Page 2340 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
100 per cent by men, signing the executive order banning foreign aid to international healthcare providers who discuss abortion or advocate for abortion rights. I found it absolutely appalling. It was bad policy, and it was also bad because men were 100 per cent deciding what they thought was best for women. In this chamber we can do better, and we do.
Figures show that Australia’s foreign aid funding for reproductive, maternal and sexual health has decreased from $46 million to $23 million since 2012. This appears to have been done quietly and stealthily. It is a sign that conservative governments in Australia continue to undermine and erode women’s rights to bodily autonomy. I am at least thankful that some of this important funding from our conservative government remains, possibly because there is a female foreign minister. The Liberal Party is probably also aware that even amongst its own members there is large support for family planning services.
In April this year Family Planning NSW surveyed and found Australian voters across party lines do not support foreign aid restrictions outlawing funding of family planning services. Specifically, among coalition voters at the time, 64 per cent did not support outlawing funding of family planning services as part of our foreign aid. I am heartened by this, and I am hopeful that the conservative parties will look at those numbers and act in the best interests of people as a whole, conservative or otherwise, and in a way which is clearly supported not only by the majority of their supporters but by the majority of Australians.
The ACT is a human rights compliant jurisdiction and has been since 2004. It is a basic human right to have access to health care. Section 9 of the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 stipulates that the right to life applies from birth and not before. As a human rights compliant jurisdiction, this does not in any way prevent women from accessing pregnancy termination services. Equally, at section 12, “Privacy and reputation” there is a right not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence interfered with unlawfully or arbitrarily and not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked.
That is why, in March 2014, my Greens colleague Shane Rattenbury introduced legislation to specify privacy zones to protect women accessing legal medical termination procedures. I would have to say that decisions to terminate a pregnancy are never made lightly. This decision, or this consideration of a possible decision, is always accompanied by much angst and emotional turmoil. Women need to be able to access medical abortions without running a gauntlet of prejudice and unwarranted judgement. They have a basic human right to seek and receive medical treatment unhindered and unimpeded.
This does not mean that I do not agree with the right to protest by people who disagree about a woman’s right to choose. They, of course, are free to speak about their beliefs, but not where they do it in a way that impinges on another person’s right to access a legally available healthcare service. This means that any protests should not be outside the entrance of healthcare facilities where women are seeking the medical services that they are legally entitled to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video