the bill give women other choices? Is it just assumed that they will get those services at a consultation? If so, that is not good enough. Are women at risk of making a decision simply because there are no other options of support and assistance offered? Are we just making termination simpler and faster and enabling more doctors to carry out a termination regardless of their skill set and capacity? When we face crises in life, there needs to be a handbrake—particularly in medicine—to ensure the safety and wellbeing of patients. Does the bill remove that handbrake, taking the obligation for care away? Is this really what women need or do they need more available access to support services before making their decision?

Finally, the legislation requires health practitioners who do not support the termination of a pregnancy to refer patients to a practitioner who does. It is not clear why that has to take place if there is no health issue at stake. The Australian medical code of conduct requires a doctor to refer patients for treatment elsewhere if that practitioner cannot or will not provide necessary treatment. However, the bill requires the referral to take place whether or not there is a health issue. That is a significant impingement on religious freedom and conscientious objection. These concerns have convinced me to oppose the bill. I do not do so lightly, but it is the decision I have made. I do not accept that the legislation will improve access to termination services. I do not accept that it will make things safer for women. I am concerned that the bill undermines the rights of potential humans and impacts on religious freedom. For those reasons, I will not be supporting the bill and I will be seeking to introduce amendments