Senate
9 November 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1823

PETITIONS

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 3 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the term of the current Staff Elected Commissioner expires on the 22 October 1978. We pray the Government will direct that this position should continue, and that the Minister will authorise the Commonwealth Electoral Officer to proceed with an election, by all ABC staff, of a new commissioner, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Abortions: Medical Benefits

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 146 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the provision of payments for induced abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for induced abortion, except one performed when a mother’s life is endangered.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Petition received and read.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 8 1 3 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 178 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: -

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

2 ) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-On behalf of my colleague Senator Wheeldon, 1 present the following petition from 67 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray.

Petition received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 180 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to: -

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 403 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance ( No. 1 6 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 490 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 1 6 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator ROBERTSON:

-On behalf of my colleague Senator Wheeldon, I present the following petition from 2 1 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

2 ) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Abortions: Medical Benefits

To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth.

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott.

Petition received.

Senate Elections: Optional Preferential Voting

To the Honourable the President of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That on the 10th December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares that, Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration . . . ‘ (Article 2) that ‘Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government: this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or equivalent free voting procedures.’ (Article 21(1) and (3).)

Elections for Senators meet all requirements except one. Senators are elected periodically, by secret ballot, with universal franchise, and the quota-preferential method of proportional representation ensures that the vote values within States are equal as nearly as can be.

However the provision of the Electoral Act that compels voters to show preferences for all candidates on the ballot paper interferes with the free expression of the will of the voters, and is unjust.

Australia, as a Member State of the United Nations, is pledged to achieve observance for Human Rights and Freedoms.

We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, therefore humbly pray that the Senate will fulfil the pledge of a Member State of the United Nations and take steps to remove the compulsion from the Electoral Act in order to allow freedom of expression for everyone who has the right to vote for Senators.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Douglas McClelland.

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled-

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975 after promising that pensions would be adjusted instantly and automatically in relation to quarterly Consumer Price Index figures; and whereas that Government subsequently announced that pension adjustments should properly be made half-yearly each May and November; it is the current intention of the same Government to legislate for pensions to be adjusted only once a year, and this constitutes a serious breach of generally accepted ethics of democratic government and also deprives many needy pensioners of increases that are essential to their subsistence.

The foregoing facts impel the undersigned Petitioners to request the Australian Government to uphold the principle that the trustworthiness of governments should at all times be above question, and to appeal to the Parliament to prevent the imposition of further economic hardship upon Australian pensioners by rejecting any Bill which has for its aim the introduction of annual adjustments of pension rates.

And your Petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lajovic.

Petition received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

Your petitioners humbly pray that honourable senators should vote to retain termination of pregnancy ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) and vote to reject any motion to disallow such ordinance.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

  1. 1 ) retain this Ordinance, and
  2. reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Rae, Peter Baume, Carrick, Scott,

Thomas, Sim, McAuliffe and Collard.

Petitions received.

page 1825

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

  1. 1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the sessional order relating to the days and times of meeting of the Senate be varied to include the following days:

Friday, 17 November- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.

Friday, 24 November- 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.;

  1. ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day.

I give this notice simply to forewarn honourable senators of the intention of sitting on these Fridays in order to finish the Government’s full legislative program. It seems at this stage that it will be necessary to sit those extra days. With regard to the proposed sitting on 24 November, we will look at that situation as the program emerges, with goodwill on both sides.

page 1825

REMUNERATION TRIBUNALS ACT 1973

Notice of Motion

Senator CHANEY:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973.

page 1825

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1825

QUESTION

O’CONNOR REPORT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. In view of the fact that the Victorian Government has declined to make available to the Victorian Parliament a copy of the O’Connor report dealing with the misuse of about $3m involved in loans to 123 low income families, in view of the fact that this is yet another scandal involving the Victorian Housing Commission, and in view of the fact that almost all of this money was provided by the Federal Government, I ask the Minister: Firstly, will the Government be seeking a copy of the report from the Victorian Government? Secondly, will the Government make the report available to members of this Parliament?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not familiar with the report to which Senator Wriedt has referred in his question. I will refer his question to my colleague and seek a reply.

page 1825

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Senator TOWNLEY:

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware that the estimated cost of telephones for government departments in 1978-79-at least as billed by Telecom to the departments- will be in excess of $82m? How does each department justify paying Telecom accounts when there is absolutely no way that Telecom can assure anyone that its accounts are correct? Will the Minister take up this matter with the Auditor-General to ensure that Telecom is advised that it must submit accounts that can actually be justified before the Auditor-General will be satisfied? Has any department ever submitted to Telecom, or to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, as it was known previously, that it felt its telephone account was in error? If not, why not? Finally, as Telecom does not have to submit details of subscriber trunk dialling calls to its customers, how on earth do the departments control private STD calls which could easily account for 10 per cent of a department’s Telecom bill and so involve a waste of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am beginning to suspect that Senator Townley ‘s mother was frightened by a telephone technician shortly before he was born. He appears to be getting very concerned about telephone accounts. This is the fourth or fifth question he has asked on the matter in the last few weeks. In a previous answer I referred him to the quite detailed evidence given on charging by Telecom to an Estimates committee. Part of the detailed evidence showed that across the totality of customers of Telecom about 0.8 per cent raised a query and over 80 per cent of those queries were dealt with very quickly. This left about 16,000 accounts out of some 10 million accounts about which there was any real problem.

In any event, I will deal with the specific questions raised by Senator Townley this morning. I think the matter he raises arises with respect to the supply of any service which is metered. I suppose everybody who has a gas, electricity or water service is subject to charging on the basis of an operating meter. These meters, like the meters operated by Telecom, are subject to checking when a query is raised. I am sure that if any serious doubt arose in the mind of the Auditor-General he would examine the matter. I do not know whether it has ever been raised with him. I do not have any information on whether any department has ever queried a Telecom account. That is a matter on which I will make some inquiries and let the honourable senator have a reply.

With respect to control over private calls, I assume that the honourable senator is suggesting that public servants may choose to use Public Service facilities to make their private telephone calls. I suppose that that could occur. I understand that not all Public Service telephones are attached to subscriber trunk dialling facilities. Restrictions are placed as to which officers have direct and unlimited access to STD telephones. Once again I will seek some particulars and let the honourable senator have a more detailed reply.

page 1826

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT

Senator BUTTON:

– I address my question to the Attorney-General. Has the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, assent to which was reported to Parliament on 16 August 1977, yet come into operation? If not, what further consideration is being given to this legislation by the Government? What stage has this consideration reached? How many requests for exclusion of decisions of an administrative character, to use the definition contained in the Act, have been made by departments and authorities to the Government?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act has not been proclaimed by the Government. The Administrative Review Council was asked to consider the question of exclusions of particular departments or agencies under that Act. The Act provides that regulations may be made to exclude certain departments, as Senator Button appreciates. The Administrative Review Council has recently completed what turned out to be a very large and difficult task and has now submitted to me a report in relation to the matter. The report is very extensive and raises a number of major questions and problems which I am just beginning to consider. The report will take a little time to consider. Then, of course, the Government will also have to make a decision in relation to it. Senator Button asked how many departments or agencies had sought to be excluded from the operation of the Act. I am afraid that I cannot tell him how many. When I study the report I will count them and will be able to answer the question. A number of departments have indicated the problems that they have. I can say no more than that at this stage.

I would just like to make the point that the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act is designed to simplify procedures in the courts for judicial review of the legal issues which may arise in relation to an administrative decision. At present the law provides for that under old procedures and this Act really simply streamlines those procedures. It contains a new provision, though, that anyone can ask to be given the reasons why a decision was made. The main problem that has arisen is in relation to the giving of reasons for what may be in many cases very routine decisions.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question. What was this Parliament doing in

May 1 977 when it unanimously passed this legislation? Were none of these factors considered before the legislation was introduced into the Parliament and at that time?

Senator DURACK:

– The Parliament passed an Act which contained a provision that regulations can be made to exclude. The Parliament has given the Government the power to do this. In fact it was appreciated that there would be problems in relation to this matter. My predecessor, Mr Ellicott, who was the AttorneyGeneral who presented this legislation to the Parliament, was aware of them, obviously, because he referred to the Administrative Review Council this question of what exclusions should be made from the operation of the Act. It was obviously in his mind.

page 1827

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS PAYABLE TO STUDENT CHILDREN

Senator LAJOVIC:

– Can the Minister for Social Security inform the Senate of the conditions under which family allowance and unemployment benefit will be paid in respect of student children and school leavers during the Christmas vacation? Further, can the Minister indicate whether staffing in the Department is adequate to handle the expected influx of school leavers?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The family allowance for student children aged 1 6 years and over will be continued up to 26 December of this year, in all cases under the usual conditions. A review form will be posted before the end of November to all mothers of student children in this category. Where the review form that is returned indicates that the child will be continuing full time education and is received in time to process the January payment, there will be no break in the continuity of payments. Unemployment benefit is payable, of course, only to those who intend to enter the work force and who are actively seeking employment. This benefit is payable to school leavers six weeks after the day they leave school if they have not then obtained employment. Normally the date of leaving school is the date on which examinations are completed. Where there are no examinations or the students have advised the school authorities in writing that they do not propose to sit for the examinations, the date of ceasing full time education is the date the student actually leaves school. It should be noted that provided an application is made promptly students leaving school in December will be eligible for the unemployment benefit prior to the January pay-day of family allowances. As in previous years family allowances are not payable on behalf of persons who are receiving unemployment benefit.

The honourable senator asked a question in regard to staffing of the Department. The Director-General advises that there is sufficient staff for administrative and routine requirements. The current staff ceiling in the Department is 10,800 persons. An additional temporary penetration of this ceiling by a further 200 persons has been approved to handle the seasonal increase in unemployment benefit claims. During the year a number of applications were made to the Public Service Board by the Department for staff increases in anticipation of Budget changes to some payments. Some changes were made to these applications as a result of the final Budget decisions, and I am advised that the current staff ceiling is 1,535 more than the figure at 30 June 1977. I have the text of a leaflet which will be available in the near future setting out the conditions under which school leavers can obtain the unemployment benefit, and I seek leave of the Senate for its incorporation in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT AND THE SCHOOL LEAVER

WHAT TO DO

In the coming weeks many thousands of young people will leave secondary school. Many will find jobs, others will enrol with tertiary institutions or decide to go back to school, but some will have difficulty in finding a job immediately.

Young people leaving school but who have no job to go to should immediately contact the nearest office of the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES). The CES will register them for employment and help them in their efforts to find work. If there is no suitable work the CES will invite them to fill in a claim for unemployment benefit. However school leavers should not rely entirely on the CES and should make every effort themselves to obtain work.

ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS

Any person 16 years or more who is unemployed, willing and able to work, and actually looking for work can claim unemployment benefit as long as they have lived in Australia for at least a year before applying for it, or intend to remain here permanently. Before the benefit can be granted the applicant must show that reasonable steps have been taken to obtain suitable work.

SCHOOL LEAVERS

Secondary school leavers are not eligible for unemployment benefit until six weeks after they have left school. Normally this will be when they have completed their examinations. Students who leave before completing their examinations will also have to wait six weeks after the date of the examinations unless they have advised the school authorities in writing of their intention not to sit for the examinations.

Where there are no examinations or the students have advised the school authorities that they do not propose to sit for the examinations, the date of ceasing full-time education is the date the student actually leaves school.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE NEXT

When a claim for unemployment benefit is lodged it will be forwarded by the CES to the Department of Social Security. The Department of Social Security will then advise the claimant in writing of what needs to be done next.

PROOF OF IDENTITY

Before payment of benefit can be made it is necessary that the claimant be identified. The Department of Social Security will try to establish each school leaver’s identity through its own records. However, in some circumstances the Department will request that proof of identity be produced.

NEXT STEPS

After the claim form has been received by the Department the applicant will be posted a form called “First Income Statement”.

The income statement will have the date on which it is to be returned personally to the CES office. The income statement will also show the period for which income (if any) has to be declared.

Unemployment benefit will not be paid until after the income statement has been returned. It is important to get it back on the due date.

The CES will send the income statement to the Department of Social Security.

The first cheque is posted a few days after the income statement has been lodged at the CES but not before the period of six weeks after leaving school.

When the first income statement is lodged with the CES an “Application for Continuation of Unemployment Benefit” form will be given to the applicant. This form will also have a date stamped on it to show when it should be taken back to the CES office. No more unemployment benefit will be paid until this form is returned to the CES.

The CES will send this form to the Department of Social Security. A second cheque will be posted a few days after the application has been lodged.

With the second cheque, and any more unemployment benefit cheques, the Department of Social Security will send an ‘Application for Continuation of Unemployment Benefit’. This form will have stamped on it the day it is to be returned either to the CES or the Department of Social Security.

RATES OF BENEFIT

A person under 1 8 and single- up to $36.00 a week A person 1 8 or more and single- up to $5 1 .45 a week.

The rate payable depends on weekly income as assessed by the Department of Social Security. ‘Other income’ received, such as wages, interest, or dividends, is taken into account.

People who are single and under 2 1 years of age can have other income’ up to $3 a week and still receive the full unemployment benefit. For income above $3, the benefit is reduced by the amount of ‘other income ‘ received.

These ‘other income ‘ figures are the gross amounts- that is, amounts before deduction of tax.

HOW PAYMENT IS MADE

Payment is made fortnightly by cheque posted to the recipient’s home address.

CONTINUATION OF BENEFIT

Payment will cease if the CES advises that the beneficiary has refused an offer of suitable work, reasonable steps are not taken to seek work and if the applications for continuation of benefit are not lodged as required.

Persons receiving unemployment benefit must notify the Department of Social Security immediately they get a job.

RIGHT OF REVIEW AND APPEAL

A person can ask to have the decision on an application reviewed. In the first instance an applicant can ask to have a decision reviewed immediately by a Review Officer. The Review Officer will be a senior officer of the Department who has not previously been involved in the case. If the applicant is still dissatisfied an appeal may be lodged with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. A re-application may be lodged pending the outcome of the appeal.

SPECIAL BENEFIT

People in need, but not eligible for unemployment benefit, may in some cases be granted special benefit. You should ask the Department of Social Security about this benefit if you think it might apply to you.

INCOME TAX

Unemployment benefit, like wages and salaries, is taxable income, so tax may have to be paid on it, depending on how much other income the person receives and how much unemployment benefit is received during the year.

There are three options on income tax:

Have no tax deducted from unemployment benefit. To do this complete the Income Tax Instalment Declaration Form section of the ‘First Income Statement’. But with this option tax may be payable in a lump sum at the end of the financial year.

Have tax automatically deducted from benefit at the rate of 33.5 cents in the dollar. To do this do not complete the declaration form.

Ask the Department of Social Security to deduct an amount. To do this complete the Income Tax Instalment Declaration and tell the Department of Social Security how much tax is to be taken out. The nearest Taxation Office will assist in determining how much tax should be deducted.

page 1828

QUESTION

RAILWAY EMPLOYEES IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that railway employees stationed at Alice Springs have petitioned the General Manager of the Australian National Railways seeking that they be provided with free return air travel to any capital city in Australia every two years? Is it also a fact that other Federal Government employees stationed in the Northern Territory have this condition of service? If these are facts will the Minister indicate why the railway employees are not provided with air fares and will he undertake to investigate the claim made by the employees of the Australian National Railways.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The honourable senator asks a series of questions about matters on which I have no information. I shall certainly seek the facts from the Minister. I will also pass on the inquiry that the honourable senator has made and seek a reply for him.

page 1829

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator RAE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Bearing in mind the fact that Rhodesia has now done everything which the United Nations required of it, will the Australian Government urge the United Nations, firstly, to recognise the major steps taken as a result of the internal settlement of 3 March this year; secondly, to condemn the use of terrorism by the external guerrilla forces; thirdly, to congratulate the transitional government, which has a majority of black leaders, for the steps taken for the abolition of racial discrimination and for free elections; and, fourthly, in the light of these steps, to abolish sanctions immediately and, encourage the achievement of the act of selfdetermination?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There is no doubt in the world that the Government will condemn the activities of terrorists, whether they occur in Rhodesia or anywhere else in the world. Senator Rae raises a number of procedural matters of some significance which involve Government policy. I do not feel that I am adequately equipped to respond in detail with expertise. I will seek out the information from my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and seek a response for Senator Rae.

page 1829

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING: EMPLOYMENT OF ABORIGINES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a question about employment prospects for Aborigines in the event of uranium mining proceeding in the Northern Territory. The Minister will recall that yesterday in answer to a question she said:

I think it is understood by everybody that if uranium mining did not take place in the areas concerned -

She was referring to the Northern Territory- there would certainly be fewer opportunities for Aboriginal employment than otherwise would be the case.

I now ask the Minister: How many Aborigines are now permanently employed at each of the three main mining centres in the Northern Territory, namely, Groote Eylandt, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek? Further, what was the percentage of Aborigines employed in the work force at each of these three mining centres that I have mentioned in each of the last six years? Finally, will the Minister tell the Senate what guidelines, if any, have been drawn up by the Government to ensure the employment of Aborigines at Ranger if the project goes ahead?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will need to seek advice from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on the questions raised by Senator McLaren. As they are specific questions may I suggest that they be placed on notice for an answer in that way.

page 1829

QUESTION

TRADE

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In light of various criticisms expressed in the Press recently, some of which have been quite ill-informed, is the Minister in a position to indicate the correct situation in respect of Australia’s trade with the Association of South East Asian Nations?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that two way trade between Australia and the ASEAN nations is growing significantly. Australia’s imports from ASEAN have grown substantially from $97m in 1971-72 to $557m in 1977-78. That is an average annual growth of 34 per cent compared with 19 per cent for total imports. The Government acknowledges that this is growth from a small base but nevertheless it has been substantial. Australia’s imports of manufactures grew on average by 47 per cent a year between 1971-72 and 1977-78. Even in sensitive items which are subject to restraint such as clothing, textiles and footwear, imports grew from $6.5m to $45. lm, an annual growth of 38 per cent. Looked at on a per capita basis, our imports of these sensitive items from ASEAN are greater than those of the major industrialised countries. Expressed in terms of Australian dollars Australia’s imports in 1975 and 1976, respectively, were 2.14 per cent and 2.43 per cent compared to 0.63 per cent and 0.88 per cent for the United States; 0.51 per cent and 1.44 per cent for the European Economic Community; and 0.25 per cent and 0.3 1 per cent for Japan. That percentage of 2.43 per cent was up on the previous year and the figure continues to increase. I have a great deal of information in front of me in relation to this matter and I will supply the remainder of it to Senator Puplick.

page 1829

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL INFANT MORTALITY

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Can the Minister express some alarm at the figures revealed -

Senator Webster:

– That is a good question.

Senator GEORGES:

-I am certain that she will express alarm. I am giving her the opportunity to do so. I refer to the infant mortality rate of Aborigines in the Northern Territory. According to reports the rate soared by 41 per cent between 1976 and 1977. I wonder whether the Minister could explain to us why this is so and what action is being taken to correct that situation.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have on a number of occasions expressed the concern of the Minister and myself with regard to Aboriginal health in general and infant mortality in particular. I am unaware of the report from which Senator Georges has quoted.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The annual report of the Department of Health.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Right. I will certainly refer the question to the Minister for Health and to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and seek responses in relation to the matters raised in the report quoted by Senator Georges.

Senator GEORGES:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. Since the matter is of such grave importance, will the Minister ask the Minister responsible whether he is prepared to make a statement on the matter?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I will refer Senator Georges’ second question to the Minister and seek a response from him.

page 1830

QUESTION

MEASLES

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the statement on 4 October 1978 by Joseph Califano, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare in the United States, concerning a goal in that country for the elimination of measles there by 1 October 1982? Is there any similar goal in Australia and if so, what is it? If there is not such a goal in Australia, will the Minister undertake to invite the National Health and Medical Research Council to advise him upon strategies which could lead to the elimination of this serious and now preventable illness from the Australian community within a designated period of time?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware whether there is a specific date or campaign in this country for the eradication of measles. The Minister for Health is aware of the statement mentioned by Senator Baume and I understand that the matter of a national measles eradication campaign throughout Australia is already listed for discussion by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Arising from that discussion some particular goal may be adopted but the matter is certainly listed for discussion at this stage.

page 1830

QUESTION

REPATRIATION ARTIFICIAL LIMB ESTABLISHMENTS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security: Is it true that patients at Repatriation artificial limb establishments are subjected to long waiting periods for artificial limbs and for appointments? Is this largely because of a shortage of trained staff in these establishments and a high number of trainee staff? Is the shortage of trained staff due to the fact that on completion of their ordinary training these tradesmen must undergo special training in their specific areas and that they then find their wages no better and, in most cases, worse than they can obtain in their own trades outside this special industry? What steps does the Government intend taking to remedy this situation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– A number of matters of concern to Senator Melzer have been raised by her. I will have them investigated and I will see that she is advised early about them.

page 1830

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY SECRETARIAT

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. What is the role of the social welfare policy secretariat in the Department of Social Security? What is the role of the social welfare research centre of the University of New South Wales? Is there any area where the duplication of the various roles would occur?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I thought that I answered a similar question to this one not so very long ago. Briefly, the social welfare policy secretariat, which is composed of a small group of people, is responsible to a permanent heads committee and will provide advice on the integrated development of plans, policies and programs in the broad field of health and welfare. The secretariat will be able to provide support to the social welfare policy committee of Cabinet in the broad field of health and welfare and it will assist the permanent heads committee on social welfare to carry out its functions, including those of any sub-committees which might be established. It will ensure co-ordinated development and review of health and welfare policy and that appropriate research activities are directed to these ends. The functions of the social welfare research centre at the University of New South Wales are to undertake and sponsor research on important aspects of social welfare, to provide opportunities for post-graduate study of social welfare, to arrange seminars and conferences in the welfare field and to arrange for the publication of research results and studies produced at the centre.

The establishment of the social welfare research centre at the University reflects a commitment by the Government to make a contribution to basic social welfare research. The centre is not under the control of the Government and, of course, it has academic freedom. It will set its own research priorities. The director of the centre will be assisted by a body known as the Social Welfare Research Centre Advisory Committee. This Committee will have a chairman and about nine other members, two of whom are nominated by me. I nominated two members to that Committee yesterday. The social welfare policy secretariat is directly concerned with the coordination and development of government policy in the health and welfare field. As I have indicated, the centre will be primarily involved in wider research aspects. We believe that there will not be a duplication through the two bodies- the policy secretariat in the Department of Social Security and the centre at the University of New South Wales. But I hope that there will be wide exchange of information between the two groups of people. I hope also that the two groups will complement one another in the information that is being provided to government where government programs are under investigation or where information is specifically sought from either body.

page 1831

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL INFANT MORTALITY

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It follows the question asked by Senator Georges. Will the Minister examine the figures in the annual report of the Department of Health, which was tabled in the Parliament this week, which relate to Aboriginal infant mortality in the Northern Territory and Queensland? Will she give some explanation as to why there was continual and substantial reduction in infant mortality during the years of the Labor Government and why there has been a substantial and continual increase in infant mortality during the years of the present Government? Is this because of changed circumstances, because of a restriction on moneys and amenities provided to Aboriginals in the Northern Territory and Queensland, or is there any other reason? As the matter involves human life, will the Government consider reversing its curtailment of assistance to Aboriginal people?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I said earlier today that I would draw to the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for Health the matters that were raised with regard to infant mortality. I will also draw to their attention the matters that have been raised by Senator Cavanagh. I will find out from the Ministers their response to and explanation for the figures that are shown in the annual report that has been quoted.

page 1831

QUESTION

PENALTY RATES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations been drawn to the editorial in this morning’s Australian calling for the Government to convene a meeting between unions and employers to hammer out what is called ‘a commonsense approach to dealing with the anachronism of penalty rates and the five-day week’? Because the present system is having such a disastrous effect on our service industries, aggravating our unemployment situation, will the Government consider calling such a conference? Further will the Government give consideration to a serious study of a situation whereby a highly urbanised society in Australia cannot have the benefit of services and facilities without the crippling restriction of penalty rates, thereby denying the community a better lifestyle?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The Government is well aware of the problems that face the tourist industry and indeed many other industries because of penalty rates. These rates come under awards that have been set down by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The powers with regard to these matters come within the province of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government supports the Commission as the arbiter of these matters. Indeed, under the Constitution it is the arbiter. The House of Representatives set up the Select Committee on Tourism, which has made a report on this subject. The Government is considering that report and what, if any, action it can or should take in relation to it. The proposal that is contained in this morning’s Australian to which the honourable senator referred is one of the matters which will be taken into account.

page 1831

AURUKUN AIRSTRIP

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the Parliament whether the $75,000 which has been set aside for the construction of the new airstrip at Aurukun has been taken from the allocation for the current financial year for the Aurukun community. I further ask whether the airport has been upgraded at the request of the mining consortium which owns the Aurukun bauxite leases.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will need to seek that information from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

page 1832

QUESTION

PROPERTY OF FORMER POLISH CITIZENS

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that the British Government has negotiated a treaty with the Polish People’s Republic for compensation for the nationalisation and expropriation of the property of former Polish citizens who are now British nationals? Have the United States of America and Canada negotiated similar treaties? Is Australia negotiating such a treaty? If so, has any progress been made? If not, why not?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs has received representations on this matter and that currently it is under consideration. My further advice is that the United Kingdom, the United States and Canadian Governments concluded bilateral treaties with the Government of the Polish People’s Republic in 1954, 1960 and 1971 respectively, providing for compensation for their nationals whose property was nationalised or expropriated by Polish measures. I should point out to the honourable senator that compensation under these treaties is restricted to persons or enterprises that were nationals of those countries not only when the treaties were concluded but also when the Polish measures were applied. In other words, persons who may have been Polish citizens at the time their property was nationalised have not been compensated under these treaties unless they also possessed at that time the nationality of one of those other countries. Australia has not sought to negotiate such a treaty.

page 1832

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications agree that as Telecom Australia is now such a profitable enterprise and is making such large profits it ought to be in a position to improve services to consumers? Specifically, will the Minister direct Telecom to undertake an investigation of how much it would cost to provide age pensioners and invalid pensioners with a 50 per cent rebate on rent and telephone call charges?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The Opposition, or elements of the Opposition, seem to find it terribly easy to grab a gross figure and say that it represents an enormous profit and therefore it ought to lead to great reductions in the cost of services. In fact when one looks at the total turnover of Telecom and the assets that are required to produce the revenue that is produced one can see that the profit is down to a 1 per cent or 2 per cent figure. This is a very small amount of money in terms of the overall operation. Telecom has limited abilities to effect reductions because under the statute introduced by Senator Bishop, who sits behind Senator Ryan, it is required to be conducted as a business. It has certain requirements to raise its own finance and so on. I do not quarrel with that. It is simply a fact with which Telecom has been required by this Parliament to live.

I note also that Senator Ryan talked about the need to improve services to consumers. I would have thought that in many respects that has been achieved. Most significantly, during a period of very sharply rising costs Telecom has managed to contain its charges to its consumers and, for some services, to reduce them. For example, there are concessions with respect to the longer distance rates. In some areas there have been reductions in money terms and overall there have been reductions in real terms in the charges for services.

Senator Ryan raised a very specific inquiry with respect to pensioner concessions. I will certainly refer that matter to the Minister. I will obtain the figures which she requests. They will enable us to make a judgment as to whether her proposition is practical. I must stress that charges are basically in the hands of Telecom, which is an independent corporation.

page 1832

QUESTION

WORK RESTRICTIONS ON YOUNG TOURISTS

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

-] direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. The Government of the United Kingdom requires young Australians who are not patrials to obtain a work permit before they may seek casual employment during working holiday visits to the United Kindom. Do any other countries impose restrictions on young Australian visitors seeking casual employment? Further, does Australia have any restrictions on young foreign tourists working casually in this country? Finally, will the Government make representations to those countries that impose restrictions to afford our nationals the same courtesies as we afford their nationals?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I do not have a list of countries which impose restrictions on young Australians seeking casual employment while on a visit. However, most countries, including Australia, have restrictions on persons other than permanent residents taking employment. In general, persons coming into Australia as visitors are explicitly forbidden to take employment. Applicants for visitors’ visas are required to sign an undertaking not to engage in employment while in Australia. Certain countries provide special concessions for various types of extended holidays or working holidays available to young Australians. Australia has made provision to reciprocate these arrangements to allow young citizens of those countries to enjoy working holidays in Australia. These arrangements apply only where the prime intention of the applicant is a holiday with employment as an incidental aspect intended to supplement holiday funds.

Because of the wide differences from country to country in policies, legislation and procedures concerning immigration, the entry of visitors and the taking of employment, it would not be feasible to establish a uniform approach internationally to prospective working holiday makers. As I said, I have not a list available and I am not sure whether the Minister for Immigration could readily provide that information.

page 1833

QUESTION

DEPARTURE TAX

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he has seen a report that the Government is now reviewing its budgetary decision to impose a $ 10 departure tax on all people leaving Australia? Is this correct? If so, will this be about the seventh departure from the Government’s budgetary decisions announced only last August? What are the reasons for the latest review and is this yet another illustration of the hasty and illconsidered way in which the Government arrived at its budgetary decisions?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I take it that implicit in Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s question is the opposition of the Labor Party to those variations that the Government has made and which the Government has considered, upon reflection, had virtue in the making. Otherwise, of course, this question would not have been raised at all. I take it that most Australians would believe that any government would be free, upon reflection, to implement modifications which would result in a better situation for all Australians, and that is what has been done. I reject any idea of hasty or ill-considered situations. I remind Senator Douglas McClelland of the track record of his

Government in this regard. I am not aware that the Government is reviewing the departure tax. I will refer that matter to my colleague the Treasurer.

page 1833

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY SALINITY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Development aware that at a conference in Adelaide organised by the Murray Valley Development League, a dire warning was issued that the salinity problem, if left unchecked, would increase and would ultimately render the River Murray in South Australia virtually useless? The Minister may recall that in 1970 a Senate Standing Committee on Water Pollution tabled a report which in part recommended that urgent steps be taken to adopt a national approach to the management of water resources, which sets out acceptable standards, co-ordinates the aims and aspirations of State and local government authorities and creates the machinery to achieve them in balance with other national goals, such as those for growth and development. I ask the Minister: If this matter was considered urgent eight years ago, does he acknowledge how much more important such a measure would be today? Will the Minister urge his colleague, whom he represents in this place, to take positive action to ensure that acceptable water quality standards are reached, thereby safeguarding this vital water resource?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am not aware of the particular report or of the discussion which Senator Jessop mentions as having taken place in Adelaide recently. I am of course aware of the great concern about the salinity problem in the River Murray and the great concern that is being expressed particularly in South Australia but in other States as well about this matter. I can assure the honourable senator that the question is not one which has escaped the attention of the Government by any means over the eight-year period since the Senate Standing Committee on Water Pollution reported on it. Great attention has been paid to that report and will continue to be paid to it.

I refer Senator Jessop and other interested honourable senators to a very interesting and useful discussion which took place on this subject when Estimates Committee B considered the estimates of the Department of National Development quite recently. If desired, those estimates will be the subject of a debate here on the Appropriation Bills. The officer in charge of the water resources section of the Department was asked a great number of questions on the subject and he provided the Committee with a great deal of very interesting information. Having said that, I will refer Senator Jessop ‘s question to the Minister for National Development and draw his attention in particular to the matter raised in discussion in Adelaide recently. I can assure Senator Jessop and the Senate that the Government is certainly very aware of and concerned about this whole matter.

page 1834

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES INSURANCE SCHEME

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs aware that an additional premium of 20 per cent is payable by Queensland residents insured under the defence service homes insurance scheme but that an additional premium is not payable in any other part of Australia? Is it a fact that in Queensland for the year 1977-78 the excess of premiums received over claim payments was $607,472? Is it also a fact that in 1 977-78 Queensland had the second lowest ratio of all six States in terms of claim payments to net premiums? In view of the fact that in the past three years there has been an excess of premiums paid over claim payments in Queensland, when can Queensland residents expect the discriminatory additional premium of 20 per cent to be discontinued?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator Colston has raised matters which are not known to me. I will refer them to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and seek a response from the Minister with regard to insurance premiums paid by participants in the scheme in Queensland.

page 1834

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING: EMPLOYMENT OF ABORIGINES

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It is a follow-on question to that asked by Senator McLaren concerning the number of Aboriginal people employed in the main mining towns in the Northern Territory. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the policy of the major mining companies in the Northern Territory, as well as that of government, with regard to Aboriginal employment? Is it a fact that where negotiations are concluded by government and /or private enterprise with Aboriginal organisations, firm commitments are made to employ, directly or indirectly, Aboriginal people who offer their services?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I answered a question asked by Senator Kilgariff on this matter yesterday. It sought the same sort of information. I will refer this question to the Minister to see whether there is anything to add to what was said in answer to the question yesterday.

page 1834

QUESTION

CANCELLATION OF PASSPORT

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the denial by the Government of a passport to Mr Michael Brandon which, as the Minister will recall, came to public prominence in the context of the Peter Henry suicide threat episode in the second week of October. Is the Minister now in a position to advise the Senate of the outcome of the review of that passport matter which was promised at the time by the then Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Sinclair.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have some background information on this matter which I think should be given to Senator Evans. I remind the Senate that section 7 ( 1 ) of the Passports Act gives discretion to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and authorised officers to determine the issue of Australian passports. In exercising his discretion, the Minister takes into account the advice of Australian Government authorities, which may include matters concerned with peace, order and good government in respect of both international relations and domestic affairs. Whilst it has been the practice of successive Ministers in the exercise of this discretionary power generally not to give reasons in respect of particular cases, it has long been the policy of successive Ministers to withhold passports from persons who are attempting to escape from justice, are the subject of court orders restraining departure, are of unsound mind, are under the age of 1 7 years and unable to produce the consent of both parents or are the subject of custody or access orders of Australian courts, and those for whom the Minister for Foreign Affairs could not, in the context of Australia’s international relations, request other countries to provide free passage, protection and assistance.

Taking account of this policy, the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs cancelled Mr Brandon’s passport on 13 June 1978 and, in accordance with section 8 ( 1 ) of the Passports Act, issued an order for the passport to be delivered up. Consequently, on his return to Australia on 9 August 1978, Mr Brandon was ordered to deliver up the cancelled passport. He surrendered it to Commonwealth Police officers at Sydney airport. That is the background. The question of providing Mr Brandon with a travel document is at present under review. He will be advised of the outcome in due course. I will draw the question of Senator Evans to the attention of the Minister.

page 1835

QUESTION

RETAIL TURNOVER TAX

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of a campaign being waged by the retail industry claiming that the Government intends to introduce a retail turnover tax and urging people to pressure their Federal members of parliament to oppose any such tax? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the current situation in relation to the investigation by the Australian Taxation Office of a broadbased indirect tax?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that a similar question was asked of the Treasurer yesterday by the honourable member for Tangney. I direct the honourable senator’s attention to that. I understand that the Treasurer assured the House, as he has on previous occasions, that no decision in principle has been taken by the Government to introduce a broadbased indirect tax. My understanding is that the Treasurer said that the Government is conducting an examination of the practicalities of such action. He also added that if the Government decides to take the matter any further a discussion paper will be issued inviting further community response and comment. This is an important matter. We ought to be a rational enough community to have a debate on the appropriate mix of taxation without those who hold strong opinions on one side or the other trying, by emotional argument or allegations, to intimidate or unduly influence decision makers. I understand that attempts are being made to create unnecessary concern and a climate of suspicion and mistrust about this matter. I think it is very unfortunate that those behind this campaign should have chosen such methods. It is alleged that the Government has kept the community in the dark about this proposal. We have done nothing of the kind. As the Treasurer assured the House yesterday, we have been quite open in saying that the Government is merely exploring the possibility. I only hope, as the Treasurer does, that the discussion of this matter will proceed in a mature fashion.

page 1835

QUESTION

SHORTAGE OF RAILWAY TRUCKS IN RURAL AREAS OF VICTORIA

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of reports circulating in rural areas of Victoria that there is a severe shortage of railway trucks in that State? Is it a fact that the Victorian Government is currently engaged in buying back from Simsmetal Pty Ltd railway trucks previously sold for scrap in order to cope with the wheat harvest? Will the Minister consult with his Victorian counterpart to assure wheat growers that their harvest will be carried into storage without undue delay?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The fact that the wheat crop in Victoria is so good that disposal trucks are having to be bought back to cart it is about the nicest complaint I have heard for a long time. The country could stand a lot more bad news like that. I do not have any information about the railway truck shortage which has been raised by Senator Primmer. I am sure that if there is a shortage it is of concern to his constituents. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Transport and seek a reply for the honourable senator.

page 1835

QUESTION

MICROWAVE OVENS

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. No doubt she is aware of the fairly recent advent of the sale throughout Australia of microwave ovens. No doubt she is also aware that no metal should be put inside these ovens and that therefore many people use plastic cooking utensils. Has the Department of Health examined the danger, from a cancer point of view, of using plastic cooking utensils in microwave ovens?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am unaware of any studies or investigations that may have been conducted by the Department of Health with regard to cooking processes through microwave ovens. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health and seek information on the subject.

page 1835

QUESTION

ALLOWANCES AND CONCESSIONS AVAILABLE TO AUSTRALIAN FORCES OVERSEAS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and in part concerns also the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, refers to the allowances and concessions presently available to members of the Australian forces serving overseas. Is the Minister aware that members of the Services who are presently engaged in the United Nations peacekeeping forces are less well off than those of other countries who are serving alongside them? Is the Minister able to tell us whether the Government now proposes to make that situation worse by refusing to subsidise the postal concessions which have been available for many years to all servicemen at overseas posts? Is that matter under consideration by the Government and has it been determined?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have no first-hand knowledge of any parts of the question. I will seek the information and let Senator Bishop know.

page 1836

QUESTION

OVERSEAS BORROWINGS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Government’s borrowing overseas or its seeking of overseas capital only a palliative- using other people’s capital to pay for our excessive imports? Is it a fact than net interest and dividents of $ 1,527m accounted for 61 per cent of our deficit on current account for the financial year 1977-78? Why do the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Mr Fraser and Mr Howard not want to talk about this mess? Is it a fear of frightening off capital inflow and making borrowing difficult?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The continuous repetition by Senator McAuliffe on this subject reminds me, with goodwill, of the hypothetical problem that Senator Chaney saw with regard to Senator Townley ‘s revered mother. It reminds me strongly of the story of the pregnant woman who dropped a pile of gramophone records, and it had no effect, effect, effect, effect. I think the Bible says that one should use not vain repetition. The basis of Senator McAuliffe ‘s question is built around a specific statistical matter, the answer to which I have not got first-hand.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You have never answered one yet.

Senator CARRICK:

– I will get the information and give it to Senator McAuliffe. Because he said that we have never answered one yet, perhaps he would like me to reincorporate in Hansard, the very voluminous, factual and detailed letter from the Treasurer, which was sent to Senator Wriedt and a copy of which Senator McAuliffe received, covering the borrowings and the interest rates and the nature of them. I invite Senator McAuliffe to reread that letter.

page 1836

QUESTION

BUREAU OF METEOROLOGY OBSERVATION NETWORK IN TASMANIA

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Minister for Science whether it is a fact that the Bureau of Meteorology has reviewed its observational network in Tasmania in the light of its financial allocations for the current year. As a result of this review, there have been a number of reductions in meteorological services to that State. What is the cause of this? Is it financial? If there has been a reduction in the payments to the Bureau’s division in that State, will the Minister indicate what it is? Will he also indicate whether he is satisfied that the services which will be maintained under the new arrangements will be adequate for that State?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– There has been such a review, just as there are constant reviews in relation to expenditures by this Government. This has been one of the important factors leading to the excellent situation within the Public Service and various departments whereby we are able to assess the cost of the delivery of services to the public. Certainly the Bureau of Meteorology is an important part of those services and funds have been kept up reasonably well to the Bureau. I think that the cost of that service Australia-wide is about $35m this year. However, within the last three or four months it has been necessary for the Bureau to review its observer network stations throughout Australia and a recommendation has come forward from the Bureau as to which services may be restricted. I am reasonably confident that none of the services which have been restricted are likely to have any great effect on the delivery of good meteorological information. I had noted a report in the Press which suggested that Tasmania has had a very large cutback in its services. The review of the services that are provided led me to note that in instances there had been reports cut out. For instance, at some stations fire warning observations had been cut out during the winter. In such instances it appeared reasonable that that type of report should be restricted. The Bureau of Meteorology felt that because of an obligation to reduce services there were other reports that could be done without. The honourable senator probably will recognise that the delivery of a weather service in this country is an imprecise science.

During the last few years the Government has spent a good deal of money on capital investment. For instance, it has entered into an agreement with Japan, as the honourable senator would know, to use the facilities of a Japanese geostationary satellite which gives us an indication of the cloud pattern over the whole of the continent which certainly, I believe, should lead to a reduction in weather observations required throughout Australia which perhaps produce like information. I believe that generally this service will not be impaired by any of the cutbacks that have been made.

page 1836

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TRAVELLERS: OVERSEAS DRUG LAWS

Senator PUPLICK:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that of the 1 1 9 Australians currently in gaol overseas some 77 are in gaol on drug related charges including, for instance, 17 in the United Kingdom, 1 1 in Thailand, six in the United States, five in Belgium, eight in Malaysia, five in Spain, four in Japan, four in Indonesia and three in Italy? Is the Minister satisfied that the information provided to Australian travellers leaving Australia is adequate in regard to the drug laws and drug penalties that apply in countries which they might be likely to visit?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the precise number of Australians in gaol overseas in total or in individual countries. I think that everyone who reads the Press or who listens to the media is aware that a substantial number of Australians have been arrested and indeed charged and convicted of drug offences. I am aware that the Commonwealth Government ensures that our embassies and high commissions are in constant contact with these people. I think that Senator Puplick raises an important question. It is important that every traveller should know, in transit or on stopover, the precise laws on drugs and indeed on other significant matters in a particular country. I do not know what we do in that regard. I will seek the information and let Senator Puplick know the result.

page 1837

QUESTION

CONSUMER AFFAIRS: UNIFORM LEGISLATION

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, relates not only to that Minister’s Department but, I am afraid, also to the Minister who represents the Minister for the Capital Territory. Is the Minister aware of the report tabled in the New South Wales Parliament which indicates that the New South Wales Department of Consumer Affairs dealt with 300,000 consumer inquiries and complaints in 1977, of which 20,000 lodged formal complaints, representing an increase of 42 per cent on the previous year? Is the Minister aware that as a result of the State Government’s inquiries a number of goods were banned from the marketplace in New South Wales? Can the Minister say what procedures are followed in the Australian Capital Territory to ensure that consumers are protected from the sale of such goods, many of which are retailed in Canberra as specials to Canberra citizens despite their classification by competent authorities as dangerous, unsuitable and of low standard? When can we get some uniformity on such matters to protect consumers wherever they live in Australia?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will draw the attention of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to the report tabled in the New South Wales Parliament which was referred to by

Senator Gietzelt. The question of what can be done in the Australian Capital Territory to provide for similar problems probably would be within the responsibility of the Minister for the Capital Territory. Although I do not represent that Minister, as part of the question Senator Gietzelt asked comes within his portfolio I will refer it to the Minister for the Capital Territory as well.

page 1837

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CONCESSIONS TO PENSIONERS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Earlier Senator Ryan asked a question about concessions to pensioners- a question which she put in the context of the profits of Telecom Australia. When I answered I had forgotten that the same matter was raised in the Senate by Senator Messner on 1 8 October, except that he raised it with respect to the extension of the existing concessions to pensioners. As Senator Ryan would know, there are some concessions. Recently, after inquiring of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, I advised Senator Messner- no doubt this would be of interest to the Senate generally- to the effect that this is in fact a matter for the Minister for Social Security. As I mentioned in my answer, in accordance with the principles laid down in the legislation, where there are concessions to pensioners, funds are appropriated to the Department of Social Security for payment to the Australian Postal Commission or the Australian Telecommunications Commission as the case may be. Although the question raised by Senator Ryan and the figures she cited are relevant to any consideration of the matter, I draw to her attention the fact that this is an item of social security policy which would involve appropriations for that purpose rather than concessions by Telecom, which is a business organisation.

page 1837

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY FIRE BRIGADE

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · Victoria · NCP/NP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 1837

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee A

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee A and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee B

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee B and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee C

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-by leave-I table additional information received by Estimates Committee C and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee D

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

-by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee D and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee E

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

-by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee E and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Leave granted.

Estimates Committee F

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

-by leave- I table additional information received by Estimates Committee F and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 1838

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the text of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of capital grants to the States in 1978-79 totalling $477,933,000. This amount represents the grant component of the Loan Council program for State governments in 1 978-79 and is one-third of the total program of $ 1,433.8m agreed at the June 1978 Loan Council meeting. The Bill also provides for the payment of capital grants in the first six months of 1 979-80 up to an amount equal to one-half of the 1978-79 amount, pending passage of legislation to authorise grants in 1979-80. Payments authorised under this Bill may be made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from the Loan Fund, and appropriate borrowing authority is included. This is consistent with past practice. These grants represent a continuation of arrangements initiated by the Liberal-Country Party Government in June 1 970, which provided that portion of the State governments’ Loan Council programs should take the form of interest-free nonrepayable grants in lieu of what would otherwise be interest-bearing borrowings by the States. The effect of the grants is to relieve the States of debt charges which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the States’ financial positions. The grants were introduced to help the States finance works such as schools, police buildings and the like from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The States are, however, entirely free to apply these grants as they choose and no terms or conditions are attached to them.

Turning to the details of the Bill, clause 3 authorises the payment of grants to the States totalling $477,933,000 in 1978-79 and clause 4 authorises the Treasurer (Mr Howard) to make advance payments in the first six months of 1979-80 at the same annual rate as in the current financial year. The amounts payable to each State are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for payments to be made either from Consolidated Revenue Fund or Loan Fund and clause 9 provides for the necessary appropriation of these funds. The extent to which the payments will be met from Loan Fund will depend in part on the level of government borrowings during the year, and this cannot be precisely estimated at this point. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Bill authorise the Treasurer to borrow funds in the period from the commencement of the Act to the end of December 1 979 up to the total of the amounts of the grants payable in 1978-79 and in the first six months of 1979-80. This borrowing authority will be reduced by the amount of any borrowings made before the enactment of this Bill, under the authority of the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1977, which may have been used to finance grants made in the first six months of 1978-79.

I turn now to the general context in which this Bill is being introduced. The grants which are the subject of this Bill form part of the Commonwealth’s total assistance to the States which comprises no less than 36.4 per cent of Commonwealth Budget outlays. In this year of great stringency, these payments and net advances to the States from the Commonwealth Budget are estimated to increase by 5.1 per cent. It could hardly be expected that payments to the States could be immune from the rigorous approach to which all other Commonwealth outlays have been subjected. This was both necessary and responsible. Nevertheless, Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States, which are the most important element of payments to the States and of which the grants proposed in this Bill form a part, in total are estimated to increase by 7.9 per cent to $6,232. 5m. On present estimates these general purpose payments to the States should thus increase in real terms in 1978-79.

Specific purposes payments are estimated to increase by 1.7 per cent in 1978-79. In addition to these funds provided to the States there are the Loan Council borrowing programs for the States’ larger semi-government and local authorities. These are estimated to increase by 8.5 per cent in 1978-79. These funds for the States’ authorities are not Commonwealth Budget outlays, but they are an important source of funds for the States’ policies, and, of course, their level affects the market for Commonwealth bonds and the extent of Commonwealth support needed for the State Government borrowing programs, which are underwritten by the Commonwealth.

The overall picture then is that restraint has had to be applied to Commonwealth payments to the States, as they have to other Commonwealth outlays; but these restraints have been applied in such a way as to leave the States with the maximum flexibility to allocate their resources according to their own priorities.

I emphasise that this flexibility includes the flexibility to use general revenue funds from the

Commonwealth for capital purposes and vice versa. This Bill provides one-third of the State governments’ Loan Council programs by way of an interest-free grant. It is an important measure in the overall arrangements for Commonwealth assistance to the States. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1839

COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES (NORTHERN TERRITORY PAYROLL TAX) BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

Bill (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the text of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

From 1971 to June 1978, payroll tax on wages related to both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory was collected by the Commonwealth under the terms of the Pay-Roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act 1971. Honourable senators will recall that amending legislation was enacted in June to render that Act inoperative in relation to Northern Territory wages payable after 30 June 1978 so that the way would be open for the new Northern Territory Government to collect its own payroll tax on such wages. However, barriers remain in the way of Northern Territory payroll tax collections from certain Commonwealth authorities not generally immune from payroll tax.

The Acts by which the authorities were established contain provisions which, if left to apply according to their terms, would keep the authorities free from liabilities they might otherwise face under the payroll tax law of the Northern Territory that has operated since 1 July 1978. Among the Commonwealth authorities so protected are authorities which were paying Northern Territory wages when that law came into operation and had, until then, been liable for Commonwealth payroll tax on the wages. The immediate purpose of this Bill is to override the protecting provisions in the constituent Acts of these authorities so that the Northern Territory Government may collect its payroll tax on Northern Territory wages that they have paid, and will pay, after 30 June 1978. The authorities were advised of the intention to introduce legislation having that effect.

The Bill will also open the way for the Northern Territory Government to collect payroll tax from any Commonwealth authority that commences to pay Northern Territory wages after 30 June 1 978 if the wages that it had paid up to that date were subject to State payroll tax or, as Australian Capital Territory wages, to Commonwealth payroll tax. Explanations of technical aspects of the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1840

SALES TAX AMENDMENT BILLS

(Nos. 1 to 9) 1978

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Car rick) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Sales Tax Amendment Bills (Nos. 1 to 9) 1 978 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

First Readings

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1840

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ORDINANCE 1978

Motion to Disallow Ordinance

Debate resumed from 1 1 October, on motion by Senator Ryan:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance 1978, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 1 6 of 1978, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– We are to discuss Senator Ryan’s motion for the disallowance of the ordinance for the termination of pregnancy. I wish to state some matters on behalf of the Government. My remarks essentially will be related to statements which I wish to make in that way because I understand that some 26 speakers from both sides of the House wish to follow me and they will be putting many points of view on the matter. On behalf of the Government I wish to state some facts and put into perspective the position in which we now find ourselves as a result of the motion that is before the Senate. I will need to go back to the beginning of the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance and the origin of its introduction by the Government.

Termination of pregnancy within the Australian Capital Territory became an issue in March 1977 when the firm Population Services International (Australasia) Ltd stated an intention to open an abortion clinic in Canberra. On 22 March 1977 a temporary Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance was gazetted, prohibiting the performance of abortions at any place other than the Canberra Hospital and the Woden Valley Hospital for a period of 90 days. This was to enable the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly to consider the issue. In June of that year the temporary ordinance was extended for a further month to allow the Legislative Assembly to complete a report. The Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health produced a report No. 26 entitled ‘Pregnancy Termination’ in July 1977. The Assembly adopted the 47 recommendations of that report. I understand that there is some discussion with regard to the actual number of recommendations. Some more may have been added to the report by the Assembly.

Recommendations Nos 1 and 2, of that report proposed that free standing abortion clinics outside public hospital grounds should not be permitted and that a permanent ordinance should be made to prohibit such clinics. The remaining recommendations of the report covered proposals to establish a self-contained abortion clinic within the grounds of a public hospital, the procedures for the operation of that clinic, counselling and support services and sex education, including contraception advice. In August 1977 the Government accepted recommendations Nos 1 and 2 but decided to take no action on the remaining recommendations. On 29 July 1977 the temporary ordinance was further extended for a period of 12 months. Following the Government decision in August a draft permanent ordinance was prepared, delayed because of the election in 1977, redrafted early in 1978 and gazetted in June 1978. As has been said,

Senator Ryan moved to disallow the Ordinance on 10 October of this year. It will be understood that the Ordinance reflected the Government’s attitude with regard to this matter. It is a statement of the Government’s attitude with regard to free standing private clinics in the Australian Capital Territory and, as such, it is government policy on this matter. The request that was made to the Legislative Assembly to consider this issue has been one matter that has been raised with regard to the Ordinance. Some people consider that this is an essential element of the discussion that is before the Senate, that is, that the Legislative Assembly considered an issue, asked for a report and adopted its recommendations.

I am advised that on 16 March 1977 the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott), after discussion with the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), asked the Legislative Assembly to provide the Minister for Health with views on the issue of private organisations establishing abortion clinics before the Minister instituted positive action of any kind. The Assembly was specifically asked how much control should be exercised over the development of private clinics and whether abortion services should be provided only under the auspices of the Capital Territory Health Commission through its public hospitals. The Assembly’s response in essence recommended the prohibition of private clinics, the establishment of a self-contained clinic within the grounds of a public hospital and the application of Mr Justice Menhennitt ‘s rulings as the law governing abortion in the Australian Capital Territory. The Menhennitt ruling is basically that an abortion can be lawfully carried out only if it is honestly believed on reasonable grounds that the procedure preserves a woman from serious danger to her life or to her physical or mental health which the continuance of the pregnancy would entail.

The powers of the Capital Territory Health Commission in the Australian Capital Territory with regard to the control of private clinics ought to be stated. It should be said that the Commission has no direct powers to control a private abortion clinic. Under public health regulations the Commission can ensure that such a clinic is maintained in a sanitary condition. The Commission has powers to exercise some control over private hospitals, but the definition of a private hospital does not cover surgeries or clinics where only daytime services are provided. It is generally considered with regard to the disallowance of an ordinance that it is not possible for a Government to present a new ordinance containing a provision similar to the prohibition clause in the current ordinance for a period of six months following the disallowance unless the Senate rescinds the disallowance motion. I think it is known that Senator Rae has stated his intention to introduce a motion in the Senate to achieve this end in the event of Senator Ryan ‘s motion being carried today. I do not wish to traverse the outcome of discussion in the Senate today that will follow my introduction of this matter because views will be expressed on a whole range of matters by a number of speakers. The effect of the disallowance without some further action being taken in the Parliament is that in general a similar ordinance will not be able to be introduced for a period of some six months.

The matter of self-government perhaps ought to be mentioned again just briefly. If we are talking principally about this issue in terms of selfgovernment it should be noted that the essential recommendation of the Legislative Assembly on the matter referred to it is in accordance with the ordinance which has been produced by the Government and which is subject to the motion of disallowance. Talking generally about self government in the Australian Capital Territory it should be noted also that a referendum is to be held to seek the views of the people of the Australian Capital Territory with regard to the type of self government they would wish to see. It should be said, however, that regardless of which part of the referendum is carried at that time, health responsibilities will not pass immediately to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. The Federal Government will have responsibility for health services in the Territory in the foreseeable future. It should be understood, as I said earlier, that the Government’s policy on this issue is the same as the policy contained in the present ordinance. I understand that later today Senator Evans will move an amendment to the motion. His amendment will seek to add the following words to the end of the motion:

  1. in order that an Ordinance may be made prohibiting the establishment of private abortion clinics in the ACT; and

It would be understood that that is the essence of the ordinance we are seeking to disallow. The remainder of his proposed amendment states:

  1. b) to enable the Government to take such other administrative and legislative steps as are necessary to implement the recommendations of the ACT Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health in its Report No. 26 entitled ‘Pregnancy Termination’. 1 think it would be understood by anyone that the Government does not need to move for disallowance and then amend a motion if it wishes to adopt recommendations of the ACT Legislative Assembly on matters relating to education and health. It is competent for the Government to adopt recommendations of the Assembly in its own way by its own ordinances. An amendment to a motion is not the only way in which the Government would be able to achieve this result. The Government can act on its own volition on the recommendations of the Assembly by introducing its own Bills or its own ordinances.

I simply wanted to state for the record the background to the Ordinance which is the subject of Senator Ryan’s motion. I believe that the debate that will ensue in the Senate will reveal the attitudes of many individuals on a matter on which they have very strong views. But I state on behalf of the Minister for Health and on behalf of the Government that the Government’s policy is as in the Ordinance which is being subjected to a disallowance motion. I seek to confine my remarks in that way because of the number of speakers on this matter. I hope that some early decision will be able to be taken on this important matter.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-This is not a debate about the rights or wrongs, the morality or immorality, or even the legality or illegality of abortion. This proposition no doubt will prove somewhat disappointing to those who have been eagerly anticipating the spilling of buckets of sectarian blood on this occasion. It is also a proposition which no doubt will be somewhat befuddling to all but about 10 of my 2,000 recent correspondents on this subject who have leapt into the fray on the assumption that the debate is about the rights and wrongs of abortion as such.

The debate is about several things. It is about the relations between the Commonwealth on the one hand and the people and government of the Australian Capital Territory on the other. It is also about the status of ministerial undertakings which are given in apparent good faith at the time, but which are then cynically and, I would say, inexcusably subsequently breached. It is also about- this no doubt is a matter of regret to most people in this chamber except the lawyers- some very highly technical matters of law and procedure relating to the promulgation and disallowance of ordinances.

To appreciate the issues which call for a decision by us today, it is necessary, as the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has just acknowledged, to appreciate the sequence of events which has created the present controversy and the present debate. To some extent that task has been performed for us by the Minister but, I regret to say, with some conspicuous omissions. So it is necessary to relate briefly again just precisely what has happened.

It all began with a controversy which erupted early in 1977 in the Australian Capital Territory when it became known that one or more private abortion clinics were proposed to be established. The question of the most appropriate facilities to satisfy the large and very largely unmet demand for legal abortions in the Australian Capital Territory, currently estimated to be running at about 500 or 600 per annum- the vast majority of which in fact are carried out outside the Territory- had been a matter of fairly lively discussion. It became more so as a result of the proposal to introduce private clinics. Not only was it a matter of discussion among those numerous people who were, and remain, implacably and absolutely opposed to any form of abortion facility being provided in the Australian Capital Territory or anywhere else to anyone at all, but it was also a matter of concern to those who have been unhappy about the demand for abortions being satisfied by private profiteers. Thus began the controversy.

The response of the then Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Staley, was to request the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly to consider the matter and to give him and the Minister for Health its views. That proposition was communicated in a letter from Mr Staley on 16 March 1977. The request was that such views be communicated before the Minister for Health took such positive action as was thought appropriate. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) then came into the picture, and this is the particularly crucial matter which was omitted, regrettably, from Senator Guilfoyle ‘s chronology of events.

The substance of the reply by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) to a very important question by Mr Beazley in the House of Representatives on 24 March 1977 was that the decision about what appropriate course of action would be taken would be left to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. It was not just a matter of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly considering the matter or making recommendations or communicating its views; it was anticipated- indeed, this undertaking was given- by the Minister that the Australian Capital Territory legislature would be given the opportunity to decide this matter. That appears very clearly from the language employed by Mr Hunt in his answer in the House of Representatives on that day and from which I now quote:

We have decided as a government, and quite rightly so, that matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory, matters that have great social consequence and matters that have wide-ranging consequences for the people in this community, will be debated, discussed and decided by those people who were elected by the local community.

Further on the Minister states: 1 conclude by saying that the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly voted to ban abortions outside the recognised hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory for a 90-day period during which time it will debate the wider issues and take decisions in respect of the way in which abortions will be carried out in the Australian Capital Territory.

I am not sure how those particular passages are going to be construed by opposing speakers in this debate. I suggest that it would be very difficult indeed to take those passages at other than their face value and not to construe them as a positive, clear and unequivocal undertaking by the Minister that in respect of this particular vexed social issue, on which local views rather than governmental views are of paramount importance in ensuring the acceptability of whatever solution was adopted, whatever the legal situation might be and whatever the normal situation might be, he would be prepared to accept the considered decision of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. As a result of that undertaking, accordingly the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly set in train a public inquiry, which inquiry was carried out by the Standing Committee on Education and Health. For the duration of that inquiry, which turned into a very thorough examination indeed of the issues, a temporary Ordinance, as the Minister has said, was made by the Government with the full and active consent and cooperation of the local assembly. This had the intention, and certainly the effect, of prohibiting the establishment of private clinics until such time as the matter was finally resolved.

In June 1 977 the report of that Committee was brought down. It was a detailed and responsible report which contained, as has been said, no less than 47 recommendations concerning not only the immediate question of private abortion clinics, which had prompted the whole exercise, but also an elaborate set of recommendations as to the favoured way in which abortion should be carried out. It also referred to a number of ancillary matters relating to contraception, sex education and so on.

The major recommendations of that committee of inquiry were: Firstly, the general recommendation ‘That free standing abortion clinics, that is, outside public hospital grounds, shall not be permitted in the Australian Capital Territory’. As to the question of what specific legislation would be necessary, recommendation 2 was: ‘That a permanent Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance be made to ensure that private free standing abortion clinics do not operate in the ACT.’ Turning to the positive side of the ledger, recommendation 5 was: ‘That there should be a clinic, conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission, within the grounds of a public hospital to perform abortions up to eleven (11) weeks of pregnancy. . . . ‘. So there was provision there for the establishment of a separate clinic in the public hospital grounds to conduct early term abortions. Subsequent recommendations made it clear that the intention was to create thereby a separately administered clinic, a separately staffed clinic, which would only geographically be associated with the hospital, and would only be associated with the hospital in terms of administration to the extent that both would be under the general auspices of the Capital Territory Health Commission.

Those were the recommendations and they were accompanied, as I say, by a very large number of ancillary recommendations as to the procedures which should accompany the establishment of a clinic, and procedures which should govern the carrying out of later term abortions. There were also a number of recommendations with respect to such matters as contraception, counselling and sex education. The recommendations were endorsed by an overwhelming majority- it is true that they were not endorsed unanimously but they were certainly endorsed by an overwhelming majority- of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. I think it ought to be said also that the recommendations were, to the extent that we have evidence of this, manifestly in line with the thinking of the great body of the people ofthe Territory.

Senator Lewis:

– What evidence is there for that?

Senator EVANS:

– The evidence for that is the survey that Australian National Opinion Polls conducted during the course of the Committee’s inquiry in May 1977. The people surveyed were asked the following question: ‘Do you think Canberra should or should not have clinics where doctors carry out abortions under suitable medical conditions?’. An astonishingly large number of respondents- 70 per cent in factreplied yes to that question and a mere 24 per cent replied no. I appreciate that there is some ambiguity in the formulation of that question to the extent that it does not distinguish between public and private clinics. Indeed, the fact that it does not so distinguish and the fact that there are many pro-abortion people who nonetheless are opposed to private clinics makes one think that had the question been more carefully and specifically formulated so as to relate to publicly conducted clinics the affirmative response may well have been higher. One cannot make too much of opinion polls on this or any other question, of course, but, to the extent that we do have evidence as to public acceptability within the Territory of the kind of recommendations that emerged from the Legislative Assembly, I suggest to the Senate that the evidence is very clear indeed that those recommendations were acceptable not only to the people’s representatives but also to the people themselves.

Then we come to the Government’s response to this report and to the adoption of the report by the Legislative Assembly. For a long time no response at all emerged from the Government. Senator Guilfoyle has said, I think, that the decision in fact was made by the Government as early as July 1977. That decision may well have been made but whether it was communicated to the public at large at that early stage remains, on my understanding, a matter of very considerable doubt. What appeared to happen was simply that a succession of further temporary ordinances to maintain the status quo was promulgated and the real position of the Government did not emerge clearly until as late as August of this year- 1978- when, of course, the major thing that happened was that the Government made and tabled, on 15 August, the Ordinance which we are now debating. The effect of that Ordinance, in my submission, was to prohibit freestanding abortion clinics of all kinds.

There is some controversy, to which I will advert in more detail later, as to what exactly is encompassed by the Ordinance which presently exists and which we are now debating. Let me say at this stage that it has been construed all along by most people, and reasonably so, as not just continuing the prohibition of private abortion clinics, which after all was the stated intention of the original Ordinance, as Senator Guilfoyle has conceded, but also as appearing on its face to extend to the prohibition of any other sort of clinics, to the prohibition of any abortion procedures other than those carried out within the four walls, as it were, of an ordinary hospital.

The subsequent series of statements communicated in various guises by the Minister to individual honourable senators and to the world at large has made it clear beyond doubt that, as the

Minister has said, the Government rejected absolutely, unequivocally and finally all the other recommendations of the Legislative Assembly. That has been communicated in a number of ways, one of the more unequivocal ways of which was in a letter which was addressed to Senator Ryan dated 2 November and which I understand has had a wider circulation at the Minister’s instance. 1 submit that the following paragraph explains quite clearly what the Minister’s attitude is both to the present Ordinance and to the Australian Capital Territory recommendations as a whole:

The Ordinance which you have moved to disallow reflects the Government’s decision to prohibit free-standing abortion clinics in the ACT. As you know the Government has decided not to implement the other recommendations contained in the ACT Legislative Assembly Report No. 26.

This brings us to the fundamental point which is in issue here and which must guide our deliberations throughout the course of this debate, that is, the proposition that the decision by the Minister and the Government as a whole represents a gross breach of faith by the Minister and the Government, by reference back to the earlier undertaking which the Minister gave in March 1977. He promised to allow the local people, through their representatives, to decide the question as to what abortion facilities, if any, should be made available in the Australian Capital Territory. The Assembly went ahead and, in good faith, conducted an inquiry. It made such an inquiry, producing careful, responsible and, as I have said, popularly accepted recommendations only to find itself in the situation now in which it and the Territory people have been treated with contempt.

The question now is: What, if anything, should be done about this state of affairs? Should the Minister be allowed to get away with his actions or should the Senate, vested as it is with the responsibility to pass upon, scrutinise and keep control of subordinate legislation enacted by the Executive, do something to unwind the situation, as it were, and keep the Minister to his promises? Senator Ryan has been in no doubt about what should be done about this matter and, in her capacity both as a senator for the ACT and, I might add, a responsible member of this Parliament, concerned as we all should be to maintain standards as to the probity and integrity of the Executive, she has moved the motion of disallowance which is now before us. She has done it- the reasons why she has done it were clearly stated in her opening speech on 1 1 October- so as to wipe the slate clean and to enable a new and different ordinance to be made which will reflect the wishes of the people of the ACT and which will honour the Minister’s promise to let the ACT people decide the outcome of this issue.

In moving this motion it is unfortunately the case that not only the good sense but also the good faith, motives and integrity of both Senator Ryan and those who have indicated support for her have been called into question. Senator Ryan, in particular, has been vilified and calumnied very widely as being either a knave or a fool- a knave to the extent that, whatever she might have been pretending to say by way of justification for her position, really she was in favour of a massive extension of abortions through the agency of private abortion clinics. An alternative and increasingly familiar characterisation which is round the place has been that Senator Ryan is not so much a knave but, with respect, a poor and bemused fool who, however honourable her intentions may have been, is producing, if the motion she has moved is accepted, the result of creating, among other things, the very situation which she says she is anxious to avoid, namely the creation of abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory as a result of the legal vacuum which, as the Minister says, on the face of the Act will be created if a disallowance motion is passed and the primary rule operates that no further ordinance containing material which is the same in substance as that which has been disallowed can be passed for another six months.

They are the kind of allegations that have been floating around. We in politics all have to be rather robust to survive, but that would seem to be a particularly necessary requisite of politicians in the Australian Capital Territory, where the peculiar viciousness of the parish pump everywhere seems to have been elevated to a particularly high art. The net result of all of these allegations which have been flying around is that there are a great many misunderstandings now abroad as to what exactly it is that Senator Ryan, and those who support her for the reasons that I support her, are all about. I suggest that there is an urgent need for the sake of the record simply to clarify what this debate is all about and why this motion of disallowance has been moved. Accordingly, I hope to accomplish that clarification. An amendment has been circulated to honourable senators in my name. The acceptance of this amendment would have the effect of amending Senator Ryan’s motion of disallowance by adding certain words of purpose and of explanation at the end of the motion. I move:

I do not believe for a moment that the explanation which is embodied in those words will do anything to alter either the opinion or the understanding of those whose misunderstanding is deliberate and wilful. What it may do, I hope, is do a great deal to clarify the situation for everyone else, to make it clear that Senator Ryan and those who support her are seeking disallowance not in order to give private abortion clinics a free rein in the Australian Capital Territory but rather to enable the implementation of the very different recommendations of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

That, unfortunately, is not the end of the matter, nor is it the end of my speech. Establishing motives for moving this motion of disallowance is but one thing; establishing the good legal sense of the motion is quite another. It remains to consider and to argue out the legal implications of what is now sought to be done. The legal issues, as I have said, have probably created more confusion, misunderstanding and uncertainty than the other more substantive issues to which I have referred.

There are, in fact, two quite distinct legal issues which we need to untangle and understand before voting upon this motion. The first such legal question is whether it is really necessary to disallow the existing Ordinance in order to accomplish the aims of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Is the Ordinance really as bad as Senator Ryan says it is? Is it not the case that it does allow the establishment of public clinics at least in hospital grounds, which is the recommendation ofthe Legislative Assembly? If so, all the fuss is unnecessary. That is the first kind of legal question to which I wish to address some remarks.

The second area of legal difficulty and controversy is this: What will happen if the present Ordinance is disallowed? Will there not be a legal vacuum and, even worse, a legal vacuum lasting some six months, by virtue of the provisions of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act, which provide, as I indicated a moment ago, a new ordinance cannot be proclaimed which is in any way the same in substance as the one which has just been disallowed? That is the primary effect of that section. Is it not then the case that this vacuum, a vacuum lasting as long as six months, will enable establishment at least during this period, of these private clinics which we say we do not want to be established?

Let us look at each of those legal areas in turn. First, there is the question of the precise effect of the present Ordinance and more particularly sub-clause 3. (2) of the Ordinance, which is in the following terms:

A registered medical practitioner shall not carry out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

Penalty: $1,000.

The suggestion is that the expression ‘at a hospital’ means not just within the four walls of a hospital but also within the hospital grounds, within the larger perimeters of a hospital, thus allowing the establishment of a separate clinic, provided it is within those hospital grounds. The Right to Life people, who have been such vociferous and aggressive lobbyists on this occasion, have made this point but faintly, being understandably not anxious, to concede the legal possibility of any clinic at all being able to be established in the Territory. But some others, however, have made the point rather more vigorously. I suspect that it will be seized upon with some considerable vigour in the course of this debate during the day, especially, I understand, by my friend and colleague, Senator Tate, who seems to have stumbled on this point with all the sense of discovery and excitement of Balboa discovering the Pacific or perhaps, more appropriately, Tasman discovering Van Diemen ‘s land.

What is to be said in response to this kind of argument? As a lawyer, let me concede right at the outset that that point is certainly arguable. It might even be accepted by a court. I know that only too well all sorts of implausible propositions are accepted by courts these days; but it is certainly not clear beyond any doubt, and this is the key point I want to emphasise. The first point to make about the matter in appreciating this argument is that in common usage I suggest that the expression ‘at a hospital’ carries very different connotations from the expression ‘at a clinic’. Certainly the connotations of ‘at a hospital’ are obviously different from the connotations of ‘at a private clinic’.

Senator Harradine:

– Like an outpatients clinic?

Senator EVANS:

– Perhaps so. Let me deal with that point. I suggest that although other interpretations are possible, in common usage the expression ‘at a hospital’ would also be construed as being different from the notion of ‘in a public clinic’ particularly if that clinic is run outside the hospital walls, albeit within the hospital grounds. This would especially be the case if the particular clinic, as here, is under separate administration and has an entirely different staff, that is, if it is not just perceived to be some sort of physical arm of the main hospital administration.

Under those circumstances I suggest that it is a perfectly reasonable, ordinary, common language interpretation of that clause to read the expression ‘at a hospital’ as conveying something very different from the notion ‘at a clinic’, bearing in mind the kind of clinic we are talking about here. This is how, I suggest, nearly all laymen would read this clause, and indeed have read it, at first blush. Certainly it is the way Senator Ryan has read it, in good faith all along, and I venture to suggest that this is how most lawyers would read it. Let me make another point. It certainly appears to be the way the Minister and the Government have read this clause. The Minister, in all his many and various statements to the Parliament, to individual senators and to the world at large, to my knowledge has made no suggestion at all that a public clinic could be established under the present Ordinance. What he has done is make absolutely clear his unwillingness to establish such a clinic, despite the recommendations of the Legislative Assembly, or to regard the Ordinance as in any way requiring him to do so.

I suggest that the Senate is entitled not to be convinced that the Ordinance before us allows for the adoption of the Assembly recommendations. It does not say so, obviously, in so many words. It is hopelessly inexplicit in terms of its ability to convey the notion that it is referring to clinics as well as to hospitals. And there is a very real doubt, I suggest, as to whether a court would hold the Ordinance to extend its operation in that way. If we take seriously the principle of decision-making by the Australian Capital Territory people and the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, which the Minister originally acknowledged and which he was obviously prepared to take seriously, we should make it possible for the people of the Territory to get the explicit ordinance, the understandable ordinance, that in fact they want and not the present Ordinance, which could mean anything or nothing in its application to public clinics. The new ordinance should fully, clearly and explicitly spell out its adoption of the main body of the Legislative Assembly recommendations or at least such of them as are appropriate for inclusion in an ordinance.

Let me turn now to the second legal point, which is the one that has been exercising the minds of most honourable senators in contemplating the difficulties of the motion before the House. I refer to the effect of a disallowance if it is accomplished by a vote here today. The argument, of course, as I have already foreshadowed, is as follows: Has Senator Ryan not created by her disallowance motion, if successful, one of the very results which she says she does not want to achieve and in fact which she most wants to avoid? Has she established the pre-conditions for the establishment of private clinics in the ACT? Again as I foreshadowed and as the Minister has foreshadowed, that consequence is said to flow from the language of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 which makes it clear that if an ordinance is disallowed no subsequent ordinance which covers the same basic ground can be put to the Senate within six months unless certain other steps are taken. I will come to those other steps in a moment because they are crucial to the answering of this argument.

To clarify the situation I concede right at the outset that if this disallowance motion succeeds no ordinance will be left in existence and there will be no prohibition accomplished by law of any kind of clinic, including private clinics. It follows that the language in section 7 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act that it is also true, as I have just said, that no further ordinance which is the same in substance can be made within six months unless certain things happen. The way to answer this is to make clearly and unequivocally understood what ought, after all, to be already understood; that is, that our intention, Senator Ryan’s intention and the intention of everyone, I imagine, who will be supporting her motion is that certain things will happen to correct the vacuum situation which will obviously and concededly be created if this disallowance motion is passed. It has always been part of Senator Ryan’s position that further positive action should be taken, and indeed would be taken, in the aftermath of a successful disallowance motion. It has always been part of her understanding that the Government would not be irresponsible or cynical enough simply to let the matter rest there and to take no remedial and no further positive action in the aftermath of a successful disallowance motion. I hope that does not demonstrate another example of the naivety of which some of her correspondents apparently have been prone to accuse her. Surely even this Government would not be so irresponsible.

Surely it would take one of the kinds of action that are legally open to it. Surely, however reluctant it is to embody in an ordinance or in other ways the other recommendations of the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly, in the light of everything that both the opponents and proponents of the motion have been saying, it would not be irresponsible enough not to take the action legally open to it at least to prohibit the establishment of private abortion clinics.

What action then is legally open to the Government to fill this vacuum which, it is acknowledged, will arise if this motion is passed? There has been an extraordinary parade of obfuscation and misrepresentation attending the discussions and representations we have all had on this matter. The situation, which was partly acknowledged by what Senator Guilfoyle said this morning, is that at least four different routes are available in one way or another to the Government to solve the problems which will arise if this motion is passed. There are four different ways of filling to a greater or lesser extent the vacuum that will arise. The first of them is that the Government could simply take the view that any new ordinance which dealt with those recommendations ofthe A.C.T. Legislative Assembly that are legally appropriate for inclusion in an ordinance would not be in law an ordinance ‘the same in substance’ as the present ordinance. That is a course which would be open to the Government. It could take that particular view and promulgate a new ordinance accordingly. Without going into all the detail of the analysis of that argument, let me simply say that it is a possible way through the dilemma. But I concede that on this particular question the law is by no means clear. The one High Court pronouncement on this subject is just not clear on what is meant by one ordinance being wholly or partly the same in substance as another. It is a matter of doubt how one applies that particular criteria and, as a result, that would leave any new ordinance of the kind I have suggested open to legal challenge, which challenge, even if ultimately unsuccessful, would leave the position uncertain for a considerable time. As a result I anticipate that that course would not be especially attractive to the Government as a practical matter. Albeit that it is unattractive, it is one of the courses that is open. It is the first answer to those who say: ‘When you have a disallowance situation you have a vacuum, you have got yourself a brand new crisis and there is no way out of the impasse ‘. One way out of it is the way I have just mentioned.

The second way is that the Government could take action before this matter actually comes to a vote. It has had this option available to it for some considerable time now since Senator Ryan first gave notice that a disallowance motion would be moved. The Government could take action simply to repeal the existing ordinance and substitute one that reflects more accurately the feelings and the wishes of the ACT Legislative Assembly and the ACT people, which feelings and wishes were stated, after all, as I keep saying, as a result of the Minister’s undertaking to respect any decision made. It may be that as a practical matter there are only a few hours left for this course to be adopted, although from the length of the list of speakers it may be that the Government will have rather more time than that.

The point is that it should not go unremarked that this option has been open to the Government ever since Senator Ryan first gave notice of her motion several weeks ago. It is just not true, as Mr Hunt has intimated in various of his communications, that the Government essentially has no choice except to sit helplessly by and wait, after disallowance, for the so-called vacuum to fade away after a period of six months, unless the Senate acted after the disallowance.

The third course of action that is open is for the Senate to employ the procedures which are actually laid down in sub-sections (a) and (b) of section 7 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act to which I have referred, the course of action being, in the case of a disallowance motion having been passed, for the Senate to pass a recision motion of the kind which has now been foreshadowed by Senator Rae. Senator Rae’s exercise and the talk of those who favour that course of action have been much misunderstood, but really I suggest that the course of action is perfectly simple. As is the case here, I hope, it means that where the Senate is unhappy with an existing ordinance, wants a new ordinance made in its place but wants part of the new ordinance to be the same in substance as at least one provision of the old ordinance, the Senate can move a motion which entitles the Government to do what it otherwise might not be able to do within a six months period. In the present context that means that the Government would be able, without waiting six months, to make a new ordinance which overlapped the existing one to the extent that- hopefully along with many other things- it contained a provision prohibiting the establishment of private abortion clinics.

Senator Hamer:

– Is that what it would do?

Senator EVANS:

– The exercise is simply one, as Senator Hamer would understand, of clearing the decks. I am not sure about his colleagues, including the noisy one sitting in front of him. If Senator Lewis could bring himself to concentrate for another two minutes, although I know that that is difficult, he would understand that it is not a matter of undoing with the one hand what somehow has just been done with the other. That has manifestly not been understood in anything that Senator Lewis has previously contributed to the discussions in this chamber or outside it. Rather, it is a question of clearing the path of a possible legal obstruction and enabling a positive step forward to be taken. I have no doubt that the Government- although I do have increasing doubt in the light of the exchange I have just had- basically would be responsible enough, once the path is cleared in this way, to fill the vacuum in the way indicated by the Senate.

The final option- the fourth option in the list- is for the following action to be taken: The Government or a private member could introduce a Bill- I hope that Senator Lewis understands what that means- for the purpose of implementing the recommendations of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Filling the vacuum in that way unquestionably would be enough to override the effects of any other existing ordinance or lack of ordinance. There would be legally no question as to the effects of such a Bill once it were enacted. It would clearly, as I said, override any other existing provision. It would certainly override the six months prohibition provision in the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. Such a Bill unquestionably would enable among other things, private abortion clinics to be banned. The further point that perhaps needs to be noted is that any such Bill could be made retrospective to the date of the passing of the disallowance motion- presumably today. So there would be no question of any difficulty arising because of the length of time that is might take for such a Bill to get through both chambers. The only real doubt one has about the utility of the Bill method is the response of our colleagues in the House of Representatives who I am not sure would thank us for involving them in the kind of lobbying controversy to which all of us have been exposed over the last few weeks.

The point I want to make is this: There are ways through the apparent impasse. There are ways which certainly, as conceded by Senator Guilfoyle this morning in this place, are known to the Government. There are ways which, if they were properly explained- and they need to be explained carefully to some honourable senators- would be capable of being understood by members of this Parliament and certainly by the community as a whole. There are ways which will ensure that no private clinics are opened in the next six months at least, or thereafter if that is the desire. Finally and crucially, because this is the central point of the debate, there are ways of clearing this impasse which will ensure that the will of the Australian Capital Territory people, as reflected in the Legislative Assembly recommendations, will prevail in the way that the Minister promised they would. That after all, to return to the point at which I began, is what this debate is all about. That is why this motion, together with the explanatory addendum which I have moved as an amendment, should be supported by the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak to the motion. I seek leave to make a brief statement as the Opposition Whip.

Leave granted.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am prompted by some of the interjections from the Government side which may give the impression that some arrangement was made as to the length of speaking times in this debate. There is general agreement that this matter, important as it is, should be decided today, but because it is a conscience matter a decision as to taking part in the debate has been left to individuals concerned. It is for the Government to decide whether it wishes to come to some arrangement with its members. I just put it to the Senate that although there is general agreement that the matter should be decided today, many things will be said as the debate proceeds and there will be less to be said later on by subsequent speakers. Some intending speakers may even withdraw from the debate. But no one who has an important contribution to make should be limited in this debate. I believe very strongly that it is a matter for the individual and that is why we on the Opposition side did not come to an agreement, as we have on previous occasions, to limit speaking times to 10 or 12 minutes. Surely in this debate speakers should be free to extend their arguments despite the need to complete the debate some time today.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– In reply to what Senator Georges has just said, of course it is necessary that all honourable senators who wish to speak should make their position clear. A large number of senators wish to speak in this debate and it is important that we should express our views as succinctly as possible. The motion we are considering raises three separate issues. The first is abortion, which traditionally in this Parliament is a conscience issue and not one on which governments as such have policies. The second is the right of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly effectively to make decisions on such issues. The third issue- one for Government senators- is the problem of whether they are to vote to overturn a decision made by the Government. I think I can quickly dispose of the abortion argument, as such. Nothing said in the present debate will have any effect whatever on the abortion law in the Australian Capital Territory. This law is not at issue in this debate. It is common ground among members of the Government, the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly and, as far as I can judge, the overwhelming majority of this chamber that private free-standing abortion clinics should not be permitted in the Australian Capital Territory. That is certainly my view.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Not quite.

Senator HAMER:

– I said the overall majority, Senator Baume, not unanimous. It has been claimed that disallowance of the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance would leave a legal vacuum in which private abortion clinics would nourish. There is no need for this to happen, as Senator Evans pointed out at some length. If we disallow this Ordinance, section 12 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act empowers the Senate to pass a motion which would enable the Government to bring forward a new ordinance containing the prohibitions on private abortion clinics without the six-month delay which otherwise would apply. I would be prepared to vote for such a motion, which Senator Rae has foreshadowed, provided that the Government made it clear that it would be prepared to bring in a new ordinance covering all the major health conclusions on the abortion issue reached by the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, or at the very least not effectively prohibiting them. If it would take some time to draft such an ordinance I would be prepared to accept a temporary ordinance covering private abortion clinics, coupled with an unequivocal undertaking by the Government to bring in a comprehensive ordinance as soon as it could be drafted.

If there is a legal vacuum as a result of the Senate disallowing the Ordinance it would only be as a result of a deliberate decision by the Government. But I do not believe for a moment that the Government would permit such a vacuum to occur, whatever its supporters now say. If we disallow this Ordinance- which I hope we will, overwhelmingly- then I am sure that the Government will co-operate fully to ensure that the wishes of the Australian Capital Territory on this sensitive social issue are implemented. Those wishes are quite clear; the people of the Australian Capital Territory do not want private abortion clinics.

So much for the abortion issue. It has been a red herring, although for many it was an honest misunderstanding. The real issue is whether on a subject such as abortion the wishes ofthe locally elected legislature should be paramount. I think that clearly they should be although of course I recognise that at present the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly is only an advisory body. But on issues such as this we should override the Assembly only if its recommendations are clearly outrageous. In this case the recommendations are in fact very conservative. What are the recommendations? There are in fact 5 1 , not 47 as Senator Evans said. The Legislative Assembly, when considering its committee’s report, put in four additional recommendations. Of the 5 1 recommendations one is legal- the clarification of whether or not the Menhennitt ruling applies to the Australian Capital Territory. That is a separate issue and is not before us in this debate. Five are educational; again they are a separate issue. Of the remainder, there are three main recommendations: Firstly, that private free-standing abortion clinics should not operate in the Australian Capital Territory; secondly, that there should be a clinic, conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission, within the grounds of a public hospital, to perform abortions authorised by law up to 11 weeks of pregnancy; and thirdly, that all women having abortions performed in the Australian Capital Territory after 1 1 weeks and up to 20 weeks of pregnancy should be in-patients in a public hospital.

I again emphasise that none of these recommendations change the law. They deal merely with the way in which abortions authorised by law- there are such abortions now- should be carried out. The Minister has put the first of the three main recommendations into effect and ignored the other two. I object not to what is in the Ordinance- I agree with it- but to what is left out. I should qualify that statement by pointing out that it should be made clear that the Ordinance applies only to private abortion clinics. As worded at the moment it could be argued that it applies to all abortion clinics, including ones run by the Capital Territory Health Commission. That point was dealt with, again at some length, by Senator Evans. To my mind there is nothing objectionable about the proposal to establish a special clinic at a public hospital. At the moment abortions are carried out in the ordinary, general operating theatres. One might have the situation in such an operating theatre where an appendectomy and an operation for a broken leg are followed by an abortion. I hasten to add that they would not necessarily involve the same person. Such a person would be very unlucky.

The point I am emphasising is that there is this problem of abortions being carried out in the ordinary run of hospital operations. This may cause great administrative difficulties with some of the staff having conscientious objections to participating in abortions. There are obvious advantages in having such operations carried out in a separate theatre from which those with conscientious objections to participating in abortions could be excused. In any case there is no rational reason that the national government should refuse the local legislative body such a reasonable request. It may be that such a clinic is possible under the present Ordinance, but I think that it should be put beyond reasonable doubt. I think I should point out here that I quite accept that there is no way in which the present Government would fund the construction of such a clinic. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has made that crystal clear. But that is no reason why it should deny the Australian Capital Territory the right to create such a clinic if it can find the funding. This Government, of all governments, should realise that it is not the only source of funds. If the Australian Capital Territory has the unmistakably clear authority to erect such a clinic and if the Canberra community can raise the necessary funds, it can build the clinic. After all, many of our existing public hospitals were built substantially by public subscriptions. If the Australian Capital Territory wants the clinic it will raise the funds.

The third problem is that of overturning a government decision. This really turns on the credibility of an undertaking given to Parliament by the Government. The Minister for Health made a crucial statement to the Parliament which has never been disavowed by the Government. Senator Evans read part of it. I shall read it again because to my mind it is crucial to this debate. The Minister for Health said:

We have decided as a government, and quite rightly so, that matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory, matters that have great social consequence and matters that have wide-ranging consequences for the people in this community will be debated, discussed and decided by those people who were elected by the local community.

This seems to me to be an entirely proper statement, fully in accordance with social justice and the principles of the party to which I belong. I intend to stand by it even if the Minister has weakened. If the Government has decided not to follow the recommendations of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly and feels that it is a matter for the Federal Parliament rather than the local legislature- I do not agree but I can understand the attitude- it should have been debated by this Parliament before a decision was made. The Government’s actions on this matter seem to me to be quite indefensible. So I shall vote for the disallowance of the Ordinance. I shall also vote for Senator Rae’s foreshadowed motion, which permits the Government promptly to bring in a new ordinance which will give effect to the wishes of the Legislative Assembly, including the banning of private abortion clinics.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I oppose the motion for disallowance for two principal reasons. The first is the dangerous and unpredictable consequences which will flow from the disallowance- consequences of uncertain duration and consequences permitting the establishment of private abortion clinics. The second principal reason why I shall be opposing the motion is that I believe that the organisation of public health facilities in the Australian Capital Territory is a matter not for this chamber but for the Capital Territory Health Commission acting under its Ordinance, as sanctioned by this Parliament. I will elaborate on my understanding of the Ordinance a little later. Before doing so I wish to emphasise, along with Senator Hamer, that we are not considering any expansion or change of the legal criteria governing the provision of an abortion. However, I feel that it is probably necessary, as this is the first occasion on which I have spoken in the chamber on this topic, to indicate to honourable senators my personal view simply as a matter of honesty and then to put that matter to one side. My own view is that abortion does involve the destruction of an immature human life. That is my conclusion as to the question of fact. Then arises the question of what might justify the destruction of that life. Here I maintain that the bounds of natural morality, the natural human right to proportionate self-defence, ought not to be exceeded; that is, if the life of the woman who is pregnant is threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy, she is entitled as a matter of natural law to the abortion. Very briefly they are my views. I do not intend to elaborate on them here but I put them to the Senate to make clear my personal position.

The debate today concerns the disallowance of an ordinance. We are told that the purpose of the disallowance motion is somehow to bring about a situation in which all of the recommendations of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly may be implemented. I intend to address my arguments solely to that aspect. My contention is that this Ordinance does not require or demand but does enable the major recommendations of the Legislative Assembly to be carried into effect by the appropriate authorities. No further ordinance is required. If we want to achieve the situation in which that democratically elected and representative Assembly’s recommendations may be implemented, there are various means by which that can be done. To my mind the Ordinance in no way prevents the recommendations from being carried out. I am conscious of the time but I think that at this stage I should read that sub-section of the Ordinance which will go if the disallowance motion is carried. It states:

A registered medical practitioner shall not carry out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

This sub-section has two aspects. Firstly, it prohibits the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Health Commission. Clearly abortions carried out in private clinics are thereby prohibited. Conversely, it allows for termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner at a hospital conducted by the Health Commission. This is precisely the situation sought to be achieved by the Legislative Assembly. The Ordinance is in harmony with its recommendations. Let me explain.

Senator Archer:

– On demand.

Senator TATE:

– No. One starts with the basic common law, which is that it is lawful for a registered medical practitioner to carry out an abortion anywhere at any time where he honestly believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother or her health, whether it be mental or physical. That is lawful. Thus, it is lawful and requires no ordinance for the Health Commission to provide abortion facilities in public hospitals conducted under its auspices. The designating of facilities - for example, the setting aside of some portion of a building and calling it a clinic- the provision of certain procedures and the provision of counselling can all be provided for by the Health Commission.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator TATE:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was inviting honourable senators to oppose the disallowance motion on either of two grounds which may appeal to them. Firstly, I was speaking of the dangerous, unpredictable consequences which will flow from the disallowance, consequences of uncertain duration and consequences permitting the establishment of private abortion clinics. Secondly, I was putting forward as a reason for voting against the disallowance motion the fact that I believe the organisation of public health facilities in the Australian Capital Territory is a matter not for this chamber but for the Capital Territory Health Commission acting under its Ordinance as sanctioned by this Parliament. My contention was that the Ordinance enables the major recommendations of the Legislative Assembly to be carried out. No further ordinance is required. Action by various authorities is required. I was demonstrating that it is lawful and requires no ordinance for the Health Commission in the Capital Territory to provide abortion facilities in public hospitals conducted under its auspices, and manifestly it does.

Since 1 January 1977 during the currency of the Ordinances, in terms with which we are now familiar, 233 abortions have been carried out in public hospital facilities in the Capital Territory. Those have been lawful abortions. The designating of facilities- for example, the setting aside of some portion of the building as a clinic in which counselling and termination of pregnancies may take place in the first 1 1 weeks of pregnancyand the provision of in-patient care for women between the 11th and 20th week of pregnancy are matters for the Capital Territory Health Commission acting under its own Ordinance. They can be done lawfully if this Ordinance stands. I contend that both facilities would be at a hospital. Anyone who has languished in a hospital knows that they are full of various clinics. There is no magic in the term. After all, the recommendation of the Australian Capital Territory Assembly is that the clinic be within the grounds of the hospital. In fact, that is necessary if recommendation No. 7, namely, that there be provision for emergency treatment of a woman in case of some distress or for some medical cause during the termination procedure in the clinic, is to be carried into effect.

It is clear that both day care and in-patient facilities can be made available at a hospital as permitted by the Ordinance. I contend, and I invite honourable senators to agree with me, that the Health Commission is the proper forum for making those decisions within the usual constraints of its Ordinance. The Health Commission cannot escape its decision-making role. It cannot deny its political character. It is for the Health Commission to provide for the implementation of those recommended procedures if it considers them appropriate, given its other expenditure commitments. Senator Hamer was nearly right on the point when he indicated that perhaps citizens in the Australian Capital Territory could raise funds for such a clinic. He was nearly right in the sense that it is a matter for the Australian Capital Territory people. Of course, the Commission may be subjected to ministerial direction, although I am not aware of an explicit one. But that would be in accordance with the Ordinance governing the Commission as promulgated by this Parliament.

The Health Commission must wage its own battles. Is there any evidence that it is? Is there any evidence that the three members of the Commission who are themselves members of the Legislative Assembly are pressing for the implementation of the Assembly’s recommendations? If the Territory wants home rule, let the Assembly exercise its political skills. Do not let its members ask me to come to the national Parliament from Tasmania to decide on the public health facilities that can be lawfully provided by the Health Commission. I repeat that no ordinance is required concerning public facilities. Our role as legislators in this matter completely escapes me. I believe that this is recognised by the Legislative Assembly report. It makes no request for an ordinance to carry into effect its recommendations concerning the termination of pregnancies at public hospitals. But an ordinance is required to ban private abortion clinics. Otherwise, their operations are legal, given the basic common law position which I outlined earlier. That is the only ordinance requested by the Legislative Assembly, and that is what it has.

The effect of disallowance would be to allow the basic common law to revive and to permit the carrying out of abortions anywhere in the Territory but, relevantly, in private abortion clinics conducted for commercial gain. I cannot support that proposition, and therefore will vote against the disallowance if it comes to a vote. I must also note the consequences of disallowance. They are entirely unpredictable in duration and in effect. Without the law, private abortion clinics may be established. Without a special Senate procedure, no ordinance which has as its consequence the banning of private abortion clinics may be introduced for six months, whether it is framed in identical terms or in some widely differing language. If it has the same consequence, it cannot be introduced for six months without a special Senate procedure. I emphasise that even with the special Senate procedure of recision there is no guarantee that a new ordinance will be introduced expeditiously. This is the terrible risk inherent in Senator Rae ‘s contingent notice of motion of recision. He proposes recision, a procedure, by the way, requiring an absolute majority of 33 votes. He proposes that recision motion to give the Minister an opportunity to introduce a like ordinance. Senator Rae can do nothing by way of extracting a guarantee from the Government that that like ordinance will be introduced within six months, let alone within a week or before the Senate rises for Christmas.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Or within a lifetime.

Senator TATE:

– I agree that no guarantee is given that it will be introduced, even within a lifetime. I am an apprentice in this place but I regard this contingent notice of motion as breathtaking in its naivety. My guess would be that the Government is much more likely to allow the political blame for opening up the possibility of private abortion clinics to fall on the Senate or, more accurately, on those honourable senators who vote for the disallowance of the Ordinance. Why should the Government hasten to rescue from the political repercussions those honourable senators, particularly within its own Party, who have not supported the Ordinance? The Government will not rush in. It will allow us to sweat during the summer. Honourable senators can take my word for it. During the summer we will all be watching to see whether the Phillip Clinic to be conducted by Population Services International (Australia) Ltd is about to open.

The consequences will fall on us or, more accurately, on those honourable senators who vote for disallowance if there is any suggestion that the clinic is to open. I believe that if it were clearly about to be opened the Minister would act. In the meantime, the Minister will act late in the autumn as the hero without depending on a Senate recision motion and do what everyone concedes must be done. He will do what Senator Ryan, the Legislative Assembly and almost all honourable senators to my knowledge believe must be done. He will then introduce an ordinance prohibiting the carrying out of abortions in private clinics. There is no guarantee that the possibility opened up by Senator Rae’s recision motion will be acted on expeditiously. Senator Rae’s motion gives no reason to support the disallowance. I believe that it is too dependent on matters outside our control in the Senate. If the recision revived the disallowed ordinance, it would be another matter. It does not. The ordinance is void and of no effect forever. In addition, the whole operation bears the appearance of the slightly ridiculous. In one hour we disallow the ordinance; in the next hour we recind the disallowance motion.

I therefore conclude that the motion for disallowance should be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, its immediate consequence is that abortions may be performed in facilities conducted for private gain, which result neither the Legislative Assembly nor Senator Ryan desire. Secondly, its aim, somehow to force the Government to establish a public abortion clinic, not only is not achieved by the disallowance but further it misconceives our role in these matters of the organisation within the Capital Territory of that which is lawful. The political fight for the reorganisation of facilities and procedures within the public health system here should be conducted within the Legislative Assembly and via its representatives on the Health Commission acting within the scope and constraints of its ordinance. I see nothing in the ordinance that gives the Senate any sort of indication that it was intended to interfere in the Commission’s relationship with those bodies which have part time commissioners- such as the Legislative Assembly which has three part time commissioners- on the Health Commission; nor are we meant to interfere with the relationship of the Commission to the government ofthe day.

If the Territory wants home rule let us see the ACT constituted bodies act as politically mature bodies. Let us indicate in our debate our support for the institutions which are part of the ACT structure- the Assembly and the Commission. Let us encourage them to act without timidity, but let us not usurp their roles. Therefore if this matter proceeds to a vote I will vote against it and I ask other honourable senators also to vote against it. I still ask Senator Ryan to seek leave of the Senate to withdraw her motion. I believe that her motion initially was based on a misunderstanding of the role and relationship of the Minister to the Legislative Assembly, which misunderstanding was generated deliberately by the Minister in an answer to a question in March 1977.

He attributed to the Assembly a capacity, a constitutional power, beyond its constituted limits. He called what might have turned out to be its recommendations its ‘decisions’ and gave an impression that its decisions would be simply transformed into the appropriate legislative form. Senator Ryan, I believe, and other citizens of the Territory were misled into thinking that conversion or transformation into an ordinance was required. As the recommendations were not transformed holus-bolus into an ordinance they thought that was the end of the matter. As I have demonstrated, that is not the end. There are other appropriate procedures by which the lawful provision of abortion facilities in public hospitals can be carried out. I believe that the fact that other procedures are available is conceded in the addendum to the motion which has been circulated in that it states, amongst other things, that one of the aims is to enable the Government to take such other administrative and legislative steps as are necessary. There is a recognition there that other proper avenues are available other than through this chamber where the provision of public facilities is to be decided.

Before I resume my seat, I wish to add that I dissociate myself from those people who have sought to misrepresent Senator Ryan’s aim or desire in this matter. Her aim has always been, to my knowledge, to resist the establishment of private abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory. I also deplore and dissociate myself from the hectoring and scornful tone of many of the submissions that we as parliamentarians have received and many of the letters which no doubt all honourable senators have received. I believe that simple courtesy and restraint in language would seem to be particularly appropriate in discussion of such matters. Nevertheless, I oppose the motion.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– Because Senator Ryan has assured us that her aim is not to set up private abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory, I accept that assurance. However, her aim is to set up a publicly run abortion clinic in the grounds of a hospital in the ACT. This year is the International Year of the Child. To celebrate that event Senator Ryan and those honourable senators who would support her motion suggest that this Government should be the first government in Australia to set up a public abortion clinic in the grounds of a hospital to be run by the taxpayers’ money to destroy the lives of children. Is that the message that the Senate wants to give to other nations of the world as Australia’s answer to the International Year of the Child? Senator Ryan, Senator Evans and Senator Hamer have all said that this is not a debate on abortion. This Government has the responsibility of setting up any health regulations in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a debate on abortion. I do not blame them one bit for trying to steer away from the debate on abortion. If I were trying to argue their philosophy I would be doing likewise because the last time abortion was debated in this place it was trounced. The vote was 98 to 23.

Senator Georges:

– In this House?

Senator WALTERS:

– I am sorry, I meant in this Parliament. The vote was 98 to 23 and it was thrown out resoundingly. Senator Ryan said that we should obey the elected representatives of the Australian Capital Territory and their recommendations. The abortion issue was never an issue at the election in 1974. It was never conceived at that time that the people of the ACT would be electing people who would have a decision to make on whether abortion clinics or any other health measure would be implemented. If we look at the number of people who were elected at that time- 18 members were elected to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly- we find that nearly one-third of them have since retired or died. That is a quite considerable number. So only two-thirds of the original elected Assembly have made that decision. The rest- nearly one-third or five members of the Assembly- have not been elected but have been appointed to their positions.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It was a unanimous decision, wasn’t it?

Senator WALTERS:

– It was not a unanimous decision. Let us look at what the recommendations are putting forward. Senator Hamer said that this would not alter the law on abortion in the Australian Capital Territory. It does not alter the law but it certainly would alter the practice of how abortion is carried out in the ACT. At the moment under the hospital organisation there are checks and balances and a responsible decision is taken after at least two doctors have consulted. The matter is then put to a terminating committee to see whether the abortion is not just being sought for frivolous reasons, because of convenience, as is the case in many States. If the recommendations are allowed, the public abortion clinic that would be set up would have the decision of only one doctor. There would be no consultation; no two doctors would consult. It would be abortion on demand as it is at the Preterm clinic and the Bertram Wainer clinic. We know this only too well. They are abortion on demand clinics. The laws in those States stipulate that it should be only when the mental or physical health of the mother is in jeopardy that an abortion should be carried out. Who will be able to say that the diagnosis of the doctor claiming that it is to the benefit of the mental health of the mother that the abortion take place is not justifiable? I think we have to look at several things because it is a debate on abortion.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child applies not only to the born but also to the unborn child. It says that a child by reason of its physical and mental immaturity needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection both before as well as after binh. Surely those people who believe in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights would not be pulled away from the Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

Senator Georges:

– When does life begin, Senator?

Senator WALTERS:

– I am sorry, but I did not hear what Senator Georges said.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It is a red herring.

Senator WALTERS:

– If Senator Georges says that is a red herring -

Senator Georges:

– I did not say anything of the sort. I asked you when life begins. I asked a serious question and I thought that you might answer it.

Senator WALTERS:

– I did not hear what the honourable senator said. However Senator Baume told me that you said it was a red herring. I should never take any notice of my Whip. What was your question, Senator Georges?

Senator Georges:

– Could you explain when life begins and when a child comes under the terms of the Declaration?

Senator WALTERS:

– Well, Senator Georges, when does life begin? Every womens libber in the world has a different decision as to when life begins. They argue that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body. They all come up with some magical solution. I believe that life begins once conception has taken place. Life certainly begins once the baby has started to develop. We know that this is right. We have been told by the Royal Commission on Human Relationships that this is its decision. We have been told by every responsible body that abortion is the taking of a human life. Nobody in his right mind would deny that. A baby must be alive to grow; it must be alive to move. I do not believe that anyone would doubt that an unborn baby is a life.

We have been told not to get emotional about this subject. We have been told just to deal with the facts- after all it is a foetus and every woman should have the right to say whether she will continue with a pregnancy. I believe that every woman has every right in the world to say whether she will become pregnant. Some people argue that every woman has the right to say whether her baby can be destroyed just because it is not born. However, if she made this decision immediately after the baby was born and the baby was destroyed she would be charged with murder. I would like to know at what magical point these people believe that life begins. I do not think that Senator Georges will find any agreement on an answer to his question. There would be very few people who could come up with an answer.

Senator Evans talked about an opinion poll that was conducted in the Australian Capital Territory. I think we all realise that the questions asked in the opinion poll were worded very badly. To do Senator Evans some justice, he did say: ‘Well, you know, the poll was a bit dicey’. A bit dicey! The opinion poll did not mention the fact that as the situation stands at the moment about 150 abortions are being carried out in hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory. It did not mention that already very responsible facilities were available in the Australian Capital Territory for abortions to be carried out.

I would like to make it perfectly clear where I stand. I do not believe in no abortion whatsoever. I believe there are very definite occasions when abortion can be justified. I state this belief very clearly. I have absolutely no agreement with those who say that abortion should not take place in any circumstances. But let us face the facts. If we set up a clinic in the Australian Capital Territory of the type that has been suggested today we will be condoning the principle of abortion on demand.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Yes, that is right.

Senator WALTERS:

- Senator Baume said: Yes, that is right’. Senator Baume will oppose what I have said when he speaks in this debate. But he agrees with me on this point. If we vote today to set up public abortion clinics in the grounds of Australian Capital Territory hospitals we will be voting for abortion on demand.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Legal abortion.

Senator WALTERS:

- Senator Baume says: Legal abortion’. Can anyone tell me of one instance in the last year when an abortionist has been taken to trial in New South Wales, Victoria or South Australia? How many abortions are being done in Australia today? Are they all legal abortions?

Senator Ryan:

– Yes.

Senator WALTERS:

- Senator Ryan very clearly said yes. Do people say that abortions performed by Bertram Wainer or the Preterm clinics are not abortion on demand? Of course they are abortions on demand. They have bragged that every woman who goes into Preterm can have an abortion if she wants it. It is on demand, the same as it would be in the Australian Capital Territory if the Senate votes for this motion. Senator Baume agrees with me on this point although he adds that it is a legal abortion. There is no such thing as an illegal abortion in Australia today because there has not been one case of an abortionist being brought to trial.

Senator Puplick:

– It does not prove there are not any, Senator.

Senator WALTERS:

-Nor does it prove, Senator Puplick, that they are illegal because, as I have said, we have not had proof that one illegal abortion has been carried out in Australia this year.

Senator Puplick:

– But you know there are.

Senator WALTERS:

– We know there are, but how do we catch up with the people performing the abortions? How will we be able to catch up with them in the Australian Capital Territory? Therefore do not let us quibble about that point- they are abortions on demand.

I have been asked to speak for only a quarter of an hour and therefore I would like to make one last point. We have to look at a very difficult legal position. For instance, consider the thalidomide cases and the legal protection for a threemonth old foetus. A deformed child can sue the drug company concerned for deformity caused by thalidomide. There is legal protection for a deformed child. But there is no legal protection for a 3-month-old foetus if there is an abortion, if the ultimate harm is done. No suit can be brought, for a very obvious reason- murder has been done.

In summing up I would like to say that every legislator, every educator, every sociologist and every psychologist has found it too hard to decide when life begins. They have found that abortion is the taking of a life, the destruction of a life. They have said to the medical profession: You deal with it; you get rid of the problem; it is too difficult for us’. I believe that legislators, educators, sociologists, psychologists and any other people one would like to mention should try to deal with this problem themselves instead of just passing the problem to the medical profession and saying: ‘You deal with it; you get rid of the problem; it is too difficult for us’.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating Senator Ryan’s motion relating to the disallowance of an Ordinance relating to the termination of pregnancies in the Australian Capital Territory. I should say at the beginning that the effect of the existing Ordinance seems to me to be somewhat unclear but it is quite clear in relation to the position of private clinics. Insofar as it relates to private clinics, I approve of the existing provisions of the Ordinance. But it is not so clear in its intent in relation to the termination of pregnancies in a hospital or a clinic and, in terms of the Government’s statements about that situation, it is not clear at all. An amendment has been moved to Senator Ryan’s motion by Senator Evans. I understand that the amendment has the approval of Senator Ryan because it expresses clearly her intention in relation to this issue. I support the intention of Senator Ryan and for that reason I will vote for her motion. But I do so in light of the amendment and in light of the notice of motion given by Senator Rae in this place.

I am prepared to support the recommendation of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health. In doing so, I refer again to the history of this matter, which has been touched on by other honourable senators speaking in this place. It is important because in a very real sense it goes to the heart of the issue which the Senate is debating. First of all, let me say that I am very grateful to the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, for making such an explicit statement of the Government’s intentions relating to self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. If we look at the history of the matter, however, we find that the Government’s intentions have not always been as explicit and as clear in relation to this matter as Senator Guilfoyle would have had the Senate believe this morning. I refer of course, as other honourable senators have done, to the quite explicit statement by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) in the House of Representatives on 24 March 1977 when he was asked a quite specific question about this matter and gave the following reply:

We have decided as a government, and quite rightly so, that matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory, matters that have great social consequence and matters that have wide-ranging consequences for the people in this community will be debated, discussed and decided by those people who were elected by the local community.

He went on at a later stage to give explicit approval of the 90-day Ordinance which was then introduced and said in that context that the purpose of the Ordinance was to allow the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly to decide these matters. There could not be a more explicit statement of the Government’s intention at that stage. It was a statement of intent which was supported in fact by the action of the then Minister for the Capital Territory in introducing the first Ordinance. It was an Ordinance that was introduced, in Senator Guilfoyle ‘s own words, to enable the Legislative Assembly to consider the issue ‘.

I refer to these matters simply to indicate that the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly was entitled to believe that this was a matter within its province to determine. The Assembly commissioned the Standing Committee on Education and Health to report on the matter. Its report should be read by everybody who participates in this debate and everybody who is concerned about this issue. The Committee received numerous recommendations and heard numerous oral submissions from people in the Territory. The report itself contains a wealth of factual information and information which I regard as important. It should be read because, whatever one’s views about this issue, it is a responsible report of a responsible body of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory. As has been pointed out earlier, the recommendations in that report were adopted by the Legislative Assembly. The response to this was the Government’s Ordinance which Senator Ryan’s motion seeks to disallow because that Ordinance is completely in conflict with the Minister’s previously given undertaking.

I think it is important to reflect on the situation which is foreshadowed in the amendment moved by Senator Evans as to the intention of Senator Ryan’s motion. The report of the Legislative Assembly records the fact that it is estimated that approximately 500 abortions are performed every year, on residents of the Australian Capital Territory- not necessarily in Canberra but frequently in Sydney and Melbourne. That is a fact which is inescapable and, as between women seeking an abortion in Sydney and women seeking an abortion in Canberra, there is a discrepancy, a discrimination, which is important and which I believe would have been important in the deliberations of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory. I think that is an important matter which we have to consider. Because of the history of the matter, I regard that as the basic reason for supporting the action which has been taken by Senator Ryan.

Having said that, I want to refer to the issue of abortion itself. I must say that I am in some disagreement with certain people who also support Senator Ryan, such as Senator Hamer, in relation to this issue. I am in some disagreement with them because, whatever the legislative and administrative technicalities of this debate, I think, with respect, it is slightly glib to see it as an issue which does not involve one ‘s attitude to the question of abortion. I say that because the Ordinance itself specifically relates to the question of abortion and the circumstances in which abortions will be performed in the Australian Capital Territory. I also say that because I, as a senator, have received more than 2,000 letters on this matter.

Whatever the position regarding the Ordinance, those people who have taken the trouble to write to me and to other honourable senators clearly perceive this issue as being related to the moral and social questions which relate to abortion. I think it is wrong for the Senate to try to decide this issue in some sort of legislative vacuum which seeks to divorce the debate from important social and moral questions.

I would like to thank all those people who have taken the trouble to write to me. I particularly want to thank those who have taken the trouble to write thoughtful letters. I do not intend to reply to all of the letters which 1 have received. It would be a herculean task and I do not think the cause of human understanding and communication would be advanced by my sending a card or a roneoed letter back to some of the hundreds or probably thousands of people who have sent me cards or roneoed letters on this subject. But I will take the trouble to reply to some of those letters which I think have been genuinely thoughtful and concerned about this matter. I want to emphasise that, in the context of the debate in which the Senate is engaged, I think it is important that the views of those people who have taken the trouble to write to us on a sensitive and important issue should be considered.

The difficulty I have about some of the letters and some of the views which have been put to me is a very practical one. It is simply this: The notion of abortion is not personally attractive to me. I would not seek to encourage people to have abortions. I believe that there are very legitimate and important social and moral questions involved in the abortion debate. But I do take the view, which I believe is strongly supported by circumstantial evidence, by facts and by the history of the abortion debate over many years, that, whatever this Senate does in relation to legislative proscription regarding abortion, abortions will still be sought by women and will still take place. I think that is the most important fact which we have to consider. As far as I am concerned, if as a senator I believe that, it is proper for me to make a social and political judgment about the circumstances in which those abortions which I believe will take place should take place. My own view is that those abortions should take place in a medical environment, in a hospital atmosphere, subject to the judgment of the medical profession and the care of the medical profession. I think the law should provide for that.

I find it rather sad to reflect that the abortion debate is couched so much in terms of life as against choice. Every one of us I suppose would in a sense have the greatest difficulty in saying or believing that he or she is against life, and every one of us would have the greatest difficulty in saying or believing that he or she is against choice. They are both very nice slogan concepts with which it is difficult to grapple in sorting out some of the issues which are involved in this debate.

In my view of this question, it is instructive to look in a very brief way at the history of abortion over many years in many societies. I remind the Senate that prior to 1880 neither in the United States nor in Australia was there any legislation or legislative prohibition of any kind on abortion. It was only in the 1 880s and 1 890s that in the United States, because the medical profession felt that so many abortions were being performed by totally unqualified people, pressure was engendered for the introduction of legislation which made an abortion a criminal offence. There is no doubt that the legislation which we have in this country flowed from that consideration. It is always said that the criminality of abortion is in some way some eternal verity. That is not true at all. There was no criminality for abortion, as I have said, in this country or in the United States prior to 1880. According to one theory propounded by Dr James Mohr in his book Abortion in America: Origins and Evolution of National Policy, it is quite clear that legislative prescription for abortion came about in the latter half of the 19th century because of an almost industrial union attitude of the medical profession, with which we are not unfamiliar in this country, to that particular issue. I think it is important to record that historical fact.

Even considering the question of the alleged criminality or otherwise of abortion, I think it is important to note that since the inception of laws prohibiting abortion in one way or another, laws which are supposed to reflect the social mores of a society to which the legal system responds in some way, the law has always drawn an important distinction between murder, infanticide and the performance of an abortion. The penalties for murder, infanticide and procuring an abortion have always been very different. I believe that is because society as a whole makes a moral judgment that they are quite different things. I have great difficulty in accepting the view that an abortion procured during the first 1 1 weeks of pregnancy is murder. I am not prepared to accept the implications that follow from that allegation. I would have thought that the crime of murder involved a victim and a person who was totally independent of the person who performs the murder. Does it not follow from this characterisation of abortion in this way that we also characterise any woman who seeks an abortion as a murderer- a woman who otherwise might be innocent of any criminality at all?

The significant point that I seek to make from the law as it has been and still is in most legislative prescriptions is that, however we might like to characterise abortion, the fact of the matter is that many women who are confronted with a difficult moral and social problem do not see it in that way. We live in a society in which that is so. We live in a world in which that is so. That may be a cause for very legitimate regret, but it is a fact of which I believe we have to take account.

One-third of the abortions performed in the United States and one-third of the abortions performed in Australia, according to the best available evidence, are performed on teenage girls. Do we make a moral judgment as a Senate, and as a society, that we would condemn those people in the terms in which some of the debate about abortion is carried on?

Do we make the judgment perhaps that an understanding of contraception is inadequate in our society and that an understanding of moral choice about a number of issues is inadequate? Alternatively, do we make the judgment perhaps that we live in a society in which there is insufficient room for legitimate choice to be made by women confronted with this situation? That bears on the whole question of choice, which is the other leg of the argument which is carried on about abortion.

The capacity for choice is a very real and important question and it bears on the substance of the report of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health on this matter. That report contains some recommendations which go right to the question of the capacity to make choice and judgments in this particular situation. It contains recommendations also about information which might be necessary in order that the choice may be avoided altogether. I think the report of the Standing Committee on Education and Health should be considered by honourable senators in their deliberations on this matter.

Another issue to which I wish to refer seems to me to be an argument which has to be dealt with in the context of the debate. I think it is a sound and sincere argument. I do not happen to agree with it. The argument is simply that, if by action taken in this Senate, a public clinic is established at the Canberra Hospital we are somehow taking pan in the decision which provides a more permissive abortion law and, accordingly, as a matter of consequence, that leads to a devaluation of human life in the minds of the community. If that argument could be proven, I think it would be a very important argument and one which we would have to consider. I do not believe that any senator, whatever is his or her position, who is participating in this debate wants to see a society in which there is a greater devaluation of human life. With the greatest respect to those who advance this argument, I do not think there is any evidence to support it at all. I shall quote from a book by Dr Daniel Callahan which is entitled Abortion Law: Choice and Morality and in which the author deals with the argument that a more permissive abortion law leads to a devaluation of human life in society in the following terms: . . this is almost impossible to demonstrate since ‘there is no evidence that societies which have liberal or permissive abortion laws are societies in which the meaning and value of life in general are demonstably more threatened than in societies which do not have such laws. ‘

It is a conclusion with which I respectfully agree. I say this because I think it would be very difficult for people who advance that argument to point to a society and to say that that is a society with a devalued view of human life compared with other societies because it has more permissive abortion laws.

Let me take the example of one societySweden which was always said to be in this position. It was often argued that Sweden, as a result of whatever one might like to term its lawsliberal or permissive- on matters such as abortion and so on, had as a consequence a high rate of suicide. I think that argument was long ago disproved in favour of the view that Sweden has better, more accurate and more honest statisticians than many societies like our own in relation to questions such as suicide. I do not think that one can fairly point to a society like that, a society which has been, per capita, the greatest contributor to United Nations organisations for the relief of refugees and for the assistance of children throughout the world and say that it has a more devalued view of human life than a society like Australia which is more concerned with its own economic problems perennially than with international problems of concern such as the ones I have mentioned. I do not think that that can properly be said at all. I think that there is very little evidence to support that contention.

I mention the argument because I think it is one which is held sincerely by many people. I hope and believe that the argument which they advance on this issue is wrong. I mention some of these matters because I think it is important for each senator who takes part in this debate to try to say why he or she has adopted a particular position. I think that some of the factors to which I have referred are important in the overall context of the debate and ones which have certainly been important to me. I indicate that I will be supporting Senator Ryan ‘s motion.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I rise to add my contribution to this significant debate conscious of the gravity of any senator’s undertaking decisions in this place of an essential social or moral nature. At the outset I say that my vote will be cast in favour of Senator Evan’s amendment, in favour of Senator Ryan’s motion and in favour of Senator Rae ‘s contingent notice of motion. I appreciate that in a debate where party lines have not been drawn the weight and arguments to be advanced by any one senator will be as valid for him as others are for any other member of the Senate. I think therefore that the argument advanced by Senator Button that senators should take the opportunity to explain why it is that they have come to the conclusions that they have reached is important.

Not only is this an issue which involves the individual moral choice of members of this Parliament, but also it is one that involves a choice which is relevant to the nature of the Westminster style of government. The elected representatives in a legislature, when finding themselves in conflict with a decision of the Executive Government, should consider very clearly that the underpinning of this system is that the will of the elected members as a whole should prevail over the will of the Executive of any parliamentary institution. This is not simply an issue about abortion, although one’s attitude to the question of abortion ought to be stated. It is a question of who should decide this matter, what commitments the Government has made in this matter and one’s own personal stand on the matter.

Before I turn to those three arguments I would like to comment briefly on one of the remarks made by Senator Tate. I found an essential weakness in Senator Tate ‘s position. He said that the current ordinance as it stands allows the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly’s report to be acted upon. Yet he knows that the

Government in writing and in its public utterances has stated that it will not act upon the report and that the Government has already rejected action on the other recommendations. The passage of this disallowance motion would in fact force the Government, I believe, particularly in the terms of Senator Evans’s amendment to face up to those issues again. It cannot be that we hide behind an excuse which says that the Government is allowed to do these other things when it is known full well that the Government has already set its face against them.

I comment only very briefly on the speech of Senator Walters. She said that abortion was not an issue at the time of the last election of the Legislative Assembly. I am not impressed by that argument. That is not the argument that members on this side would have been prepared to advance when our own Government introduced for the first time the conscription of young men to go and fight in Vietnam following an election at which there had been no issue about conscription and from which there was no conceivable way of saying that a mandate was given on one side or the other. I turn to the issue of who should decide. Let me quote the stance taken by the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) in another place whose views on the question of abortion are well known. On 27 August in an article in the Canberra Times Mr Stephen Lusher wrote:

My own view is that 124 Members of whom only two are from the ACT should not legislate on matters affecting the morality of the Territory.

I accept that as an entirely valid proposition. 1 believe that the views of the people who live in the Capital Territory have been canvassed. I believe that despite what one might say about the precise nature of the wording of the questions posed by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Proprietary Limited it has been indicated that in the Capital Territory there is a substantial majority of support for clinics in the way indicated and that also a substantial majority of support was recorded in favour of the question: ‘Do you approve or disapprove of easier abortion laws?’. I know from correspondence I have received that the majority of people who have written to me on this issue are not residents of the Capital Territory and are not people whose personal lives and attitudes in the place where they live are directly affected. That has been the case for some time. In his own briefing note the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) indicated that on an earlier occasion ‘protests were received from, inter alia, the Right To Life Association’- this dealt with Population

Services International- ‘and many private individuals predominantly non-residents of the Australian Capital Territory’. I believe that the residents of the Territory who voted at the last elections for the Assembly- 38,500 people voted from the Canberra electorate and 41,000 from the Fraser electorate- are entitled to see their elected representatives pass legislation and make decisions affecting their lives because those representatives are the only people who are directly responsible, other than the four members of this Parliament, to the people whose lives are being affected.

It ought to be recorded that the Legislative Assembly has passed a resolution claiming that it was misled by the Minister for Health. That should not pass without comment. It should be recorded that the Minister for Health sent to the Legislative Assembly a draft Bill the main provision of which was ‘that a registered medical practitioner shall not carry out treatment for the termination of pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital operated by the Capital Territory Health Commission’. That is the same wording virtually as the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance. On 30 May the Assembly rejected that Bill and passed again a resolution stating its renewed support for its own recommendations.

I believe that the fundamental underpinning of the concept of representative democracy is not only that the representatives elected by individuals and citizens should make decisions of this nature and not people who are not elected by the citizens, but also that when the lives of individuals are affected they ought to have recourse against or in support of the people who made those decisions. What recourse do the citizens of the Capital Territory have other than to the four members of this Parliament who are immediately elected by them when it comes to a decision about the representative nature of the other members here? I would no more submit that the citizens of New South Wales should be individually picked out by the government of some other State or Territory and legislated for than I would submit that the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory should be put in that position.

I come now to the commitment made by Mr Hunt in the House of Represenatives, words which must surely be burnt into his brain like the words on the wall at Balthazar’s feast. But the equally important part that has not yet been quoted by any honourable senator was when the Minister said this:

The honourable member for Fremantle -

That was Mr Beazley- reminds us of a debate that took place in another Parliament at another time when quite obviously the former Government was trying to make the Australian Capital Territory and its people the guinea pigs in a social laboratory.

Just as he rightly rejected making the people of the Capital Territory guinea pigs in a social laboratory, so we should reject making the people of the Capital Territory guinea pigs in a social fossil reflecting the prejudices of the Federal Government at the expense of the views of the elected representatives of the Capital Territory. It may well be that people believe that the elected representatives of the Capital Territory have no part to play in this debate. If that is their view, they are of course perfectly entitled to it. It say that I do not accept that view. I accept that the commitment given by Mr Hunt, that ‘we as a government have decided’ to allow these people to make that decision, ought to be honoured and ought to be required to be honoured by the Senate.

Senator Webster:

– Don’t you accept that the Federal Government has a responsibility at present for decisions in the Capital Territory?

Senator PUPLICK:

– I accept that decisions that this Federal Government makes on moral matters are entirely distinct and different from decisions that are made about electricity supplies, a water authority or anything else in the Capital Territory. If honourable senators cannot perceive that questions like abortion are fundamentally different from questions of general public health policy or other aspects over which the Commonwealth has control, quite simply we are in another situation in which perceptions are grossly different.

I have said that I regard it as important to put down a statement of my view as far as the question of abortion per se is concerned. I believe this to be a moral and not a legal question. I believe that if it were a legal question it would be competent simply to allow some learned judge to decide it. I do not accept that point of view, although if one wants to one can rely on Mr Justice MacNaghten’s ruling in Rex v. Bourne in 1939 in England or Mr Justice Menhennitt ‘s ruling in Regina v. Davidson in 1969 and find that there are distinctions between even those learned gentlemen. One cannot even turn to a united front within religious authority. One can find that the position which has evolved in, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church was first laid down in the canon law of Gratianus in 1140 and modified by papal encyclical after papal encyclical. Whether one quotes Casti Connubi Vigilare con sollecitudine or Humanae vitae, one is able to go on at length. That is one particular view.

There are Catholic theologians such as Daniel Callaghan, who Senator Button has quoted, who hold a different point of view.

There are divisions within the Protestant churches. There is the 1 965 Church of England committee report very much in favour of the amendment of the British abortion laws which were amended in 1967. There are the public statements of Lord Fisher, the 99th Archbishop of Canterbury, which were very much in favour of the current situation, which is the way people would regard, say, the Menhennitt judgment. There are statements which are implicitly supported by Archbishop Arnott and which are to be found in the royal commission’s report.

One can turn to legal considerations. One can turn to the report of Mrs Justice Lane and the British Royal Commission in 1974 that perhaps went further than anybody on this question in advocating that pregnancies could be terminated up until the 24th week. One can turn to the 1 977 New Zealand Royal Commission on precisely the same thing. The only value in indicating the confusion that exists in terms of law and morality is that it brings one to the fundamental premise that each individual is going to have to search his own soul and conscience and come up with his own answer. Matters of morality are not decided by majorities. Matters of conscience are not decided by coercion. That is what has been attempted in this debate. It has been attempted throughout–

Senator Walters:

– In this debate?

Senator PUPLICK:

-Yes, and the honourable senator knows that full well. I am not talking just about the debate that takes place in this chamber. I am talking about the debate as to whether it is a free vote or a whipped vote, or the sort of pressures one should take notice of when making a decision here. I have received as much correspondence as have other honourable senators. I have received, I suppose, 2,000-odd letters.

Senator Coleman:

– More than I did.

Senator PUPLICK:

-Perhaps the writers thought they had a better chance with me. Some of those letters quite obviously were organised in such a way that one gets the impression that only a limited amount of individual thought had been put into them. Some of them were in detail, some were pleading and some were arguing on both sides of the case. I have letters that are heartrending- letters written by six-year-old or seven-year-old children and sent by their parents. I do not know what sort of parent does that. But they are letters that I think every honourable senator would have to consider. I received one that came from a constituent who lives in the suburb of Paddington and who pleaded with me to do only a couple of things: To view the question as a matter of humanity and to view it with sympathy. She pleaded with me that just as no pro-abortionist should force anybody to have an abortion, what are the rights of the anti-abortionists to force a woman to carry a child against her wishes when there are legal alternatives? They are the sorts of situations that I have considered. I do not believe that a legal vacuum will arise by the disallowance of this ordinance. Nor do I believe in the extreme and, I think, highly unreasonable case drawn by Senator Tate that the Government would sit back and do nothing, allow everybody else to carry the can and not respond in some positive way, if this disallowance motion were carried.

I regret the extent to which Senator Ryan has been vilified, the false misleading advertisements that have been placed in Canberra newspapers and the appalling misrepresentation of several of the issues that are involved. I have said- I will say it again in conclusion- that I am going to be held responsible to my electors, to my party and in the long run to some ultimate moral judgment. I can face those only because I believe that what I am doing is right.

Senator Jessop:

– You have six years in the Senate.

Senator PUPLICK:

– I have three years and I am third on the ticket, so I can tell the Senate that some value judgment has been made here. When I stood before a preselection committee I was asked questions such as this and questions about marihuana. I said that not for the Liberal Party, not for the Liberal-National Country Party Government and not for any man that I know would I make a shipwreck of my conscience on matters such as this. I do not intend to allow this matter to be the first. The confusion that is apparent in both legal and moral terms means quite simply that each of us must make his decision for himself, being as best informed as he can be, and bring into that decision, I believe, as much humanity, sympathy and understanding as it is possible for him to muster. Having done those things, my position is clear and I shall be voting in the manner indicated.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-Senator Puplick, who has just resumed his seat, is a breath of fresh air. It is a privilege to follow him. We started this debate with much talk about it being not about abortion but about whether certain ordinances should be allowed. But at last the

Senate has faced facts and is talking about the real matter on which we have crossed swords. The Minister said that the Government would not go against the expressed will of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. It then decided to take notice of 24 per cent instead of 70 per cent of the population because of the pressure of a noisy minority which wants to mind the conscience of the majority of the population. There has been no such campaign about other ordinances in the Australian Capital Territory. There has been no campaign about such things as collecting rubbish, bus routes, casinos or even dogs although the subject of dogs did come close to attracting such a campaign. There has never been such a misinformed campaign in Australia as there has been over this issue. People have been writing letters and signing cards obviously without any idea of the current situation or of the matters that are subject to debate. As has been said, when letters are received from six-year-old and seven-year-old children, who do not know anything about life, asking us not to murder children, those who are putting together the campaign had better look at their own moral standards.

All this has been said before. We are now at the stage at which honourable senators are in fact stating their personal reasons for either supporting or opposing the motion moved by Senator Ryan. I support it. I find it appalling that the people who take the anti-abortion line can seriously believe that women have abortions for cosmetic reasons, that women take abortions lightly, that they have them for no serious reason but just for their own convenience. I firmly believe that no woman ever takes an abortion lightly. She has one because of what seems to her to be overpowering difficulties. Where are the anti-abortionists when those difficulties arise? They talk about killing children. What sort of a person would want to kill a child? These people very carefully forget the horrific problems that women have to face. They take no responsibility for the poverty, the drudgery, the violence, the hunger, the illness, the despair, the lack of hope and the pain that women have to suffer in these circumstances. These are the hard questions to answer. It is easy for people to say that abortion means killing a child, but where are these people when these questions have to be answered and what are their answers to these questions? The unfortunate women are left to wrestle with those problems on their own.

There are people who talk about the sanctity of life but then say that a woman’s life is threatened an abortion is reasonable. At what stage is a woman’s life threatened? Is it threatened only when she is on the operating table or is it threatened when she is starved, beaten and kicked and when she is so far down that she no longer looks upon herself as a human being? Is her life threatened then? Where are these campaigners when a woman does not believe that she has any life in front of her? They are not interested in solving the problem of doing away with the necessity for an abortion. A vast number of the people who come to this country, people who have come here from Europe, literally use abortion as a contraceptive device. That is appalling. It is appalling to most of us who live in this fat, rich land but in the countries from which these people have come there was no advice, there was no assistance and there was no hope and that was the only means available to them of trying to cope with the problem of pregnancy. What are the people who call themselves the ‘right to lifers’ doing about those women there and what are they doing about those women here? They are doing nothing. They are not trying to solve their problems for them.

Are people being pressured into writing letters on this subject? When I receive a number of letters that are written on the same type of paper, written with the same words and posted in the same type of envelope from the same office, I wonder just how much these letters really do express the views of the people who have signed them. I wonder how much pressure has been brought to bear on them and what opportunity these people have been given to express their true feelings about this problem. I suppose that if one were to stand outside the hospitals and clinics where abortions are performed and ask the people going into these places for an abortion to sign a card before they went in saying that they believed in abortion it would be called unfair tactics, exploitive and putting unfair pressure on people. I suppose that girls in offices who are anxious to keep their jobs would not have been pressured into signing anti-abortion letters! I suppose that little kids of six, seven and 10 years of age who do not know anything about life would not have been pressured into signing such letters!

Senator Walters said that everybody finds the question concerning abortion too hard to answer. I think the anti-abortionists find the questions too easy to answer. When they resort to having pimply-faced boys of 1 5 years of age standing outside hospitals and screaming at some anxious woman that she is murdering her child their morality is very much in question and they are finding the answers far too easy. They are the ones who are pressuring women more and more and they are the ones who are not facing up to the real problems. Where are the people who are blackmailing us with regard to our votes while millions of babies starve to death in, say, Africa? Where are the people who write to me and say: We are watching which way you vote and there are six adults in this house who also are watching which way you vote?’ Where are they in light of the increasing mortality rate amongst Aboriginal babies in Australia? Are they participating in the campaign against nuclear energy because of its threat to life in the future and its threat to the lives of unborn babies? They cannot be found. I do not get any letters from them on the other subjects. Nobody sends me cards with my name printed on them to ask me to ensure that something is done about those problems. Evidently some life is precious but not all life because the people who talk about abortion being a threat to life allow abortions in some instances. Either all life is precious or all life can take its chance. The same people talk about ‘just wars’. Again, either all life is precious or only some life is precious. I think they should look to their own morality when they recruit young people to this righttolife campaign and they should teach those young people that right to life means each and every person’s responsiblity to life in every instance, not just in some circumstances.

These people are the ones who leave rich ground for abortion clinics. These people are the ones who are going to make private abortionists very rich. Because they do nothing about the problems that cause women to have an abortion. These people force women into such areas. I have never heard these people come out and run a campaign to find out in which backyards of Canberra an abortion is being done with appalling results. If they really care about the health of the women and children in the Australian Capital Territory they should go out and find those butchers and do something about them. But remember that they are there only because desperate women will find the means of having an abortion.

There has been talk of providing children for childless couples to adopt. If people are so anxious to provide children for childless couples to adopt, I suggest that they establish stud farms. There has been talk about increasing the Australian population. I say to the people who come out with that theory that women are not factories to be turned off and on. We are not a natural resource to which a country can turn at times when it needs a greater population and then dismiss and put under wraps when it no longer needs an increase in population. We are human beings with a mind and a conscience of our own.

I believe that the right to life is most important. 1 have great respect for many of the people who have written to me and stated their views. I have great respect for their views but they are their views. I would not force them to have an abortion. I would not lightly suggest to anybody that she should have an abortion and I would not have an abortion. But they must respect my right to weigh up the pros and cons and make those decisions which safeguard my life and ensure that my children grow up in the best possible circumstances. I have no time or respect for the people who take the easy way out.

Abortion is a very difficult problem for people to face up to. But there is one time, I believe, when men should have a conscience vote; there is one time when men should have a conscience. The time to examine that freedom, the time to take that responsibility, is before they have intercourse, before there is any likelihood of a child eventuating. They should not take on the role of the guardian of my conscience after that has taken place. I have six children. I love them. I would not have an abortion but that was my decision to make. I expect love, understanding, protection and concern when I make that decision. I expect governments to legislate to protect me from charlatans, rogues and exploiters and to promote a good life for my children, and I will make the decision about whether I should have children. I urge the Senate to support Senator Ryan’s motion.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Watson on making his maiden speech last night. He was most impressive and obviously is a true Tasmanian. I think that we can look forward to his being a staunch and intrepid fighter for the rights of that State. I might say also that I was reassured and refreshed to hear Senator Tate’s nice analysis of the proposal to disallow the Australian Capital Territory the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance. I found it as refreshing to hear him do that as I am sure Senator Melzer found Senator Puplick ‘s analysis of the situation. I am confident that the senators of the National Country Party view the proposed disallowance of this Ordinance as a move against the policy of the Government. If we persist with disallowing this Ordinance, we will be virtually inflicting self-government on the Australian Capital Territory when the Territory itself has not given an indication as to whether or not it wants self-government. I think that the issue is as basic as that.

We have had huge arguments on the pros and cons of abortion and the freedom to have an abortion. The Government has made its attitude entirely clear on the matter. It has considered the advice of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly and come up with an ordinance. The fact remains that unlike the Bantustans in South Africa the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly has virtually no powers of self-government. The Constitution and the law state that this Government is responsible now for law in the Territory now if we persist in forcing this issue we will really be imposing selfgovernment to the Territory. All honourable senators know that a referendum is due to be held on 25 November on what powers, if any, are to be passed over to the Australian Capital Territory. I think that when this motion to disallow the Ordinance was first promulgated in the Senate the important issue was not the Ordinance itself but the interference with selfgovernment in the Territory, but it does not have self-government at the moment. I think that the selection of abortion as an issue was a rather crafty move. As senator after senator has said, it has proven to be perhaps the most sensitive issue that one could raise. We have all received at least two kilograms of mail on the matter. We are in a situation of having a free conscience vote on an issue that affects self-government in the Capital Territory.

I am confident that National Country Party senators will reject any motion to rescind the Ordinance. I regard the contingent motion foreshadowed yesterday, the emergency letters sent round last night by the mover of the motion and the amendments which have been suggested today purely as legislative gymnastics to try to rectify the position that we have been forced into by this motion to disallow the Ordinance.

Senator Georges:

– That means it is not a conscience vote for the members of the National Country Party. That is what you are saying to us.

Senator SHEIL:

– It is a conscience vote for members of the National Country Party, but I feel sure that the important issue is selfgovernment in the Australian Capital Territory. If we persist with the attitude of the supporters of this motion to disallow the Ordinance, we will inflict self-government on the people of the Territory when they have not given us an indication of whether they want it. I regard the rest of the argument as a red herring. That is the case I wish to put before the Senate.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I think it ought to be reiterated that, certainly in my opinion, the matter we are discussing here today is not a matter which will decide whether abortion should or should not be carried out in the Australian Capital Territory. Indeed, it is a fact, as stated at page 38 of the report of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health that 1,106 applications for abortions were received between October 1970 and March 1 977 and that only 49 of these applications were not approved. The rest, more than 1,000, were approved. I suggest that that is a sufficient answer to the position that Senator Walters has taken here. Hence rejection of the present Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance and its replacement by a better one is unlikely to increase the number of abortions carried out in the Australian Capital Territory. In my opinion a revised ordinance has the potential- I stress the word potential’- to remedy what is in many respects a disgraceful situation in which abortions are carried out in this Territory. That situation is due to bad government by the Federal Government on behalf of a group of people who do not yet have the right to govern themselves.

It is stated at page 39 of the report to which I have referred that the termination committee operating under the present Ordinance has the sole function to see that requirements for making a termination legal are met and that hospital facilities are not used for the purpose of an illegal operation. Its function then is basically a negative and restrictive one. Under present procedures, as I understand the matter, this committee of six may not necessarily include a woman although it sometimes does; that women seeking termination are not allowed to put their cases personally to that committee but only through a doctor, and that terminations are carried out more or less in parallel with other hospital procedures using the same staff, who may or may not wish to be involved. Since the committee will not even see the women concerned under any circumstances there is no question of it actually counselling her. My reply to Senator Tate is that we must look at the de facto situation, the situation which actually exists now in Canberra, if we are to make judgments on this matter. Certainly I have looked at it that way. I have asked myself: Would I willingly contribute to the continuance of the present situation? I would say that as a matter of conscience I could not see that situation continue. As a result I will be voting with Senator Ryan in this matter.

As I have said, the Ordinance, which states merely that abortions may not be carried out in the Australian Capital Territory except at a public hospital and gives no other guidelines, seems admirably designed to encourage the sorts of bad conditions which in fact exist. The Federal Government surely must have appreciated this. Otherwise why did it seek an inquiry and recommendations from the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly? Having received those recommendations, the Government proceeded to ignore them and perpetuate for a further 12 months the very ordinance which it must have known was inadequate. This is the situation that we are expected to tolerate and, even worse, that the people of the Australian Capital Territory are asked to tolerate.

I repeat that whether or not a person agrees with termination of pregnancy is not an issue in this matter. There are two main issues. The first is whether abortions are carried out under properly regulated conditions associated with humane and professional counselling. If such counselling were available in some cases it may actually avert an abortion which otherwise may have taken place.

The other major issue to me is the Federal Government’s high handed and unjustifiable action in flouting a carefully considered recommendation of a committee of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. This Assembly is elected by the people of the Australian Capital Territory, regardless of whether it has powers at this stage.

In no circumstances do I approve of the idea of private clinics specialising in abortion for profit being introduced in the Australian Capital Territory. In fact, I think that governments everywhere in Australia should look more carefully at the legality of such clinics, especially to ensure that the ‘reasonable grounds’ which a medical practitioner must have in terms of the Menhennitt judgment, do exist. This is a point at which some of the people who are concerned about this matter should look. They should look at the of the law rather than at the law itself. Law makers can only make laws. If those laws are then flouted, there is not a great deal that the law makers can do about it.

The point has been made that the disallowance of the present ordinance may create a situation in which a legal loophole permitted the entry of such private abortion clinics to the Austrlian Capital Territory for a short period. I would like to make a point which I do not think has been made yet. Since a legal appeal against the new ordinance would need to succeed before this could happen, I doubt that anybody would take the risk of setting up a business in the Territory and face the possibility of a fine of $1,000 for each case. Granted that, and since such a situation could not continue at worst for more than six months, I think it is unrealistic to suppose that anybody will step in and start a private abortion clinic. It will take some months to get a case through on appeal in any case. I suggest that that is not a matter of great consequence. Of course, there is some disagreement as to whether such an appeal under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act would succeed. As honourable senators will know, this depends on the interpretation of the words ‘the same in substance’. I merely point out that the words are not ‘similar in substance’ but are ‘the same in substance’. I suggest that that semantic difference is significant.

However, even the smallest possibility of private abortion clinics being allowed into the Australian Capital Territory must be taken into account. I concede that much and I think it is reasonable that not even the slightest chance should be taken of that happening. Therefore, I support Senator Rae’s contingent motion and the amendment proposed by Senator Evans since they are designed to guarantee this very point. Assuming that point to be secured, I must earnestly put it to honourable senators that to allow the de facto operations ofthe present ordinance to continue in Canberra would be to allow the continuance of a much less satisfactory position than should obtain. Indeed, it is one which is actually oppressive to the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. Certainly I can assure you, Mr President, that my conscience would not permit me to subscribe to that continuance and hence I must vote against it. It is sad that so many good and no doubt well-intentioned people who oppose abortion should have so badly missed the point in all the letters and petitions which we have received. These letters show quite plainly from their content that the writers see this matter as a for or against abortion issue which, of course, it is not. We are dealing with a bad and slovenly law, a lazy piece of government which, to my amazement, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) quite calmly said yesterday according to media reports he is quite ready and happy to perpetuate.

A second major issue is involved, that is, the extent to which the wishes of the Legislative Assembly, admittedly without powers, nevertheless elected by the people of the Australian Capital Territory, should be taken into account by the

Federal Government in its administration of the Australian Capital Territory. I should have thought that the lack of responsibility of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly would have inclined the Federal Government to listen a little more to the carefully considered recommendations of the Assembly’s committee. But no, the Government, or the Prime Minister, must continue to emulate King George III and maintain his colonial authority right to the bitter end. That is the way it appears.

A third issue is very much at stake in this matter also. I refer to the campaign of mail and lobbying that has been organised by both the proabortion lobbies over this matter. This campaign began with letters from hundreds of people. I, like other honourable senators, have received well over 2,000 letters. Honourable senators have received hundreds of letters from persons opposed to abortion. These urge voting against Senator Ryan’s motion. This campaign was obviously orchestrated, most of the letters being in set forms and very many on printed or photocopied forms or cards. I may say for the record that I tend to ignore and discount such letters. If people can do no more than scrawl their signatures on what someone else has written, I suggest that they have no right to expect the Senate or a member of Parliament to take them seriously. I make that statement for what it is worth. My point is that this was an organised campaign by a perhaps sizeable and certainly vocal minority, but still a minority. It has prompted more recently a similar type of campaign from those people in favour of abortion and who are equally extremist. Again, much of the campaign has been orchestrated. The material has been duplicated and form letters have arrived together in large numbers. This has also been the case with petitions.

I could not speak on this matter with any honesty if I did not refer with grave distaste to the letters I have received from young children- as young as six or seven years- on this issue. I am very strongly tempted to quote some of these letters in the Senate but I would not like to place on public record the extent to which children of that age have been forced to utter sentiments of which they could have no possible understanding and which in their innocence they have been caused to support. They include such statements as, ‘Dear Senator, Please do not hurt little children’. In my opinion, this is really very bad. I know that the people who oppose this motion are sincere and honest in their beliefs. That is the one thing which excuses everything that they might do. However, it is not enough to be sincere and honest in one’s beliefs in this world. I believe that any political system which depends ultimately on exerting pressures of these kinds or admitting them, even to the extent of causing these mass pressures from people in a mindless way. using young children and form letters, is deplorable. That is the basic reason behind my view that a referendum of Australian Capital Territory voters should be held. We should have a referendum of mature adults to obtain their considered view by secret ballot of the major matters that have been recommended by the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly in its report No. 26.

A democracy places on its citizens not only the right but also the obligation to decide important and divisive issues themselves. If a country does not do that, it should not call itself a democracy. It is not a democracy. Important and divisive issues always cause strains and pressures on the community, even more so on legislators. I believe that it is perhaps not even fair for the members of the community to expect legislators to decide these matters for them. In other countries that is not so. I believe that it should be the role of government to provide promptly and readily to communities concerned the means of consultation. That is the clear and obvious course ahead of the Government now. I might even use an old fashioned term and say that it is the Government’s duty. I believe that the storm of lobbying which has been associated with this matter serves clear notice on all of us that issues of this sort can best and perhaps only be settled by consultation with the people in a proper way. Are we content that issues like abortion will be settled in future by pressure tactics of greater and greater magnitude and expense but which provide no way of even guessing actually how many people are involved? Alternatively, are such matters to be decided by a considered secret ballot of citizens? This is the basic principle of the kind of democracy all of us in this Parliament are supposed to cherish.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-Much has now been said in this debate and no doubt there is still a lot more to be said. So I shall not be keeping the Senate very long in putting my views on the matter. Certainly I shall not be lecturing the Senate for 43 minutes as if all honourable senators were poor backward students who do not really understand simple proposals put forward to them either by way of original motions, amendments or even foreshadowed motions. I would like to say sincerely that I respect the views honourable senators have expressed in this debate as their personal decisions made after deep reflection and with conviction. Certainly, there has been some esoteric and convoluted reasoning in order I believe for people to justify voting in a particular way, which is the basic way they feel on the question of abortion.

I also acknowledge that honourable senators have done their homework on this subject before they have come into this debate. I doubt very much that the words which have been expressed in the Senate today will convince any honourable senators to change their minds on how they intend to vote on this subject. I acknowledge the merit of many of the arguments that have been put forward. In particular, I acknowledge the merit of the arguments that were put forward by my colleagues Senator Hamer and Senator Puplick in relation to the legalistic actions of the Government and the answer given by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) in the other place. I would also like to pay a special tribute to Senator Tate for what I believe to be the most original contribution to the debate today in that he applied his mind to the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance and drew to the attention of all of us the fact that the Ordinance allows the Capital Territory Health Commission to do precisely what the Legislative Assembly wants it to do.

Senator Missen:

– It is quite wrong, though.

Senator LEWIS:

– There is no doubt that it was very original of Senator Tate to look at the Ordinance and so decide to put forward that proposition as not an unreasonable one. In fact I accept and adopt it. The simple matter that we all must resolve is our view on abortion. Repeatedly I have heard honourable senators here today say that this is not a debate on abortion. I cannot accept that suggestion. I cannot accept that the consequence of the disallowance of this Ordinance will be no change in the abortion law as it applies in the Capital Territory. The proposal that was put forward by Senator Ryan for the adoption of these recommendations- by the 47 or 51 recommendations- contains the simple provision, recommendation No. 5, that there shall be a clinic conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission within the grounds of a public hospital to perform abortions up to II weeks of pregnancy. In effect that will mean, to my mind, that abortion on demand will become the commonplace situation in the Australian Capital Territory regardless of what other honourable senators might try to convince themselves about this subject at present. I am totally opposed to that situation arising, notwithstanding all of the arguments, convoluted or otherwise, that we are hearing here today. Accordingly, I intend to vote against the motion.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I speak in support of Senator Ryan ‘s motion and in support of the amendment moved by Senator Evans. I also give notice that I will support the foreshadowed motion to be moved by Senator Rae. I believe that this is an important matter but it is not for us to canvass or try to determine today any general debate or general argument on the subject of abortion. I believe this debate is important because of the responsibilities which we have as members of this Parliament at present to make certain decisions with respect to the Australian Capital Territory and which unfortunately are made at present by the Government in a way which I believe is contrary to undertakings which it has given in the past. I believe that we are obliged today to consider the report which the members of the Legislative Assembly adopted, which I think is a considered and careful report. It should be carefully considered by the Senate. I think also that one must recognise that there is a decision of the Government in regard to this Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance which is not in accord with the recommendations of that Assembly. The Ordinance seems to endeavour to pick up one or two of those recommendations and rejects, greatly to its detriment, the other 45 recommendations that have been made.

We have heard reference today to the originality of the contribution which Senator Tate made to the debate. Insofar as it was delivered in a calm and deliberate way and was argued reasonably. I pay tribute to that aspect; but that is as far as I go because the honourable senator said that the Ordinance can be acted on already, that under it it is possible for clinics to be set up inside hospital grounds. I do not accept that view. Of course it is a possible view, as Senator Evans pointed out, but it is one upon which I think no one should rely. The second basis ofthe honourable senator’s argument very substantially was that there is power for the Capital Territory Health Commission to go ahead and set up a clinic of its own volition. In doing that he ignores the terms of the Health Commission Ordinance which set up that Commission.

It is interesting to note that just recently a new amendment to that Ordinance was tabled. In the amendment there is no alteration of one salient section, which was then contained in section 7 (2) of the Ordinance but now has been transferred to section 7 (4). It sets out the functions of the Commission. The function of the Commission used to be to conduct hospitals; it is now to provide and conduct health services. The Ordinance defines health services in various ways.

It is interesting- I say this in passing- that the conduct of hospitals is no longer referred to as being within the functions. I am a little concerned about that and I would like to know why that is so.

Senator Tate:

– Haven’t you read section 22?

Senator MISSEN:

– I know that section 22 in the original Ordinance mentions hospitals conducted by the Commission. I think that probably the curiosity of this Ordinance is covered indirectly in that way. After the Ordinance sets out the functions- diagnostic, treatment, rehabilitation services and so forth- it goes on to state:

The Commission shall perform its functions in accordance with any direction given by the Minister.

The Minister and the Government have made clear that they do not intend in any way to contribute to the fact that an abortion clinic is to be set up in the grounds of a hospital. Whatever may be the functions of the Commission, they are circumscribed and contained within the powers of the Minister. I am afraid that is no help to this Senate so far as the argument of Senator Tate is concerned.

Senator Tate:

– I mentioned that explicitly and said that the Commission had to fight its own political battle on that score.

Senator MISSEN:

– Of course it may fight its own battle but it is a battle which we know it will lose. It has already been announced in advance that it will lose.

Senator Tate:

– You said that I failed to advert to that section. I adverted to it explicitly.

Senator MISSEN:

– If the honourable senator did so, I certainly apologise. I did not hear him say that and I thought I was listening carefully. In so far as that argument is concerned, I say that it is an argument of no particular worth because it is clear that the Commission will not be permitted to do that. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has made his position quite clear. The situation so far as the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance is concerned is, I think, most importantly and firstly, that undertakings were given by the Minister in March 1977 that the Legislative Assembly would be allowed to decide what should be done in this matter. This is not a matter determining self-government. Self-government may come, of course, as a result of a referendum in a couple of weeks’ time. Senator Sheil spent some time on this matter and said that this issue now debated would force self-government on the Australian Capital Territory. That is not the question here. The question is that the Minster for Health, Mr Hunt, in 1977, not once but several times, made it clear that it was expected that the Government would allow the Australian Capital Territory, through its representatives, to decide these matters. It is worth reminding honourable senators that on 10 March of last year a question about free standing abortion clinics was asked. I do not think that question has been referred to. The Minister then said:

As this issue has far-reaching social consequences for the people of the Australian Capital Territory, I feel it should be discussed and debated by the elected members of the Legislative Assembly in Canberra. Until sufficient time is given to enable these matters to be appropriately debated by people at the local level and all the health and legal aspects are given appropriate consideration, PSI -

That is, Population Services International (Australasia) Ltd- would be very wise to defer the opening of its clinic.

Senator Harradine:

– What page was that?

Senator MISSEN:

– That appears on page 77 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 10 March 1977. A week later another question about the Canberra abortion clinic was asked by Mr Stewart. On that occasion, among other things, the Minister said:

The Government has asked the Assembly to give urgent consideration to both the political and social consequences and aspects of ps i’S intended operations in Canberra and the desirability of free-standing abortion clinics in Canberra. The Government firmly believes that the Legislative Assembly should devote its attention as urgently as possible to this matter.

This covers a very wide ambit. It was publicly said by the Minister in answer to the question that the political and social consequences of the intended operations were to be looked at by the Assembly. He went on to say:

I reiterate my public advice to Population Services International that it would not be wise to pre-empt the debate and final decisions - .

I emphasise the words ‘final decisions’- of the elected representatives of Canberra in the Legislative Assembly. I have heard the reports to which the honourable member has referred. In view of the legal, health and local community attitudes, I think that it would be wise to heed my warning at this stage.

So it is not just a matter of what Mr Hunt said on the third occasion, that is, a little later- on 24 March- when he gave the answer which was quoted by Senator Ryan in her speech the other day and by other honourable senators today. In the course of that answer he said again on two occasions that it was for the Assembly to take decisions in respect of the matter.

Unfortunately Senator Walters is not in the chamber at the moment. During the course of her speech she made great play of the fact that this issue was not an election issue for the Assembly when it was last elected. I am saying, in a sense, that members of this chamber and of this Parliament went to the electors and were elected last year and therefore people are entitled to say that it was an election issue insofar as we are concerned. They could say that a Minister, acting no doubt with the authority of the Government, said on those occasions in the Parliament that it was for the Australian Capital Territory to make its decisions in regard to this matter.

Senator Teague:

– But the Government’s decision was already made before the election and they could have made a judgment on that.

Senator MISSEN:

-Oh, no. The Government’s decision to put in a permanent Ordinance was not made until this year. The Government had put in temporary Ordinances while this matter was being considered by the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. The permanent Ordinance came in during June or July of this year. It is the matter which is complained of now. Of course, the fact is that the Assembly and the electors were entitled to act upon the fact that we had given these undertakings to the Assembly. I believe that we had rightly given them because in all honesty it was desirable that social questions of this importance should be determined essentially by the members of the Assembly.

I point out in regard to this tremendously important question of the respect that should be paid to the Assembly’s view that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs had to consider this type of problem when it dealt with the Evidence (Australian Capital Territory) Bill 1972. The Committee reported in November of last year, just before the elections. That is a report on which the Government has not yet commented. In the course of making a report on a Bill which was of concern to the Territory the Committee spoke of the status of Territory legislation and the type of circumstances under which such legislation ought to be carried out by Acts of this Parliament or alternatively by ordinances. One of the things that was certainly recommended unanimously in that report was that matters of this nature or, as we put it, legislation of a particular territory which is socially innovative or affects fundamental rights and liberties of the kind referred to in certain paragraphs of the report should be done by ordinance. The Committee went on to speak of” the situation in regard to Acts of Parliament. In regard to situations in which it was decided that an Act of Parliament, not an ordinance, was called for and that Act of Parliament would cover more than one Territory, we said.

While there is no legal obligation on the Australian Parliament to consult the people of these Territories for their views in respect of Acts ofthe Commonwealth Parliament, it is felt that there is a strong moral obligation for the views of the representative councils to be sought.

That Committee of this Senate recommended that an ordinance or Act of Parliament which affects a Territory should be referred to the assembly of that Territory and that that assembly’s views about it ought to be considered, and considered very seriously.

Reference has already been made to the fact that the views of the people on this subject have been sought and that polls have been conducted to determine the opinion of the people. I have received thousands of letters in respect of this matter. A number of those letters have contained one of the pieces of evasion and misrepresentation which applies in regard to this whole question of abortion. They keep telling me that only 3 1 per cent of the people agree with abortion on demand and of course, they ignore the results of the rest of the poll. The last poll 1 could find on this subject was a Gallup poll of 26 July of this year. It shows that the opinion in 1978- a rising opinion, I might say- is that abortion on demand is the view of 31 per cent of the population. But one must go on and find out what the rest of the population thinks as the poll claims. In the case of abortion in instances of exceptional hardship the figure is 23 per cent. Other results were: If the mother’s health is in danger, 22 per cent; if the mother’s life is in serious danger, 12 per cent; and not in any circumstance, 9 per cent; and no opinion, 3 per cent. I say to those dozens and dozens of people who have decided to tell me that only 31 per cent favour one view that it should be realised that there are many different views in this community on the whole subject and there are, of course, many people who take the view that abortion is called for in many circumstances. In fact, it appears that the overwhelming majority holds that view. Of course, we know that two tests of opinion are contained in the very detailed and considered report of the Standing Committee on Education and Health of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. One of the questions asked was: Do you believe action should be taken to liberalise the provision of abortion services in Australian Capital Territory hospitals? That is a fairly specific question.

Senator Archer:

– If they know what are the existing services.

Senator MISSEN:

-Yes, if they know. I have the feeling that the public of Australia is fairly familiar with these matters. We are not the only people in the community who have knowledge on this subject. We must assume that our constituents also have some knowledge of it. In answer to that question 66.61 per cent of the people polled said yes and 27.2 per cent said no. Another survey which was an Australian National Opinion Polls survey, also asked the question: Do you think Canberra should or should not have clinics where doctors carry out abortions under suitable medical conditions? A total of 70 per cent said yes and 24 per cent said no. I am not saying that such surveys give an exact indication of the feeling generally and I am not necessarily saying that they tell enough for us to make a final decision, but they are so overwhelming and so definite that I think we ought to take some heed of them and realise that an assembly that gives an opinion, expresses a view and reports on the basis thereof needs to be respected.

Senators from Victoria and, I think, New South Wales have received thousands of letters about this matter. I think there is something sad about the campaign that we have seen from some people on this matter. A number of the letters show feeling and consideration. Many people have written about their own views. But thousands of cards have just been signed. No doubt many cards have been put forward at the request of religious leaders of one persuasion. It is very sad that a number of the cards and letters that have been sent to us are stereotyped.

Senator Walters:

– And the roneoed ones.

Senator MISSEN:

– Yes, there are roneoed ones as well. I think the honourable senator is trying to indicate to me that some of the letters received by honourable senators on the other side of the argument are also roneoed.

Senator Walters:

– There are hundreds of them.

Senator MISSEN:

-Yes, that is right. My figures are that the letters from people in the Australian Capital Territory are now about evened up.

Senator Archer:

– If you have a large barrow you can have some of mine.

Senator MISSEN:

– No, I have my own bar.rowloads of them. I have written many answers to letters which were written to me. I have told people what my view on this subject is and I have received another wave of letters in response. But I do wish that people in other States who want to tell the people of the Australian Capital Territory how to conduct their moral lives and how to approach the particular problem of abortion in the

Canberra community would leave it to the people involved. It is not for us or for people outside the Territory to tell them what to do.

Senator Archer:

– I agree.

Senator MISSEN:

– I agree with that, as does Mr Lusher. Senator Puplick read out to honourable senators the interesting remark of Mr Lusher, who takes a strong view on this matter, that we should not be telling the people of the Territory what to do. It is a pity that the matter has been left with us at the moment. But if anyone has to deal with the moral standards of the community, then it should be this Parliament rather than the Executive of the Parliament, the Cabinet, or by Ministers or any one Minister. If anyone has to deal with this matter, let it be the Parliament. Let it be these Houses, which under Act of Parliament have been given the job to vote for or against an ordinance. I certainly intend to vote for the disallowance of this Ordinance. If the Ordinance is allowed to stand the consequences are very clear. They were made clear by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) when he wrote to honourable senators on 2 November 1 978 in the following terms:

That report -

That is, the report of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health- made 47 recommendations; the Government has not agreed to implement 45 of those recommendations which proposed the establishment of an abortion clinic by the Capital Territory Health Commission, the procedures for its operation and the setting-up of counselling services on abortion, contraception and sex education.

The Minister made it very clear that he does not intend to have any of those developments. So it is clear that a vote to continue this Ordinance forestalls further action, and the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory can really expect no further action by the Government. The Government has been quite open about this. But if there were to be a disallowance of the Ordinance I do not believe there would be any vacuum as has been suggested by some honourable senators and threatened by others. I believe that the Government of this country is a responsible government. I believe it will recognise that people are telling it that action ought to be taken on the clinics of the Australian Capital Territory; that there is in the Ordinance before us a sweeping decision not only not to allow private clinics but also not to allow any clinics at all. I believe this is not in accordance with the wishes of the people of the Territory. For these reasons and in the compass within which this matter comes, I believe it is my duty to vote for the motion as has been moved and I certainly intend to do so.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I do not know whether the clerks are keeping a score card of the number of letters that each honourable senator has received on this issue, but for the record, according to my secretary’s latest count, I have received 6,500 letters, which at this point of the debate I think means that I win the prize. This indicates that I am the most easily persuaded, the most easily manipulated, the most likely to be corrupted or the most likely to corrupt, or the most malleable. I do not quite know what it proves. But I think it does indicate that whilst several honourable senators here today have gone to great pains to say that this debate is not about abortion, there are at least 6,500 other citizens who strongly believe that it is. I believe that it is too.

Let me say quite steadfastly that I support very strongly Senator Ryan’s motion, particularly in view of the amendment moved by Senator Evans, which puts beyond any shadow of doubt that if this motion as amended is carried today, there will be no private abortion clinics in Canberra. That is precisely what Senator Evans says in his amendment. I am particularly attracted to what Senator Evans has sought to add to the motion, namely, the recommendations that the report of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health be adopted. I would like to devote some of my speech today to those recommendations, because to the best of my knowledge, so far few honourable senators have done so.

It would be easy to stand here today and say that this is not a debate on abortion; that it is a debate on an ordinance. That would be a respectable point of view, but I think that on such a massive moral issue, an issue which affects something like a quarter of a million Australian women a year, those women are entitled to hear the views of their elected senators. We should not pad the issue away into slips as some honourable senators, probably for quite proper reasons, have chosen to do. I think we all should state our views on abortion because there will come a stage when all the politicians of this nation will have to face this question head on.

I say that, as a philosophical concept. I am against abortion. I believe that abortion is abhorrent to all men and women of goodwill. I think one must state that. When an ovum is fertilised either through sexual intercourse or even through artificial insemination, then something new has begun. I think that is unchallengeable. If that something new that has begun is then terminated, then an act of deep consequence has been committed. I think one must concede that.

I am in some difficulty in persuading myself exactly when life is begun. Senator Georges interjected to this effect while Senator Walters was speaking and she obliged him by saying that in her view life is begun when conception takes place. If that is the case, I find myself greatly confused by people like Senator Walters and many people in the Right to Life Association. I asked people in that association whether they were going to run a campaign with vigour similar to that used in this campaign to outlaw, to make illegal, the interuterine device, the IUD. When they responded negatively and said that they would not, I found a total lack of logic in that stance because, as I understand it, the IUD is not, technically speaking or medically speaking, a contraceptive device; it is an abortive mechanism. Once the IUD plays its part then conception has already begun, perchance only seconds or minutes or whatever before. But surely the principle is the same. It is in these areas where one finds so much lack of logic, so many different standards, not purposely taken up -

Senator Walters:

– Stress the lack of logic.

Senator CHIPP:

– I do not have the honourable senator’s expertise in this subject so I am sorry I cannot comment on that. I believe the noble philosophy that I have espoused that abortion is abhorrent to all men and women of goodwill for the reason that I have given is viable only in a perfect society- and God knows we do not live in a perfect society. But even if we accept that, I was very impressed by the speech of Senator Button or, more particularly, with one part of it. He said that there are two conflicting philosophies in this debate on abortion, one of which is the right to life. Very few could argue against the right to life, and I will speak in a moment about what I believe the right to life means. I deplore the narrow meaning that the Right to Life people put on those words because I believe that they mean a lot more than simply stopping abortion. The other conflicting philosophy mentioned by Senator Button was the right of freedom of choice, the freedom of choice of a woman. To my knowledge, very few men are ever faced with the dilemma of whether they should have an abortion but women are.

Senator Walters:

– Of course they are.

Senator CHIPP:

-If Senator Walters could give me the names of those men I believe that a certain institution has a thousand dollars first prize for every man in this country who has ever had a baby or who has ever become pregnant. The terrible choice is with women. I recognise readily that a woman in circumstances of not wanting to have a child has a right to freedom of choice. So those two conflicting philosophies are involved in this debate very heavily.

Let me examine for a moment what the term right to life’ means. I am not talking about the Right to Life Association; I am talking about the words. I begin by stating what must seem to be almost stupidly trite: No child asks to be born. A child is born through an act of two other people and not by an act ofthe child. I believe that in relation to that child the term ‘right to life’ means that he should not be lonely, oppressed, diseased, underprivileged, hungry, orphaned, battered by drunken parents. Children have a right to life and a right to love. Some of those vigorous people who have written me 6,500 letters have used to get into my office the dirtiest tricks that I have encountered in 1 7 years in this Parliament. They have done so under false pretences. They have given false names of delegations and yet they protest honesty. I would like them to commit themselves to devoting an equal proportion of their time, of their vigour, of their ability and of their wit to caring for the children in orphanages and children who are poor.

Senator Archer:

– Dear, oh dear.

Senator CHIPP:

– I would not expect any other reaction from a member of the National Country Party or an honourable senator who sits in that part of the chamber than that which I have just received. Although Senator Archer is not a member of the National Country Party, in some respects he outdoes members of the National Country Party in the outrageous remarks that he makes in this Senate. Those people who are sincere in campaigning against abortion should examine the way in which their time is apportioned and decide whether at least half of their time ought not to be devoted to the fostering of children from Asia- the children who are orphaned and the children whom I described earlier. In a perfect society those children of unwanted pregnancies- I am not suggesting that every unwanted pregnancy produces an unwanted child, but certainly a massive number of them do- would obtain the love, the care and the nourishment that other children receive. But we do not live in a perfect society, and that is why I propose to vote for the motion.

The Australian Medical Association, which even Senator Archer would not suggest is a radical left-wing organisation, in its monthly magazine Lancet disclosed that in its view there are at least 200,000 unwanted pregnancies in Australia each year. Without going into the morality of that situation, I think one can conclude at least one thing, and that is that there is massive sexual ignorance in Australia today by both men and women.

Senator Harradine:

– Maybe permissiveness.

Senator CHIPP:

– I was very disappointed when Senator Harradine withdrew from the list of speakers in this debate because I was relishing the opportunity of following him in the debate.

Senator Harradine:

– I am relishing the opportunity of following you.

Senator CHIPP:

– The honourable senator has denied me that opportunity, and I am sorry that he has. If there are 200,000 unwanted pregnancies in Australia each year, it shows that there is massive sexual ignorance. 1 asked the groups from the Right to Life Association which were constantly in my office recently this question: Would you oppose the open display of contraceptive methods and advertising of contraceptives? I do not know whether those groups were stating the official policy of the organisation, but when confronted with that question they looked at me and said: ‘Yes, we would’. I find a remarkable incongruity in those two situations. In fact, it passes my comprehension how anybody could come to that conclusion.

Senator Harradine:

– Do you agree with the publication and advertising of those?

Senator CHIPP:

– I most certainly do. I have ultimate respect for Senator Harradine and all those people who espouse the remark which he just made by way of interjection.

Senator Harradine:

– I just asked a question. I did not make a remark.

Senator CHIPP:

– I am paying the honourable senator a compliment. Please allow me the courtesy of doing that. I have respect for Senator Harradine ‘s code of morality in which he rushes to assume that an unwanted pregnancy is not necessarily due to sexual ignorance but to promiscuity or permissiveness. I respect Senator Harradine for having that view and that code of standards. What I denounce is that he wishes to impact his standards on everybody else in the country. I do not think he has the right to do that. That is why I opposed what he said by way of interjection.

I refer again to the Right to Life Association. This is the last time that I shall do so. I refer to the six-year-old and seven-year-old children who have written to me in language, as was suggested by Senator Mason, which amounts to committing one of the most obscene acts that I have experienced in a long time. I have been sent- they did not do it; the people who put them up to it did it- photographs in technicolour of mutilated foetuses. That is obscene in any language. I cannot imagine a six-year-old child ever recovering from that kind of a blow. When I objected strenuously to members of that Association about that act I got this retort: ‘It is a fact of life. They have to know sometime’. In my view, that is disgusting. Group sex and bestiality are facts of life, so why not show the six-year-old kids a burst of those as well? I wish to refer to some of those aspects of the report which have not been mentioned. It is because of these matters that I will be voting for the disallowance of this ordinance today. I will be voting in particular for Senator Evans’s amendment, particularly that part of the amendment which refers to the implementation of the recommendations of this report of the Legislative Assembly. I remind every honourable senator on the Government side of the chamber who votes against Senator Ryan’s motion and Senator Evans’s amendment that, having in mind Senator Rae ‘s contingent notice of motion, they are voting against the recommendations which I am about to read. The recommendations are as follows:

  1. That pre-abortion counselling shall be a requirement.
  2. That counselling must be non-directive.
  3. That a woman seeking a termination of pregnancy shall have the right to be accompanied by a friend or relative at the counselling session, but part of that session shall be with the woman alone.
  4. 16) That in the case of a woman under the age of ^seeking a termination of pregnancy, a parent or guardian should be present for part of the counselling session.
  5. 17) That in the case of a woman under the age of 16 the consent of a parent or guardian and that of the woman herself shall be required before the termination of pregnancy.
  6. That a multi-lingual pamphlet setting out all aspects covered in the counselling session shall be provided to all women at the conclusion of the counselling session.
  7. That there shall be not less than one week between counselling in the clinic and the performance of the termination.
  8. That at all times patients seeking and/or having terminations shall have their anonymity preserved.
  9. That the Capital Territory Health Commission shall compile statistics on all abortions performed . . .
  10. That the Minister for Health be asked to seek urgent consultation between -
Senator TATE:
TASMANIA · ALP

-That is being done now.

Senator CHIPP:

– I am confused. Senator Tate, whom I respect, says that that is being done now. But the Minister said explicity and concisely in a letter sent to Senator Ryan that the recommendations of the committee of the Legislative Assembly are to be rejected. Why not accept these recommendations? Has any honourable senator so far seen anything objectionable in any of these recommendations?

Another recommendation states that chemists in the Territory should be encouraged to display and to advertise in their premises nonprescription contraceptive methods. Senator Harradine is on record as saying he would oppose that. What moral right has a senator from Tasmania to determine the moral standards of Canberra and in particular whether the women of Canberra should or should not be able to see contraceptives advertised in chemists’ windows? Senator Harradine ‘s right to speak and to vote on this motion is very clouded. This issue surely affects the rights of the women of the Capital Territory. The Assembly recommends in regard to sex education that at least all Australian Capital Territory secondary level schools should conduct comprehensive human relations courses. To my knowledge no honourable senator opposing this motion today has said whether or not that is a bad thing. The Assembly recommends that appropriate education authorities and the Capital Territory Health Commission should liaise to determine guidelines for such courses. It is stated that the courses should be conducted by trained suitable teachers and that parents not wishing their child to take part in such courses should be allowed to contract out in writing on their child ‘s behalf.

In conclusion let me say that I think every one of these recommendations- Senator Hamer said that there were 51- carry a great deal of common sense, but surely the whole point is that the question was investigated and adjudged by the democratically elected members of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. I am confounded to know what rights senators from Victoria, New South Wales or Western Australia have to support a government which says to the people of the Australian Capital Territory: ‘We do not give a damn about what your elected representatives said after a 90-day survey. This is our moral judgment, and you will accept it’. To me that reeks of impertinence. That is why I am supporting Senator Ryan ‘s motion.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– We have listened today to what has become, I believe unfortunately, a highly emotive debate. The motion we are debating was not designed that way. It was designed as a means of putting before this chamber the recommendations of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, the properly elected body representing the Australian Capital Territory. The recommendations had gone before the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) after he had promised that he would uphold the decision of the Assembly. That promise was broken. I want to make it clear from the outset that I am supporting Senator Ryan’s motion. I do so for a number of reasons. As I said, I think it is unfortunate that the debate has become so emotive. I do not object, quite frankly, to being in receipt of only some 200 letters. I must be the last person on the mailing list. Senator Chipp informed us that he received 6,500. 1 think Senator Missen laid claim to some 2,000.

Senator Missen:

– Only 3,000, 1 am sorry.

Senator COLEMAN:

-Only seven of the letters I received out of a total of just less than 200 will receive a reply because only 7 letters were devoted to thought and conscience. I received a number of roneoed letters from people who, obviously, simply had been asked to sign them. Some people, I would think, were not even aware of what they were signing. I think that that is sad. It is a sad reflection on the campaign that has been launched. I think it is sad that all of the letters refer to the establishment of private abortion clinics. This is not the central issue of the motion.

Senator Missen:

– Some letters were talking about the Lusher motion.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I did not get any of those either. The central issue is whether or not the duly elected representatives of the people of the Capital Territory have the right to bring down a report that should be accepted by the Minister. That is the issue. Only seven letters out of the total of less than 200 devoted themselves to it. I will reply to those letters because their authors gave a lot of thought and paid a lot of attention to the arguments that they were putting before me. None, I might add, agreed with my sentiments, but they still warrant a reply.

I also take this opportunity to assure the other people who wrote to me that with one minor qualification, I am not in favour of private abortion clinics. That qualification is that a private abortion clinic, to my mind, is infinitely preferable to what is operating in the Capital Territory at the moment. At the moment the Australian Capital Territory still has backyard abortionists, as has every State. The backyard abortionists are being supported purely and simply because no publicly recognised government sponsored abortion clinic is operating.

Senator Rae:

– What evidence is there to confirm that? I am not challenging it. I am just asking what evidence there is.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I have been contacted by two people who have offered to take me to two houses where backyard abortions are conducted. I have to take their word for it that they are prepared to disclose the operators to me. These people openly admit, incidentally, utilising the services. I have been told that there are three more operators, making a total of at least five.

Senator Teague:

– All in Canberra?

Senator COLEMAN:

– All in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Harradine:

– Then there is a duty to refer that information to the relevant authorities.

Senator COLEMAN:

– At this point I have not availed myself of the opportunity. I have no wish to support backyard abortionists. At the same time I do not think it is my responsibility to inform the relevant authorities. I think that the people themselves may be encouraged to do just that. I hope they are. I have no time for backyard abortionists. As I said, I am not in favour of private abortion clinics, but they are infinitely preferable to what is already happening in the Territory. If we close our eyes to the fact that backyard abortionists are operating here we are deluding ourselves. We are deluding ourselves that this is anything other than a straight-out motion asking honourable senators: Do you or do you not want an abortion Bill in the Australian Capital Territory? That is what this is all about. I think it is a pity, as Senator Missen said earlier, that the Senate has been placed in this position.

Senator Walters:

– Abortion on demand.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I must admit that Senator Walters confused me dreadfully by her specious’argument this afternoon about the Year of the Child and how honourable senators would start that important year by murdering children. Let me remind the honourable senator of what she had to say about foetuses on 25 October 1978. The honourable senator showed no concern for foetuses then. The honourable senator said in effect that we should not be worrying about ultra-sound scans as they were too expensive although they may in actual fact determine whether something is wrong with a foetus that is about to become a child. The honourable senator should establish her position one way or the other. Is she concerned only about the health of the foetus or about something else? In case the honourable senator is planning on making a personal explanation I will read her remarks into the Hansard record. I refer to page 1613 of the Senate Hansard of 25 October 1978 where Senator Walters said, when debating health insurance legislation -

Senator Archer:

– I am sorry. What has this to do with the motion?

Senator COLEMAN:

– I am talking about the foetus. The honourable senator may not be aware but a foetus is an unborn child.

Senator Archer:

– I had heard that.

Senator COLEMAN:

-The honourable senator is aware of that. We have determined already that this is a debate on abortion. Senator Walters said:

Let me instance what can happen. It can be justifiably said -

Senator Walters:

– What was I referring to?

Senator COLEMAN:

-The honourable senator was debating health insurance legislation and referring to health costs. She said:

It can be justifiably said that every woman who is having a baby should have an ultra-sound scan. The equipment is known as a real time scanner. The service is not always necessary. The majority of women have perfectly normal births and the scans are not a necessary part of treatment in a normal pregnancy. If these scans are given to every woman in Australia who is having a baby costs will increase considerably. The scanners would be in every obstetrician ‘s surgery. Doctors, admittedly, would be able to make a great deal more money. If the community desired such a service for normal pregnancies, the doctors could justify it by saying that they iust might pick up something which is abnormal.

After all, the scanners can establish more accurately the date of the expected birth of the baby and whether the growth of the baby is normal and is going according to schedule. It could also establish the placement of the placenta. These scans are necessary if something is going wrong or if the doctor suspects that something is going wrong. In a normal pregnancy there is no need for this particular service. It could be argued that one scan in many thousands could pick up something that the doctor had not suspected.

I would interpret from that that Senator Walters is against women having automatic ultra-sound scans, because she explained later just how expensive it is going to be. But now she is expressing her concern for the unborn child. As I said, she confuses me greatly. One can regard this whole matter only as a campaign. Never before on a non-broadcast day have we seen so many people in the public galleries. Never before have we seen so many people from the other chamber come to hear the debates in this place.

Senator Walters:

– The galleries are actually empty. Have a look.

Senator COLEMAN:

-Even the President’s Gallery is full at the moment and Senator Walters must admit that right through the debate since it started at roughly 12 o’clock there has been an interchanging of visitors to the public galleries.

Senator Walters:

– Evidently nobody is interested in what you want to say.

Senator COLEMAN:

-Possibly not, but that is their loss. I can presume only that they are illinformed and want to remain that way. This legislation and the whole issue that we are talking about do not mean that we are insisting that all women have to have an abortion. We are simply saying that if a woman needs an abortion the facility should be there. I stress to those people who write to me under a number of different titles that I am not suggesting that they may want an abortion or may care to have an abortion. I am simply saying that even their daughter may need an abortion. She may need it for a number of reasons. We can see the shaking of heads and all that sort of thing. These people believe they set the standards for all people. They do not set the standards for all people. They establish certain moral standards in their own homes. But there is no way that these people can say in all honesty and sincerity- I believe that the majority of these people are sincerethat the standards they have established for their children will prevail once those children get out from under the influence of the family.

I stressed earlier the word ‘need’. There are a number of reasons that people may need an abortion. Sometimes those reasons are medical, sometimes they are financial and sometimes they are purely emotional. Sometimes the reasons are purely and simply that women recognise that they cannot give the necessary emotional support either to a child or to another child in their family. Sometimes they are concerned that they do not have enough love to give to their children. Sometimes they already have too many children. Some women are so emotionally drained that they know that they cannot cater for the needs of a child. I think that some honourable senators and even some people in the gallery may be interested in a paper on abortion entitled Abortion: a perspective’ in a book entitled lt

Isn’t Nice by Bertram Wainer published in 1972. On page 45 it says:

I was surprised and encouraged to see that the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, had come forward for abortion law reform, putting the welfare of his electorate above his Church ‘s edict.

I think the important issue is to put the welfare of the people in the electorates of the Australian Capital Territory before thinking about whether we should be listening to the right to life group, to the pro-abortionists or to the anti-abortionists, or whether we should be taking notice of people who have some qualifications in this area. I am sure that we have all received letters from the family guidance people and from even the Catholic Church guidance people. We have also had letters from the family planning associations, which would probably be in more contact with people in need of an abortion, counselling or something in that area than the majority of the people in the right to life movement.

I have wrestled with my conscience. I did not stand up here lightly today to say that I intend to vote in support of Senator Ryan’s motion. I did it on the basis that many years ago I recognised notonly that women have a right to determine what they should do with their bodies but also that there was a consideration for the unborn child to be taken into account. To me the most important consideration is whether a woman feels that she can have a child and give it the love, the affection and the financial assistance that it is going to need- the emotional support service right through its life. If the woman determines that this is not the way she feels, she has every right to be able to go to a publicly recognised and well administered place where she can have an abortion without tremendous and exorbitant costs. I want to quote very briefly from what Senator Ryan had to say when she spoke to her motion on 1 1 October. She said:

I ask the Senate for support of my motion. I hope that all senators will agree with me that the principal at issue is the right of all Australian citizens to democratic government and that a Minister who has given publicly an undertaking in the way that the Minister for Health has done should keep that undertaking.

That to me is the central issue.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– The Senate is having a long debate on this matter and the Government’s view on it, which is a view that I support, has already been put to the Senate in the speech by Senator Guilfoyle. There were a couple of matters which I wanted to put on the record during the course of this debate. If I may, however, I would like to comment on a couple of the things which have been said during the course of the debate. I think it a little unfortunate that Senator Chipp suggested by inference that those who wrote letters were seeking to manipulate or corrupt, because he described himself as the man obviously thought to be most easily manipulated or corrupted in that he had received the most letters. A number of people in this debate, by way of interjections and speeches, have made disparaging remarks about the people who have written letters and about the people who have signed roneoed letters on both sides of this issue. I would like to dissociate myself from those remarks and to say that I regard it as the proper right of any person who feels strongly on an issue to address letters or even to suggest to other people that they write letters. At least one other honourable senator in this chamber who has recently spoken has thought it quite reasonable, for example, to organise petitions on the question of legal aid. I exclude Senator Evans, who has spoken about legal aid. I know of honourable senators who have organised petitions on legal aid over the last few years, no doubt believing that this is a subject of importance on which there ought to be expressions of views. If that is a proper technique- I believe that it is- so it is a proper technique for people to suggest that there ought to be a campaign of letter-writing. I respect those people. I am prepared to say that I respect those who have written in favour of abortion as much as I respect those who have written against it, all of whom have taken the time and trouble to try to influence the members of this place. I think that is a proper operation in a democracy.

I am relieved that Senator Chipp indicated that he found abortion abhorrent, because I think that it is useful to find some common ground in a difficult debate such as this. I think that the depth of the abhorrence with respect to abortion that is felt by many people is based on the concept of foetal life- the concept of there being a separate life once conception has occurred. That in effect makes this a subject matter for debate which is unique in all those areas which we claim to be moral areas. In fact, it leads me to make a different judgment from the one I would make on many similar issues. When Senator Button, according to Senator Chipp, poses the dilemma of the right to life versus the freedom of choice, then I think we have to face the fact that we are in an awkward situation in that if we accept the concept of a living foetus then we have to accept the concept that one of the parties involved does not have freedom of choice. That simply means that the arguments never come together. If there is even a chance that the foetus has a separate life then I believe that one has to give the benefit of doubt to that unrepresented, helpless party in this argument. I believe that any senator for whom there is any doubt in that matter can make only one choice and that choice has to favour the anti-abortion stance.

I also would like to reject thoroughly the sort of idea which was put forward by Senator Chipp that we ought to preserve only those whose lives which can be lived at a quality that we find acceptable. I find that a quite revolting concept. I think that we live in a peculiar period of history in which the general standard of welfare and living is extremely high. Throughout the history of the world many people have lived in rather miserable circumstances and unfortunately many people still live in miserable circumstances. To suggest that one can choose between those who will live and those who will not on the basis of whether they are going to lead comfortable and pleasant lives in circumstances of love, companionship and so on, is, I think, the height of arrogance and something which all thinking men should reject.

I conclude my comments in that area by saying that I believe that many of the speeches today have been put forward in what I regard as a classical liberal tradition. I think that people like my colleague, Senator Missen, who stands squarely in that tradition, and my more recent colleague, Senator Puplick, to mention two from this side of the chamber, put forward a viewpoint which in a philosophic way I generally accept. We should let individuals decide their own lives. We ought to allow individuals their moral choices and the law in general should not be used to dictate private morality. I certainly accept all those things. If I may go back to a point that I made a little while ago, unfortunately one cannot accept that liberal stance in a situation where the decision of the individual impinges on another individual- and there again is the dilemma. If a person accepts the separate life of a foetus, that comfortable freedom to choose for himself or herself is barred. The tests that I would apply in the issue of homosexual law reform and other such issues are tests which seem to me to appear to fall down on this issue of abortion.

The sort of liberals to whom I refer- and I refer to them with respect- accept that the law imposes moral decisions in that it prohibits theft, rape, murder, assault and a whole series of acts which also have a moral context and it prohibits them because they affect another party. Those of us who do not adopt the same view as those liberals on this occasion do so on the basis that the decision of the woman- a painful and difficult decision, which it must be for so many women- is a decision which affects not only that woman alone. That is the fundamental difference between us and a difference which I regret to say is unbridgeable if one does not accept the concept of the separate life of the foetus.

I thank Senator Tate for what I think was a very fine summary of the situation which faces the Senate today. I believe that he has in a very clear way demonstrated, if it is not an argument about abortion, what it is an argument about. The fact of the matter is that if an honourable senator is of the view- and the majority of honourable senators seem to be of this viewthat we should not have private abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory, which certainly is the view of the Legislative Assembly, then I think he has to look hard at Senator Tate’s first proposition, which was that to carry the motion moved by Senator Ryan would have dangerous and unpredictable consequences. The fact of the matter is that this Senate is in a position of having extremely limited power in this matter. The only power that this Senate has is a power to disallow the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance. The Senate has no executive authority in the field of health. Indeed, the Senate has no executive authority at all, whether it be over the whole of Australia, any State or the Australian Capital Territory. All that it can do is remove this Ordinance from the statute book.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It could introduce legislation.

Senator CHANEY:

– The Senate by itself could introduce legislation, but whether that legislation was passed would depend on another chamber, the House of Representatives, and would depend upon the Governor-General, who acts on the advice of the Executive Council. So to suggest that this Senate has the power to rectify the position by legislation is cant. It is simply not true. We have a role in legislation; but honourable senators who cast a vote on this motion are exercising the only absolute authority that they have in this area, and that is to remove the Ordinance from the statute book.

Senator Evans:

– You are conceding the irresponsibility of your own Government.

Senator CHANEY:

– I am saying that if this Senate chooses to make the decision in this matter then that is the only decision it can dictate. Therefore I believe that, as Senator Tate has said quite correctly, if a vote is exercised in favour of

Senator Ryan ‘s motion then we will be leaving the position in ah unpredictable state. There is now a challenge, I am told, to the bona fides of the Government of which I am a part. I would simply say to honourable senators opposite that if a majority of senators vote in favour of the motion then who is to predict what power the Government will have in this matter. Its power to legislate is also subject to the power of this Senate. So one has a situation of absolute uncertainty, whatever the attitude of the Government. There is just so much which is unpredictable in this situation. So one has to look at the unpredictable future or at the predictable future.

What is the present position? The predictable future is that if we leave this Ordinance as it stands we have an Ordinance which provides in section 3 that a registered medical practitioner shall not carry out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission. There is no prohibition of abortion there. There is a prohibition of the place at which an abortion may be performed. The only place an abortion may be carried out in the Australian Capital Territory is at a registered hospital- a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission. The Ordinance is even more explicit in the next section by providing that:

Section 3 does not render lawful treatment carried out in a hospital referred to in that section if, apart from that section, the treatment would not be lawful.

In other words, the Ordinance itself is neutral as to the abortion law in the Territory. It is simply a prescriptive as to how or where an abortion may be carried out. As I read the recommendations of the Legislative Assembly, that is perfectly consistent with them. The recommendation is that free-standing abortion clinics, outside public hospital grounds, shall not be permitted in the Australian Capital Territory. That is the first and most important recommendation.

The other matters which have been raised are, as Senator Tate has said, in part matters which are within the control of the Capital Territory Health Commission. In fact the situation is that in respect of this Ordinance we are in a major sense consistent with what has been recommended by the Legislative Assembly and the position will remain in that state if Senator Ryan’s motion is defeated, as I firmly hope that it will be. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make some contribution to this debate. I seriously ask all honourable senators to reject this motion and not to cast their lot into the uncertainty which is predicated by the motion itself and by the foreshadowed motions which are before the Senate.

Senator CHIPP (Victoria- Leader ofthe Australian Democrats)- Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented or misunderstood and under Standing Order 410 I seek leave to make an explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator CHIPP:

- Senator Chaney grievously misrepresented me. Knowing Senator Chaney as I have for many years I am sure that it was unintentional. He said something that I think is quite hurtful to any senator. He said that I was advocating a society that would preserve only those lives that we think are worth preserving and saving. He then said that that was a revolting concept. That concept, which has euthanasia and all sorts of things mixed up in it, is equally revolting to me. I said nothing of the kind. I made two points. I pointed out that there should be greater sex education in our schools and among our young because of the massive sexual ignorance of our community which causes 200,000 unwanted pregnancies each year. I said that as a result of that sexual ignorance there is a great number of children who are diseased, poor, unloved and underprivileged. The second point I made in referring to those children was that whilst I admire the sincerity of those people in the Right To Life Association in trying to prevent abortions, although I do not agree with them, I appeal to them to give an equal amount of their time to caring about children in orphanages who are poor and underprivileged. Those are the points I made. They do not even closely resemble the conclusions Senator Chaney reached.

Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services)-I had no wish to misrepresent Senator Chipp. I welcome his explanation that he certainly did not intend to say anything of that nature. I will read his speech and certainly apologise to him if I have misinterpreted him.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I enter this debate with some trepidation. I appreciate the feelings of other honourable senators and I know the involvement that a number of them have had in this subject. Like a lot of other senators who have sought the middle ground, I feel that we have not actually been helped to reach our decisions by this doctrine of absolutism. Some of us have found ourselves in a vicious crossfire. Two or three weeks ago in Kings Hall I met at various times representatives of two points of view- the Right To Life people and those who, I suppose, can be broadly termed the abortion on demand people. I will recount the details of my meetings with those groups and relate to the Senate the decision I have reached. If nothing else comes out of this debate, I hope that there will be one or two spin-offs. In the first instance, I asked the Right To Life people about their attitude to the existing facilities in the Australian Capital Territory when an abortion is deemed necessary by responsible medical opinion. Frankly, there were some divided responses. To my mind whether that facility remains is very important. In that respect I will refer later to a discussion with the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). I make that point because I know that Senator Puplick- Senator Mason might have made passing reference to itmentioned the question of a more enlightened attitude to birth control.

I grasp the nettle this way. I have said to the Right To Life people that in Catholic circlesthis might go back two pontiffs- there has been considerable discussion on a more enlightened or changed attitude to birth control. That has not eventuated but it is quite obvious that it is linked with the subject we are debating today. In fact it precedes it. I hope that I make that point on a sound basis because the polarisation of this issue is something that must be looked at again. I know quite a lot of young priests who take that attitude and whilst they would probably oppose Senator Ryan’s motion as it is, they are not unmindful of the overall obligation, particularly in desolate areas of the world, for a more enlightened birth control policy. That is one side of the argument. The other side, of course, concerns the question of the existing facilities. I asked the Minister for Health for an assurance as to the facilities that are provided for abortion and the associated cost factor. The latter aspect comes into the argument because one or two senators who have taken a different view to my own have raised with me the question of the added costs payable by a girl with limited means. It has also been mentioned by some of the family planning and abortion on demand groups who have written to me. The Minister reiterated that Medibank provides reimbursement. 1 come then to the human side of the argument which must be balanced against the other considerations. I told the Right To Life people that I had heard of cases such as that of a pregnant deserted mother with a child of about three years of age whose husband has disappeared and where there is no doubt that he is not coming back. The woman may have problems with the impending pregnancy and it may be that if she does not come out of it successfully, there will be an orphan. That is one of the human dramas that I put to the people concerned. On the other hand, I say to the people who possibly advocate abortion on demand that the implications of Senator Ryan ‘s proposal must be taken into consideration. Like every other senator I have had people come to me or to my staff with these problems. There can be a situation where a girl has had an abortion, often for good reasons- mostly for good reasons- but it can happen that she may have her ovaries removed in another operation and have pangs of regret that she did not have the child. I am not moralising but these areas are where I think some of us try to balance one consideration against the other. Whatever may ultimately happen in the ACT- I agree with Senator Mason that the Government has abdicated its responsibilities in not providing a referendum in the ACT- I make the point, again having recourse to Senator Mason’s statistics, that in relation to controlled abortion services in the ACT the large majority of applications for termination were approved while 49 were not. 1 respect the views of Senator Coleman and Senator Melzer in regard to this matter. They would say to me that that other 49 have a right. They do have a right but I still have an inner reluctance. I have disputed with the Right To Life people their arbitrary claim that abortions should never be permitted. However, on the other side, 1 have inner doubts about whether the termination committee can be more unemotional and balanced than it is at the moment when people go to medicos under the existing ACT hospital structure. I do not say this in a presumptuous manner. I think that most of the medicos whom I have met try to reach an objective decision. I have no reason to believe that the doctors in the ACT will load the statistics or try to discourage anybody. That brings me to agreement with Senator Tate although probably not for the legal reasons he has put forward. I know that the people in the Right To Life movement must look at the other aspect of a more enlightened attitude to modern birth control techniques because it precedes the problem we are discussing. On the other hand I have an inner doubt because I fear a situation where a girl has an abortion hastily followed later by problems resulting in the removal of the ovaries and then, after sounder reflection, she regrets it. I do not say this in a moralising way because I received much more flak from the Right To Life people for giving an honest answer, as I have attempted to give this Senate today. I say respectfully that if my point of view prevails and Senator Ryan ‘s proposal is rejected, I will be just as vigilant as anyone else to uncover any genuine cases where for religious reasons a doctor has denied a woman the right to have an abortion. I still have that inner doubt as to whether the acceptance of this proposal would tilt things the other way. It may be a holding action. I repeat that I have never been a absolutist. I believe that there is a middle ground and it is for that reason that I take the attitude that I would not support Senator Ryan’s motion. I believe that in all these areas there will be a lot of deep thinking by religious groups, by the Minister and by everyone else. I want to make one final point. I did not like the introduction to Senator Sheil’s comments because I felt that his remarks were a tocsin to members of the National Country Party. There have often been taunts in this place about a regimented Opposition. I believe that those members of the Opposition who have put their point of view have done so with sincerity. We were not trying to score and we were not trying to threaten one another with all sorts of things. I will leave it at that.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate today has canvassed several issues fairly widely in discussing this motion for disallowance of the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance. I wish to confine my remarks to two matters only. The first of these is the question of the place, if any, of clinics, whether private clinics or Government run clinics, and the second is the question of social equity and equal access to whatever facilities are available. I start my remarks by saying that I genuinely respect the concern of my colleagues and the views of the very many constituents who have written to me and who have contacted me, even when I disagree with them. I hope that they and my colleagues can understand the position that I wish to put today. It is a position which represents an amalgam of personal conviction and of experience gained over years of counselling many people seeking help

In the absence of Senator Grimes from the chamber, only Senator Sheil and I in the Senate today have the capacity to express a view based on our experience as practitioners of medicine, not as senators or people removed from the problem. We speak as people who have been closest to pregnant women, who have had to face these problems and who have had to make some decisions. This debate inevitably concerns the conditions under which lawful terminations of pregnancy shall be, can be or could be performed in the Australian Capital Territory. It is not a debate about illegal terminations. Illegal terminations are illegal. They are unlawful and they should be so treated. It is a debate about lawful terminations of pregnancy and it occurs against a background of existing statute and case law which has determined the circumstances under which abortion is lawful. My belief, and I put it simply, is that I would want to ensure for all Australian women the widest possible access to all the facilities they need if they wish to have a lawful termination of pregnancy. I examine the position, regardless of what happens, to see what effect it has on that principle.

The Ordinance about which today’s debate is concerned seeks to narrow and to limit access to abortion which has been available in the Australian Capital Territory previously under the existing statute and case law. Disallowance will not widen the law or create a vacuum. Disallowance will remove the limitations which are imposed by this Ordinance and will restore the situation which applied previously which denned what was legal and what was not. Disallowance of the Ordinance will revive the law that applied in the Australian Capital Territory before the Ordinance was introduced- that is, sections 82 to 84 of the Crimes Act of New South Wales and the case law. I refer to Davidson’s case and Wald’s case, commonly referred to by the rulings of the judges as the Menhennitt and Levine rulings. The Ordinance narrows the potential access of women in the Australian Capital Territory to termination of pregnancy when they are legally entitled to it. It alters the law from what it was before the enactment of the Ordinance. Previously, the terminations could be undertaken, as provided by New South Wales law.

I must say just a few words about the position in which government senators find themselves today in relation to this Ordinance. Traditionally, our parties have not laid down a government policy in socially sensitive areas, in areas which are as divisive as this one tends to be. Traditionally, where personal and moral judgments have been involved, we have had a free vote. In such circumstances, our parties normally have given to all our members a free vote. That is happening on this occasion. I remind honourable senators that it also occurred in a number of matters relating to Parliament and its operation and a number of issues involving a significant element of personal morality. These are situations which attract free votes. They included the Matrimonial Causes Bill 1959, the Marriage Bill 1961, the Death Penalty Abolition Bills of 1968 and 1973 and the Family Law Bill 1974. Most recently, it occurred in relation to a motion moved in the Senate to establish a committee to examine the operation of the Family Law Act.

All these issues attracted free votes from honourable senators on this side of the Senate chamber. In May 1973, the Medical Practices Clarification Bill in another place attracted a free vote. It was a debate about abortion and its performance in the Australian Capital Territory. At that time Mr Lynch, speaking on behalf of the Opposition parties, said:

The Opposition parties regard this matter as one for a conscience vote.

In September of the same year there was a debate on human relations. It attracted a free vote. In October 1973 the debate on homosexuality attracted a free vote. But on this issue the Government has broken new ground. This is an abortion issue. Government action has resulted in a narrowing of access to a procedure. It has significantly altered the people’s access to the procedure. The Government has taken a policy decision. Regrettably, it has occurred by way of subordinate legislation without its passing through the Parliament. I suppose that this is the way in which administrative law tends to work. But it has created an unfortunate position for honourable senators on this side of the chamber. I would have hoped that with this kind of proposal the Government would have moved to make an offer to the Parliament of the kind of law that it wanted and to have debate on a free vote basis. Leaving those procedural matters aside, let us examine the question of special clinics for abortion.

The Legislative Assembly endorsed a principle that there should be no free-standing private clinics. But those honourable senators who have read the report in detail will have difficulty in finding any argument to support that conclusion. I certainly found it difficult. It has been put to the Senate today that there is a general view about free-standing clinics. But I submit, with the best will in the world, that there has been very little argument of any substance which has any bearing on the place or otherwise of freestanding clinics, whether private or public, and whether we should support them. I can see no moral difference between lawful abortion carried out in the operating theatres of Canberra’s hospitals and lawful abortion carried out in a free-standing clinic. Will someone explain to me the moral difference which applies between those two situations? The Government’s policy and the speeches of many honourable senators seem to draw such a distinction. If someone can see the difference, will he explain to me what it is? As far as I am concerned, in each case it is a legal termination of pregnancy. But people have taken a moral position without explaining why one situation is acceptable and one is not.

The Legislative Assembly and the Government have taken a view on private abortion clinics and have done so, apparently, on a matter of significant principle. But I think they have, in fact, done this on an ad hominem basis. I think they have done it because one of the operators who may wish to move into the field has attracted some criticism. They are responding on an ad hominem basis without necessarily saying so and applying the reasoning to the whole possibility of free-standing clinics. I personally do not think that is a good enough reason. As I said, I am concerned with access, social equity and equality of opportunity.

The need for clinics does exist. If honourable senators are interested in expert opinion, I refer them to the views of some specialist obstetricians and gynaecologists. Two of my friends, Dr Truskett and Dr Pfanner, writing in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1974, commented as follows in talking about abortion:

Some attention must be devoted towards where such procedures will be performed, lt has been noted by John and Hackman (1973) that routine gynaecological surgery suffered an increase in the waiting list for admission of 200 per cent after the introduction of the liberalised law in the United Kingdom. This situation arises because of the need for urgent bed usage by patients requiring termination. This same situation is occurring in Australia, and routine gynaecological surgery is being postponed time and again to the patient’s detriment, and the training of staff and future specialists is also suffering as a result. Any future developments in this area must take these facts into account, and it could become a matter of considerable importance in future planning to make provisions for adequate centres to deal with the problem of abortion.

I take it that they were suggesting special facilities. I would take it that abortion clinics for abortions performed lawfully are the kind of answer to which they were looking to protect the needs of those who have to have major gynaecological surgery in the major hospitals and whose rights to admission are adversely affected by an insistence that all terminations take place, first trimester abortions particularly, unnecessarily in the operating theatres of major hospitals. Women from the Australian Capital Territory certainly do use free-standing abortion clinics. They use them in Sydney. Of course, the fivehour bus ride from Canberra to Sydney indicates the hypocrisy that can come into this debate if we say that by excluding free-standing clinics we will in fact be stopping all women in the Territory from using them. It may interest honourable senators to know that of the first 1 ,007 women who were treated at the Preterm Foundation the percentage that came from the Australian Capital Territory- 3.9 per cent- was exactly the percentage which the population of the Territory would represent if it were included in the population of New South Wales.

The report of the Legislative Assembly predicted the number of abortions which might be expected to be needed annually. It showed that the number of abortions that are being carried out each year in the theatres of Canberra hospitals are far below that figure. What happens to the rest of the women? Mostly they have to take the 200-mile trip to Sydney if they wish to get terminations. It is hypocrisy to pretend that failure to establish a clinic here will result in women not using this facility or not continuing to desire to have abortions. In the absence of good and rational arguments against terminations being carried out in clinics- government clinics or private clinics- I can see neither logic nor equity in what has been proposed. In taking that view perhaps I am an outrider of the debate. Perhaps I am the only person in the Senate who does not wish to condemn private free-standing clinics. But if I am to be convinced otherwise people will have to give me some more rational reasons than those which have to do with their dislike for particular doctors or operations in particular cities.

What about the question of social inequality or potential inequality- it is the same problem- if the Ordinance stands? That is a real concern to me. If only some people can get terminations or if some people can have less access available to them if the Ordinance stands and if all terminations that are to be conducted have to be conducted in the theatres of Australian Capital Territory hospitals, what will this mean? Apart from the fact that it will mean delays in routine gynaecological surgery, what will it mean for the women desiring termination? It will mean that every woman in the Territory who wants a termination without exception will have to cross three barriers at least. She will have to find a doctor who will deal with her sympathetically. She will have to have certificates signed by a doctor or doctors to indicate that the procedure that she wants is lawful and proper. In the Australian Capital Territory she will then have to go before a terminations committee which must, as an extra procedure, decide if it will approve the application. I was indebted to Senator Walters, who indicated in her contribution that the committee vets the applications to weed out what might be frivolous- I think that is the word she used- ones.

Senator Walters:

– Inconvenient.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Inconvenient ones. In other words, there is no objection to my belief that that terminations committee acts as an extra barrier to access. The decision as to whether it is lawful rests with the first doctors who sign the certificates. If they are falsely certifying, they are responsible. The purpose of the extra committee, I think, is just to make abortion less accessible to women in Canberra than it is in other parts of Australia. There is not a State which as a rule for all women insists upon the imposition of a terminations committee between a woman and the doctors who certify her to need the termination and the procedure itself. I find that to be quite objectionable. Since 1970 the terminations committee has rejected more than 50 such applications- about 5 per cent of the total, let us say. More than 50 applications have been rejected. We do not know why they were rejected but I suspect that it is because it was thought that in some way they did not measure up to some standard. My concern is to decide what effects this can produce for the women of the Australian Capital Territory.

I believe that the committee has been set up to restrict the performance of abortions and that it is certainly doing. If one looks at the number of terminations that have been carried out in the hospitals of the Territory over the last few years one will notice that they are dropping year by year. In 1975, 197 abortions were approved; in 1976, 159 were approved; and, in 1977, 151 were approved. The barriers are there and this is at a time when all the evidence shows that the procedure is becoming more common round Australia and when the Legislative Assembly tells us that each year more than 400 women in the Territory will require a termination of pregnancy. My clinical experience as a doctor taught me that access to medical care of any kind is always unequal. It is not universally available to everyone in society. The workers in the health industry always have particularly good access. They know how to get things done; they know how the system works. That includes access to termination of pregnancies. Those who do not understand the law or the system, those who do not know how to contact people or to say the right things, those who do not offer the right coin with which they can pay for entrance have more difficulty. It is the inarticulate and the powerless who have troubles. One of the worst features of abortion practice has always been unequal access. Truskett and Pfanner, in the article which appeared in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1974, expressed the problem as follows:

The wealthy have always had their abortionists in Australia: Almost always medical practitioners who were skilful for the most part and expensive for a variety of reasons. The poor have always had their abortionists who were usually not medically trained, were unskilled and not always inexpensive.

Practice has altered since that time but I am convinced that any barriers whatsoever which are put up to make access more difficult will operate unequally, at the expense of the poor, the inarticulate, the uneducated and the powerless because they are the people who always do worst whenever a system is made more complex. As a philosophical liberal, I cannot be a party to any measure which limits access and which once again might direct the poorer, the less articulate and the powerless to any less professional procedure than is available to their wealthier and better educated sisters. Senator Puplick, in his maiden speech, quoted with approval the words of Edmund Burke in a speech to the electors of Bristol in which he promised them his service and his duty, but he told them that his conscience remained with him alone. Of course, that is the position that I take today. I do not seek to impose my views on any of my colleagues but I insist on the right to express and follow the dictates of my conscience here. As a doctor I have had to counsel many pregnant women, some of whom with my help have been able to find support to go through their pregnancies. I applaud them. I have had to counsel many pregnant women who with my support have found their way to termination of their pregnancies. If I go back into practice I will doubtless do the same many times again.

Senator Walters:

– Have you assisted a termination of pregnancy, as I have?

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The honourable senator asks whether I have assisted at terminations of pregnancy.

Senator Walters:

– As I have.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The honourable senator is a nurse, she is married to a gynaecologist and so she would know. I have as a resident assisted at terminations with all the horror and unpleasantness of the procedure. Further, I am an adopting parent with all that that implies for this debate and what it has meant for my family for me to have to take this stand. But I find the possibility of less easy access to abortion for women in the Australian Capital Territory to be present if this Ordinance is upheld. There will be less easy access that is likely to be socially inequitable in its impact and which is likely merely to direct women to Sydney and to the free standing clinics there. Under those circumstances I cannot support the thrust of the Ordinance and I will cast my vote for Senator Ryan’s motion. Since I believe in free standing clinics I cannot support Senator Evans’s amendment, which would seek an expression from the Senate that these clinics are not desirable.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– This is a most peculiar debate in that every speaker, other than Senator Baume who supports the attitude of Senator Ryan has done so because he has been in favour of the recommendations of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Senator Baume, supports Senator Ryan’s motion because he is opposed to the recommendations of the Assembly. There is some confusion because apparently one can oppose the ordinance whether one supports or opposes the recommendations of the Assembly.

This is the first time I have ever spoken during debate on an abortion ordinance. Although my attitude on abortion has never been stated publicly, I have been the recipient of 2,000 letters which relate to this matter and surprisingly I have replied to them all up until this week. However, it is beyond the capacity of my office to deal any further with the avalanche of mail that has come in this week. I have accepted Senator Button’s invitation to speak on this occasion because I believe senators have a right to indicate how they intend to vote on this question. As honourable senators know, there is to be a free vote or a conscience vote on this matter. I intend to support the motion of disallowance for reasons entirely different from any that have been given so far. I suppose it is my attitude to life- it may be my nationality- to be in opposition but I did what Senator Missen and Senator Tate said was unique and I looked at the Ordinance before speaking on it. I find the Ordinance to be bad. It exhibits favouritism and it acts against the civil liberties of some sections of the community. It is a sloppy Ordinance. For those reasons, apart from whether or not private or public abortion clinics should be established, this Ordinance should not be supported.

When the Senate rejects an ordinance- and it has taken this action on quite frequent occasions- responsibility has been thrown back on the Minister or the Government to rectify the grievance that that Ordinance sought to cover. Therefore it will be the responsibility of the Government if this Ordinance is disallowed today. The Senate may desire to adopt the Assembly’s recommendation. As Senator Evans has said, there are methods by which the recommendations of the Assembly can be implemented.

The ordinance is wrong in principle in its wording. The abortion law in Canberra is covered under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. Previously the Crimes Act of New South Wales applied. Under the pertinent sections of the Crimes Act, sections 82 and 84, it is an offence to administer unlawfully to a woman any drug or to use unlawfully any instrument or other means to procure the miscarriage of a woman. It can be seen that the skilled use of instruments to bring about an abortion is not the only act that may constitute an offence in the Australian Capital Territory. It could be an offence if one used a drug for the purpose of bringing about a miscarriage.

All abortions are illegal under the Crimes Act. The Menhennitt rules have not been tested in Canberra, but the opinion of the Legal Research Section of the Parliamentary Library is that the rules would be upheld because they have been upheld in Victoria and they have been upheld in New South Wales in the Crown v. Wall case. It thinks it would be a defence in Canberra if the accused could show that he came within the Menhennitt rules. The rulings of Mr Justice Menhennitt are:

The relevant law in relation of unlawfulness is as followsFor the use of an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage to be lawful the accused must have honestly believed on reasonable grounds that the act done by him was (a) necessary to preserve the woman from serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health (not being merely the normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth), which the continuance of the pregnancy would entail; and (b) in circumstances not out of proportion to the danger to be averted.

It is important to note that the judge did not set out the grounds of defence for a doctor. He referred to the accused. Everyone assumes that the doctor is the only person who could have that defence because he would be the person with the knowledge of whether a pregnancy was damaging to a woman’s health or mental condition. But the judge did not say that. It could well be that other people in the community are sufficiently versed in mental health or perhaps physical health to believe on reasonable grounds that a pregnancy should be terminated. I imagine that an elderly matron, a qualified nurse or a midwife could be in this category especially if supported by the medical opinion of a specialist or a gynaecologist examining a woman that a pregnancy could be fatal to the mother. A capable Queen ‘s Counsel could well comply with the Menhennitt rules and establish a defence against a charge of abortion. Therefore if the rules apply in the Australian Capital Territory this defence to the carrying out a legal abortion in the Territory need not of necessity apply to a doctor only. I know that the field outside the medical profession could be very restricted, but someone else could establish a defence on these grounds.

Senator Harradine:

– He must be a registered practitioner though.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is what I am coming to. What I am saying is that as the law stands in Canberra someone other than a doctor could do a lawful abortion.

Senator Harradine:

– No, he must be a medical practitioner.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Where does it say that? Who said that? What I am saying is that if a person is charged under the Act his only defence is the Menhennitt rules and the Menhennitt rules do not say that he has to be a registered medical practitioner. Therefore someone can have a defence. But now we have an ordinance that states:

A registered medical practitioner shall not carry out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

So at present a doctor or anyone else who can establish a defence can conduct an abortion anywhere in Canberra. I think that is what the argument is all about. As regards the private abortion clinics, we are restricting the operations of the registered medical practitioner only. Others can carry out abortions anywhere.

Senator Elstob:

– But not for a fee.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– We are talking about whether one can perform abortions. There may be some other rule. But why are we restricting only the doctor? Insofar as we restrict only one section, this could be unconstitutional. Therefore it is a bad law and a law that should not be permitted to stand. The penalty for the registered medical practitioner, to whom this law is restricted, is $1,000. I put those remarks forward as a reason why the whole of the ordinance should not be entertained. I remember when Senator Ryan raised a hullabaloo about a recommendation of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee to disallow a consumer affairs ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory. She said that this was not in accordance with the wishes of the Legislative Assembly and the Regulations and Ordinances Committee withdrew its recommendation before it came to a vote. Senator Ryan’s attitude today is consistent with her attitude then. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee then decided that it would not investigate the question of whether the matter should be dealt with by way of substantive motion or whether it should be brought in the back door by regulation. It said that in future it would not use those criteria for examining Australian Capital Territory ordinances. Had it done so, I think it would have recommended the disallowance of this ordinance. This would give the disallowance of this ordinance far more prestige, mainly because this is an emotional issue. It is an issue that has divided the whole of the ACTU -

Senator Gietzelt:

-The ACT.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, I mean that it has divided the whole of the ACT but it may have divided the ACTU as well. Possibly it has divided the political parties. So this is a matter which should properly be dealt with by the Parliament. I disagreed with the decision not to examine the original regulation as it was more suited to substantive legislation. I think that was wrong. If a matter is controversial, Parliament has a responsibility to debate it. The matter should not be brought in without anyone quite knowing of its existence. If I am right, we are now saying that we cannot upset the situation because we would be permitting private abortion clinics. Everyone except Senator Baume does not desire such clinics and we are told that the Government does not desire them either. I have no faith in the amendment that Senator Evans has moved. He is seeking to make an apology for Senator Ryan for doing what she thought was right. I think she is right. I remember the saying:

They are slaves who dare not be. In the right with two or three.

I do not think that if one is right one should make any apologies for being right or for advocating the right attitude. I oppose very strongly Senator Rae’s proposal, that if we disallow the ordinance, after disallowing it, we should then rescind our disallowance. This is an essential ingredient in the Seat of Government (Administration) Act to permit a Minister to bring in another ordinance for the period. I do not know the effect of a recision. The legal men seem to think that it is a requirement of that Act to permit a Minister to bring in another ordinance. I am of the belief, under the ordinary operations of Standing Orders, that if we rescind a decision ofthe Senate, its effect is that the Senate never made the decision. The same effect could be achieved by Senator Ryan withdrawing her motion now. If we are resolute on disallowing the ordinance, for no reason should we rescind the decision on any occasion because it is undoing with the left hand what the right hand has done.

If I am right in my interpretation of what the ordinance means-that all it does is put a restriction on a doctor- no one can tell me that another ordinance that says that there shall not be private clinics in the Australian Capital Territory is substantially the same. I cannot see that there is any basis for that comparison. Senator Evans says that the Minister can take that attitude, whether or not it is challenged by legal argument. If it is not, there is a basis for the right to legislate.

Sometimes members learn by experience over a long period in this place. I refer the Senate to the Senate Hansard record of 19 August 1971 and 25 August 1971. On 19 August 1971 the Senate adopted a recommendation of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee to disallow an ordinance relating to the calling of evidence before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Counsel argued before the court that he was unable to proceed because he never knew what evidence he was permitted to call or how he could cross-examine witnesses. The judge upheld his complaint and was doubtful that there was any law governing evidence. He felt that the court was in an impossible position and that it could not continue to sit. So the then Attorney-General, the late Senator Greenwood, came back to the Senate on 25 August 1971 and related this dilemma. He said that there was nothing he could do because he could not bring in another ordinance for a period of six months under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and therefore he would move that the Senate rescind the decision. The Senate refused to rescind its decision.

Knowing the impossibility of the situation facing the court for six months, Senator Murphy greatly influenced the Senate when he suggested that legislation could be introduced. That same afternoon, when the Attorney-General refused to act, Senator Murphy brought down legislation covering the rules of evidence. That legislation provided that for the life of the Bill the rules of evidence applying to the Supreme Court would be those contained in the regulations that the Senate disallowed. It was a simple job. The date of the expiration of the Bill was 3 1 October 1971. That gave the Attorney-General just over two months to prepare proper legislation. When the Bill was considered in the Committee of the Whole the expiration date was extended, by amendment moved by the Attorney-General, to 3 1 March 1 972. That overcame the situation.

It is my argument that, firstly, the matter before us is a contentious issue and it is proper that it be considered by a court of law. It should be covered by legislation and not by regulation.

Secondly, the Minister cannot possibly use the excuse that he has no alternative than that there will be private abortion clinics. He has the opportunity to change the situation if he wants to do so. There is a precedent. If we disallow this Ordinance and if the Minister does not desire to carry out the recommendations of the Legislative Assembly, then those 2,000 people who wrote to me owe the Minister a letter because he is neglecting his job; it is not to Senator Ryan and to Opposition senators that they should be writing.

The Minister has the solution to the problem, and that is indicated by the attitude he takes to the situation. Having promised to accept the decision of the Legislative Assembly, he now takes the attitude that he will not proceed with implementing its decision. If he is not prepared to do anything he must face the consequences. He has the facilities to do something. In fact, I have been discussing with Senator Ryan the possibility, if the Minister is remiss in carrying out his responsibilities, of Senator Ryan doing what Senator Murphy did, namely, introduce legislation in this chamber. This could be done on the next day of sitting. That legislation would have the effect of implementing the 47 or 51 recommendations of the Legislative Assembly.

Senator Ryan and other Opposition senators face the restriction that such a proposal must at least be considered by Caucus. It is a restriction which did not seem to worry Senator Murphy too much; he overcame it. However, it is a restriction which has to be considered now. That is one of the alternatives open to us. If the people of Canberra want the decision of the Legislative Assembly upheld and if the Minister will not act on their behalf, I can assure them that the Opposition will not be remiss in its responsibility by leaving it to the Minister’s decision whether legislation is introduced to implement, as he said he would, the decision of the Legislative Assembly.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

page 1886

GENERAL BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That General Business be postponed until after further consideration of Business of the Senate.

page 1886

ACT TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ORDINANCE 1978

Motion for Disallowance

Debate resumed.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I rise without fear or trepidation and with no intention of covering the ground which I believe has been adequately covered to date. Senator Ryan’s reference to a promise being made to the people of Canberra is not quite how I see the situation. If my information is correct, at the last Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly election abortion was not an issue at any time of any party or any candidate and no referendum has been held on the matter. I certainly would not regard any of the polls or surveys which have been conducted since then as having any authority. I do not accept that the Legislative Assembly or any body delegated by it has the right to press or represent that it speaks for the people of the Australian Capital Territory at this time on this matter. If the decision involves a straightforward political matter, quite clearly it would not be unreasonable to give the members of the Assembly the opportunity to resign from their positions and go to the voters so that the voters can elect their representatives knowing their views on the subject. If it is not a political matter but an item referred to as a matter of conscience, by all means resort to the holding of a referendum. Honourable senators should not, however, represent members of a committee of an advisory body, several of whom I am told are appointed and not elected, as being in a position to speak for the people of the Australian Capital Territory, regardless of whether the matter is political or one of conscience.

This Parliament and no one else has the responsibility for matters of health in the Capital Territory. This responsibility must be discharged with great care. As to the item currently under review, as with other areas, I believe it would be quite wrong to treat the Australian Capital Territory as a place to conduct some social experiment. That is not the function, as I see it, of this chamber. It is far more proper that we should be responsible. I acknowledge that there has been some discussion and even some dispute on the clumsy way in which the matter has gone so far but I cannot agree that this provides any excuse for us to act in any way now that could establish a position based on our own political or philosophical view while there can be any chance of this being contrary to the requirements or wishes of the majority of Australian Capital Territory residents to retain the existing position. No one can tell me that the residents of the Territory have demonstrated this view. I would welcome information from any honourable senator which indicates otherwise.

I cannot support any move on the matter that does not satisfy the matters I have raised. Accordingly I will be opposing the motion. I commend honourable senators of all points of view who have taken their convictions seriously enough to become engaged in the debate. Like Senator Chaney, I believe that this is not only acceptable but also commendable. I particularly thank Senator Tate, Senator Baume and Senator Chaney for their clear, practical and unemotional statements on the issue.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Firstly, I take advantage of this opportunity, which is my first, to congratulate Senator John Watson on the maiden speech which he made yesterday. It was a maiden speech which touched my heart. I did not realise, until he made his maiden speech, that trade unionists, manufacturers and employers had so much in common. I am sure that we will be able to have a good deal of common cause with Senator Watson during his stay in this Parliament. I have only one–

Senator O’Byrne:

– He presided over the selling out and destruction of a great Tasmanian industry.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I must object to that. I know that during the time Senator Watson was in an influential position in that industry he fought very hard to maintain it against decisions that were made at a federal level.

As I see it. the thrust of the debate on this matter thus far has fallen into four categories. First of all we had legalistic argument. We had the argument that the issue was one of abortion. We had the argument that the issue was one of probity of government. We had the argument that the issue was one of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. I do not think we had any other strains of argument except perhaps the characteristic Cavanagh clairvoyance, if I can adopt that phrase without any disrespect to the honourable senator, which was exhibited just before the suspension of the sitting. I think it is worthwhile disposing of that contribution in this context: I think that the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) should have regard to what Senator Cavanagh said when different devices and methods are available as time goes on. Senator Cavanagh suggested that the Ordinance was a bad ordinance because it dealt only with medical practitioners. The essential part of the Ordinance- clause 3 (2)- states:

A registered medical practitioner shall not carr)’ out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

I understood the burden of Senator Cavanagh ‘s argument to be that the Ordinance was bad because it referred only to registered medical practitioners and conceivably there could be others who could lawfully perform an abortion. Let me refer to section 83 of the Crimes Act of 1 900 of the State of New South Wales and its application to the Australian Capital Territory. It provides:

Whosoever unlawfully administers to or causes to be taken by any woman, whether with child or not, any drug or noxious thing or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means with intent in any such case to procure a miscarriage shall be liable to penal servitude for ten years.

I refer now to a judgment on the subject, which reads:

For the use of an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage to be lawful the accused must have honestly believed on reasonable grounds that the act done by him was (a) necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or physical or mental health (not being merely the normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth), which the continuance of the pregnancy would entail; and (b) in the circumstances not out of proportion to the danger to be averted.

That was the judgment of Mr Justice Menhennitt in Regina v Davidson. Implicit in the judgment which I have just quoted is the proposition that the person using the instrument must by training and qualification be able to form an opinion on reasonable grounds that the act done was necessary and not out of proportion to the danger to be averted. That person must also be in a position lawfully to give or perform any medical or surgical service, attendance, operation or advice. According to an opinion which has been obtained from Mr Kelly, a Canberra Queen’s Counsel, he must be a registered medical practitioner unless he carries out the procedure other than for fee or reward. The argument of Senator Cavanagh by which he related that to the present Ordinance is a convoluted argument. I admit that with the type of advances in menstrual regulation which will probably be upon us within the next 10 years, it may be necessary for the Minister of Health to see whether the Ordinance is adequate, but at this time it is generally accepted, except by the clairvoyant Senator Cavanagh, that the ordinance would ensure that abortions will not be legal if they are performed outside a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

Aside from Senator Cavanagh ‘s rather convoluted argument as I see the thrust of the debate it has been legalistic and has concerned the questions of abortion, the probity of government and self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. I think that almost every honourable senator, except perhaps Senator Puplick, has abandoned the proposition that the issue is one of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. I think that is the case. If Senator Puplick continues to cling to the vestige that this debate is something to do with self-government in the Australian Capital Territory let me put a proposition to him. I understood him to say that matters dealing with moral and conscience issues ought to be determined by the elected representatives of the Australian Capital Territory. Let me throw in another moral issue- capital punishment. If the Minister for the Capital Territory were to refer the question of capital punishment to the Legislative Assembly for decision, would Senator Puplick say that an ordinance must be made in accordance with the decision of the Assembly if that decision were that capital punishment ought to be introduced in the Australian Capital Territory? Of course he would not. To be fair to Senator Evans, I do not think that he would go along with that proposition.

To be fair to him and to other honourable senators, I think that the whole question of selfgovernment in the Australian Capital Territory is now no longer tenable in this debate. Why is it not tenable? It is not tenable because constitutionally the Legislative Assembly just simply does not have the power to determine these issues. It is an advisory body only. It is a part time body only. There are only 18 members of the Legislative Assembly and all of them have full time jobs, other than being Legislative Assembly members. A new election has been repeatedly postponed. Indeed, there is to be a referendum on the 25th of this month to decide its future form and the tipping is that the people will keep it as it is- an advisory body. I do not want to influence the decision. If they want it to be a legislative body, that is okay. But that decision has not been made. In fact five of the 18 members of the Legislative Assembly- almost one-third- are replacement members. Imagine what people would say about this chamber if one-third of our numbers- 2 1 senators- were not elected. Imagine what they would say about our decisions. They say enough about them now, let alone what they would say about them then.

Having disposed of that aspect of the argument, we come to the argument that this issue relies not on the question of abortion or on the legalistic interpretation but on the question of probity of government. Here we have a Minister of the Crown who has given an undertaking which he has not upheld. I refer to the initial speech that Senator Ryan made on 1 1 October 1978 in support of her disallowance motion. She said:

In bringing in the Termination or Pregnane)’ Ordinance 1978. the Government has flouted the democratic principle and reneged on its own promise, given when the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) said:

Senator Ryan then quoted him as saying:

We have decided as a government, and quite rightly so, that matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory, matters that have great social consequence and matters that have wide-ranging consequences for the people in this community will be debated, discussed and decided by those people who were elected by the local community. I pay full credit to the way in which members of the Legislative Assembly have faced up to taking decision . . .

Senator Ryan said:

That was a reply by Mr Hunt on this matter on 24 March 1 977. He proceeded to say:

I conclude by saying that the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly voted to ban abortions outside the recognised hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory for a 90-day period during which time it will debate the wider issues and take decisions in respect of the way in which abortions will be carried out in the Australian Capital Territory.

Frankly, Senator Ryan could be excused for taking the view that that was an undertaking given by the Minister. As has been stated, that statement was an answer to a question from Mr Beazley. Apparently a number of honourable senators are saying that this is a crucial matter and that it is on this basis that they are going to decide the issue. Let me read to the Senate the circumstances under which that undertaking was given, because it is not that ‘undertaking’ which is important. What is important in fact is the reference that was made by the then Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) on behalf of the Minister for Health to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly on 16 March 1977. It is that to which we must address ourselves, but I agree that Senator Ryan and other honourable senators could be excused for thinking that what Mr Hunt said was an undertaking.

Let me describe the circumstances under which that so-called undertaking was given. As Senator Ryan said, it was given on 24 March 1977. May I be permitted to read from Hansard of the House of Representatives of that date? The question is headed ‘Australian Capital Territory: Change in Criminal Law’ and reads:

Mr BEAZLEY; I direct my question to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister gave a quick duck-shove later on. The question continues:

The right honourable gentleman will recall that on 10 May 1973 this House rejected a proposed change in the criminal law in the Australian Capital Territory related to the termination of pregnancy, entitled ‘The Medical Practices Clarification Bill ‘. It was rejected by 98 to 23 votes. I ask the Prime Minister whether there are proposals to change the law in the Australian Capital Territory again. If so, will the matter come to this Parliament? If the matter will not come to this Parliament, why is the decision of 10 May 1973 being evaded, and why is this Parliament being evaded? If the Legislative Assembly, which was not elected with this question as an election issue, opts for free standing abortion clinics, does the Government -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is moving to a hypothetical area.

Mr BEAZLEY; Does the Government accept that position as a decision ofthe final authority?

The Prime Minister did not answer the question; Mr Hunt did. I suppose I am the only person in this House who will stand up and say what is factual in this case because the Government cannot and the supporters of Senator Ryan’s motion do not want to say that Mr Hunt made a mistake. This is what he said:

The honourable member for Fremantle reminds us of a debate that took place in another Parliament at another time when quite obviously the former Government was trying to make the Australian Capital Territory and its people the guinea pigs in a social laboratory.

Opposition members interjecting–

Mr HUNT; Time and again we had debates on issues for the Australian Capital Territory in areas over which the Commonwealth itself–

Mr Bryant then took a point of order. This is important because this is the circumstance under which the socalled undertaking was given and upon which a number of honourable senators are hanging their hats in support of the motion moved by Senator Ryan. Hansard reads: .

Mr Bryant; I take a point of order. The point of order is that the honourable gentleman referred to a motion before the House as being a Government measure. I voted for it, but it is quite false to say that it was a Government measure.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator O’Byrne:

– There is no substance in what you are saying, either.

Senator HARRADINE:

– There is substance in what I am saying because it has been said in this place that the key issue is that an undertaking was given on 24 March by Hunt and that that has not been carried out. I am trying to explain to the Senate under what circumstance that undertaking was given and how he was wrong.

Senator Gietzelt:

– It is tedious.

Senator HARRADINE:

– We are coming to that. The Hansard report goes on:

Mr HUNT; We have decided as a government, and quite rightly so, that matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory, matters that have great social consequence and matters that have wide-ranging consequences for the people in this community will be debated, discussed and decided by those people who were elected by the local community. I pay full credit to the way in which members of the Legislative Assembly have faced up to taking decisions -

Mr Keating; You are a gutless wonder.

Mr HUNT; I beg your pardon?

Mr Keating; You are a gutless wonder.

Mr HUNT So are you. You are a gutless wonder yourself.

This is what supporters of Senator Ryan’s motion are hanging their hat on. Keating said to Hunt ‘You are a gutless wonder’ and Hunt said So are you. You are a gutless wonder yourself. Hansard then reads:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Health will resume his seat.

Mr Keating; I did more than you did. You did not believe in anti-abortion. You are iust a gutless wonder.

Frankly, I think Mr Keating was correct, but that is an aside. Hansard continues:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr HUNT I will see you afterwards.

I do not know whether he was speaking to Mr Speaker or Mr Keating. Hansard continues:

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Health will resume his seat.

Mr HUNT We will see how gutless you are.

And so it went on. This is the circumstance under which the undertaking onto which some honourable senators have latched. I ask the Senate to reflect on it. I must say that any statement that is made under those circumstances is not at all relevant to this debate. I do not think that anybody who intends to hang on Hunt or the Government an undertaking given by a Minister in those circumstances understands politics. In fact. Mr Hunt obviously was carried away with his alliteration ability ‘debated, discussed and decided’. I suppose, as I said, that I am the only one in this place who would make that point because I do not think that the people who are opposing -

Senator Button:

– What is the point? It is not very clear.

Senator HARRADINE:

– The point is that there is no undertaking in those circumstances. The clear reference to the ACT Legislative Assembly is contained in the letter of 16 March 1977 by Mr Staley on behalf of Mr Hunt. I telephoned Mr Beazley today. Senator Button, and I have his authority to say that he was not under the impression that Mr Hunt had given any undertaking whatsoever that the decisions of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly would be binding on the Government. I have obtained his approval to tell you my colleagues of that fact.

Senator Rae:

– What about Mr Stewart, and the question on 17 March? What was said then?

Senator HARRADINE:

– What about Mr Stewart? Do you want me to go to the question that was asked on 1 7 March? Where in that question, Senator Rae, does it say that the matter will be decided by the Legislative Assembly?

Senator Rae:

– It is in the last paragraph of the answer.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Where?

Senator Rae:

– In the last paragraph, if you would like to read it.

Senator HARRADINE:

– The question posed by Mr Stewart was on the Canberra abortion clinic. The question proposed by Mr Stewart related to the circumstances of Population Services International, a multinational abortion provider which was attempting to become established in the Australian Capital Territory and is still attempting to get established. You will not find the undertaking there and you will not find it in the question asked on 10 March 1 977.

Senator Rae:

– Perhaps you would like to read it. He doesn’t want to read it.

Senator HARRADINE:

-Do you want me to read the question.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Of course. You have been challenged.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I will read it. In fact, I will do better than that I will seek to have the question incorporated in Hansard so that I am not wasting the time of the Senate.

Leave granted.

The question read as follows-

CANBERRA ABORTION CLINIC

Mr STEWART;ls the Minister for Health aware that his suggestion in the House last week, namely, that Population Services International should defer the setting up of an abortion clinic in Canberra until all the health and legal aspects have been given full consideration, has apparently fallen on deaf ears? Is he aware that the PSI is proceeding on the basis that it will be fully operational in about 10 day’s time? Is he also aware that the project director of PSI, Dr Geoffrey Davis of Sydney, has staled to the media that PSI is proceeding with its plans despite the Minister’s statement? Is the Minister completely powerless in this matter, as Dr Davis and PSI appear to think? ls there any way that the abortion profiteers can bc made to listen to a responsible request 10 hold off until the matter can be examined?

Senator HARRADINE:

– I have had it incorporated in Hansard so that honourable senators will be able to see Mr Stewart’s question related to the Canberra abortion clinic. The real point at issue here is the letter written by Mr Staley, the then Minister for the Capital Territory, on 16 March 1977. That is the Government document which was considered by the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. In the letter dated 16 March addressed to Mr Pead, the President of the Australian Capital Territory- Legislative Assembly, the opinions of the Legislative Assembly -

Senator Messner:

– The views.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I seek leave to have that letter from Mr Staley to the Legislative Assembly incorporated in Hansard. It will save time.

Leave granted. 77ie document read as follows-

Minister for the Capital Territory

THE PRESIDENT,

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Subject: Pregnancy Termination

Date: 16 March 1977 No. 1977/21

Dear Mr Pead,

The Legislative Assembly will have been made aware by newspaper reports ofthe intention of a private organisation to establish a clinic at Phillip ACT at which abortions can be carried out.

The Minister for Health and I have had strong representations against the merit of this proposal and both Ministers have been urged to consider action to prevent the establishment of the clinic.

This appears to the Minister for Health to bc a matter of great community interest and one in which he would expect to have the views ofthe Assembly before he institutes positive action, of any kind.

The Capital Territory Health Commission is seeking advice on the general issues from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and it should be in a position to offer particular information to the Assembly in the event that the Assembly would wish to consider the general issues and offer advice.

In particular there is the question of how much control should be exercised over the development of private clinics or whether such services should be provided only under the auspices of the Capital Territory Health Commission through its public hospitals.

The Minister for Health views this as a problem of considerable urgency and would be grateful if the Assembly could indicate that it is prepared to look into the issues quickly through its appropriate Committee.

Yours sincerely. A. A. Staley

Senator HARRADINE:

– I thank the Senate. It will save time. I will read the appropriate part of the Minister’s letter. It states:

The Minister for Health views this as a problem of considerable urgency and would be grateful if the Assembly could indicate that it is prepared to look into the issues quickly through its appropriate Committee.

The letter seeks recommendations from the Legislative Assembly. I do not think that there is any argument in the Senate on that point. That is precisely what the Government asked for. There is no point in hanging on to the Government an indiscreet statement by the Minister for Health in the circumstances of the cut and thrust of Question Time in the House of Representatives and which was not even considered by the questioner as reflecting the views of Mr Hunt so far as the Legislative Assembly is concerned.

Senator Missen:

– He used the same language twice, a week apart. How do you explain that?

Senator HARRADINE:

– No he did not. I have incorporated in Hansard the statements that the Minister made, both to Mr Stewart and to Mr Bouchier. The question of deciding the clinkissue was enunciated at that time. I suppose it could be argued that Mr Hunt saw this issue as not necessarily the only issue at stake. He stated:

We have decided as a government, and rightly so. that matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory, matters of great social consequence and matters that have wideranging consequences for the people in this community will be debated, discussed and decided by those people who were elected by the local community.

I mentioned the circumstances under which that statement was made. Before Senator Missen came into the chamber I stated that perhaps Senator Puplick might not agree that that should be the case. Say, for example, the Minister for the Capital Territory referred the question of capital punishment to the Legislative Assembly and it came down very strongly with the recommendation that there should be capital punishment in the Australian Capital Territory. 1 do not think that the honourable senator would adopt the attitude that he is adopting now.

Senator Puplick:

– Yes 1 would.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I am sorry. I was referring to Senator Missen. I pointed out previously that Senator Puplick probably adopted the self-government approach and I understand that. The fourth issue is that of abortion. As I see this question it is not so much a question of conscience. 1 think that the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) made a very thoughtful contribution to this debate, as have a number of other senators, both on this side ofthe House and on the other side of the House. The point he made was that if one accepts that a life i.s involved, then one accepts that rights are involved. It is a question of ensuring that those rights are balanced against the rights of other people. I suppose that that is the crucial point. This debate is not really about self-government or government probity. Who cares about government probity? Certainly we do not care about government probity. We try to keep the Government to its promises but we know that more often than not they are broken.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You are talking about the question of abortion.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Of course I am talking about abortion. I am talking about the provision of separate abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory. This is the type of thing that Senator Baume was speaking about earlier today. In the few minutes that are left to me I want to refer briefly to Senator Baume ‘s speech. Senator Baume posed the question: What is the difference between a legal abortion performed in a public hospital -

Senator Peter Baume:

– In a theatre in a hospital.

Senator HARRADINE:

-. . . theatre or in a private clinic?

Senator Peter Baume:

– I asked about the difference in moral quality.

Senator HARRADINE:

– May I say that the difference is in quantity rather than quality. I will refer to quality in a moment. Senator Baume referred to the clinic operated by Population Services International (Australasia) Ltd. I do not know whether Senator Baume has any knowledge of what occurs in the PSI clinic but it is the very organisation that is attempting to set up a clinic in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Baume asked the Senate why the Legislative Assembly placed such stress on the need to ban private abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory. He is right. The only recommendation with regard to an ordinance by the Legislative Assembly was that there be an ordinance banning private abortion clinics. That is the Ordinance that we are discussing tonight and which Senator Ryan is attempting to have disallowed. The question is a good one. Why did the Legislative Assembly seek to ban private abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory? I suppose the answer is in the evidence that was given to it. at page 7 of the evidence that was given to the Standing Committee on Education and Health abortion inquiry on Friday, 6 May 1977 at 12.30 p.m., the evidence of Ms Margaret Hooks and Ms Rosemary Elliott is reported. These two persons had experience in PSI operations. The transcript states:

Dr HUGHES: Well, could you put an approximate percentage on the number of women who would be given a pelvic examination by a doctor before the final decision was made that they would have an abortion and that they would go into the operating theatre.

Would it be a small proportion or a high proportion?

Ms Elliott said:

I would say it would not be 5 per cent, when we were there.

That is at Population Services International. She continued:

They all, of course, had woken once they’re on the table and asleep. But that is not very pleasant for the woman who has been put to sleep and is woken up saying look you’re too late or you’re not pregnant or something like that. She has had to go through quite a bit.

Senator Ryan:

– What is that about?

Senator HARRADINE:

– This is relevant to the vote to be taken. Dr Hughes said:

She might be relieved to know she is not pregnant but she would not have liked to have an anaesthetic to find out. Number 4, medical facilities are inadequate. Instruments are boiled often 3 to 5 minutes of the required 20 minutes using expensive autoclave.

Senator Ryan:

– Where is this?

Senator HARRADINE:

– This is the evidence given to the Standing Committee on Education and Health of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly in its abortion inquiry.

Senator Ryan:

– But where is this happening? Where are the instruments not boiled?

Senator HARRADINE:

– This is in PSI.

Senator Ryan:

– But who wants PSI? Why are you telling us about PSI?

Senator HARRADINE:

– I agree.

Senator Ryan:

– Nobody is arguing that PSI should come in..

Senator HARRADINE:

– The honourable senator is not but I am answering Senator Baume. Senator Baume has asked a valid question as to why the Legislative Assembly came down with a recommendation that an ordinance be introduced- we are determining whether it will be confirmed- banning private abortion clinics.

Senator Missen:

– You are putting up your own Aunt Sally.

Senator HARRADINE:

– No, I am not. Senator Baume has asked a question and I am answering it. Dr Hughes continued:

Now we have a list here in the financial statements of all the equipment and the depreciation write-off for tax purposes and it doesn’t include an autoclave at all. Is there an autoclave on the premises?

Ms Elliott replied:

No there is no autoclave at either of the clinics.

The transcript then proceeds as follows:

Dr HUGHES: So they just use a boiling water unit.

Ms ELLIOTT: Yes.

Mr CORNWELL: This of course, is up to the time that you left the clinics.

Ms ELLIOTT: That’s right.

Mr CORNWELL: Thank you.

Ms HOOKS: It’s still true.

Dr HUGHES: Operators use neither a no touch technique nor full sterile procedure. Could you expand on that and just explain how it is done in terms of the sterility of the procedure.

Ms HOOKS: From the point of view of sterility the doctors eat and drink and smoke in the theatre at the same time as women are being operated on and thats certainly not sterile procedure by any means. Quite often things are touched against . . . like things that are not sterile, the cloths that are used to wipe the women down afterwards, and sometimes they use the same cloths to wipe down all the women for one day and thats certainly not sterile and if that comes in contact with any of the instruments or anything -

Honourable senators interjecting -

Senator HARRADINE:

– I can hear the interjections. But a question was validly raised as to why this was the only recommendation made for such an ordinance. Only one recommendation for such an ordinance was made by the Legislative Assembly? It was for the banning of a private abortion clinic? That is what we are talking about in the Senate tonight. The proposal is to disallow this ordinance. The answer is in the clear evidence that was given before the Legislative Assembly Committee. If it turns the stomachs of honourable senators, what do they think it does to the people who are involved?

Senator Keeffe:

– Why don ‘t you table it now?

Senator HARRADINE:

– Does the honourable senator want the document tabled? I will table it directly. Ms Elliott went on to say:

They arc not sterile, they are just in an ordinary cardboard box and they are only wrapped over with paper.

There is a great deal more of this material, but I hope that what I have quoted explains the position to Senator Baume. He commenced his remarks by saying that he was a medical practitioner, that there are a couple of medical practitioners in the Senate and that they were close to the pregnant women. The husbands of the pregnant women are pretty close to them, but I cannot see what that has got to do with any of the argument to and fro across the chamber. Those remarks apply also to the lawyers. As a trade union official, I have had to brief lawyers while their meter has been ticking over. I know what lawyers are like. They can argue one case and then argue the other side of that case. Of course, there are a number of lawyers who have deep-seated ethical principles and I congratulate them for that. I am quite happy to table this document so that -

Senator Chipp:

– Are you getting pleasure from reading this?

Senator HARRADINE:

– I am quite happy to table the document, Senator Chipp. Does the honourable senator not want to study it? I am quite happy to table it so that -

Senator Keeffe:

– What has this got to do with clinics?

Senator HARRADINE:

– What are we discussing? We are discussing the disallowance of the Ordinance which would ban this type of operation in the Australian Capital Territory. That is what we are discussing. The Ordinance says:

A registered medical practitioner shall not carry out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

That Ordinance bans the setting up of private abortion clinics. For the information of honourable senators, since they have found this document of evidence so interesting, I will seek leave to table it after my speech so that honourable senators will be aware of why -

Senator Keeffe:

– Why not table it now?

Senator HARRADINE:

– I am happy to do so. Senator Keeffe asks me to table the document now. I seek leave to do so.

Leave granted.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I table the document. Having disposed of that, I come to the final matter, that of the legalistic interpretations. It has been said by Senator Chipp that if we pass Senator Ryan’s motion for the disallowance of this Ordinance which is designed to prevent this sort of operation in the Australian Capital Territory there will be no way that these people will be able to set themselves up. I point out that they already have their premises in the Australian Capital Territory. They are ready to move tomorrow.

Senator Ryan:

– Where is your evidence of that?

Senator HARRADINE:

– Thank you, Senator Ryan. I almost forgot about giving the .evidence for that. A search was made of the Titles Office in Canberra on 3 November 1 978 which disclosed that unit leases for units 3 and 4 on the first floor of block 3 of section 34, Phillip, were transferred on 1 July 1977 to Population Services International Australia for the sum of $84,000 and that the company is still the registered proprietor of those units. Furthermore–

Senator Ryan:

-That is not evidence.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is not evidence.

Senator HARRADINE:

– It is interesting to hear these interjections because Mr Hunt warned PSI off in 1977. What did PSI do? It ignored Mr Hunt and it established; its operations here.

Senator Missen:

– Come on. Give us your evidence that it is going to set up here.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I will give the evidence of what I have just been saying. Despite Mr Hunt’s warnings last year, Population Services International went ahead in the Australian Capital Territory. I will read a statement that was made by the Director of Population Services International, Dr Geoffrey Davis, who is poised ready to establish a private abortion clinic in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Missen:

– Has he said so?

Senator HARRADINE:

– If nobody else is interested, Senator Missen is interested. On the Australian Capital Territory Channel 7 news program at 6.15 p.m. on Thursday, 10 March 1977, a question was asked about whether the company was game. The transcript of the interview shows Davis as saying:

We had a full discussion (i.e. Blandford -

He is the Chairman of the Capital Territory Health Commission-

And Davis) of the nature of PSI both here and abroad . . .

The interview continued:

Interviewer: And what was the outcome of the meeting itself?

Davis: Oh. Long . . . (indistinct) . . . discussion. No particular outcome.

Interviewer: You arc still going to open here?

Davis: Oh yes, yes.

Interviewer: Even in view of Mr Hunt’s statement today that he believes it would be unwise for you to open in the present circumstances?

Davis: Ah. Yes. We’ll proceed with our plans.

Senator Missen:

– That was 18 months ago. What is your evidence now?

Senator HARRADINE:

– Let me give my evidence now. The company has premises already established in the Australian Capital Territory. Since then Davis has become registered by the Medical Practitioners Regulation Board here and he is poised to operate. Population Services International is a multi-million dollar provider of abortion services. It was its attempts last year in fact that caused all this matter. I think the honourable senator would agree with thai. The Australian operation is intimately linked with the New York and international structures. I took the opportunity last year of examining Population Services International’s operation in New York. I also took the opportunity this year of examining its operations in London. At the appropriate time I am prepared to bare all the facts of those operations before this Senate. PSI in fact has invested a lot of money in its proposed abortion clinic at Woden in the Australian Capital Territory. Dr Davis told the Legislative

Assembly that it had spent 5250,000 on it. What is an extra few hundred thousand dollars to this multi-million dollar provider? lt has hired the largest legal firm- I do not know whether it is the best- in town and is in fact poised to jump in if this motion is carried.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is a nightmare you are having. It is not even true.

Senator HARRADINE:

– It is true. Let me quote from the statement made by a representative of the company. He said that the company is holding off pending developments in Canberra. What does that mean?

Senator Ryan:

– It will be holding off forever.

Senator HARRADINE:

– That is what the honourable senator says but that is not what some other people in this chamber say. Some other people in this chamber have made it perfectly clear that there could be unforeseen and unpredictable consequences if this motion is carried. One of the unpredictable consequences of course is how this multi-national private abortion clinic will react.

Finally, I simply want to refer the Senate to the fact that the only recommendation for an ordinance made by the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health was for this Ordinance. It has been said by some speakers that this was a thoroughgoing investigation. Certainly on the aspect of private abortion clinics it received a good deal of evidence- its evidence was hard evidence- some of which has been tabled by me tonight. Really the Committee met for only six weeks. It is a world record for an abortion inquiry. The New Zealand royal commission took 2 1 months and the United Kingdom Lane Committee took several years. This Committee heard only 24 sets of evidence. The 47 recommendations were heard in one night’s debate by a part-time Legislative Assembly, one-third of whose members were not elected but appointed. They were not overwhelmingly adopted, as some people have said. On one crucial issue the vote was eight votes to seven.

I submit to the Senate that the recommendation which the Assembly made for an ordinance is contained in this very Ordinance which Senator Ryan seeks to have disallowed. I submit that we would be lacking in our duty to the people of Australia to allow this disallowance to take place. My concern is that public funds will be made available for the establishment of separate abortion clinics, thus institutionalising something which everybody in this Senate says is abhorrent. I believe that once it is institutionalised Parkinson’s Law will operate again. If the persons who are associated with the clinic are determining whether the Menhennitt rules apply to an individual, of course, as Senator Mulvihill said, the balance will not be there. If we have these people deciding whether under the Menhennitt rules an abortion is legal the balance will not be there because their jobs will be at stake. The whole structure of separate abortion clinics will be at stake. That is why I say that, boiled down, this argument concerns the provision of separate abortion clinics within the Capital Territory and. as was stated in the Canberra Times editorial following the release of the Committee report, abortion will be available on demand.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is being asked to give consideration to disallowing an ordinance and to do it on a free vote. In the seven years that I have been here this is the third occasion on which the Senate has exercised a conscience vote on an important issue. The first important issue that comes to my mind is capital punishment. I think it is relevant that we should make some reference to the debate on capital punishment having regard to the fact that Senator Harradine tried to draw an analogy between the vote on that matter and the way in which the Senate is exercising its obligations and responsibilities in relation to this ordinance.

I might say that, with the exception of the last speaker who delivered a rather tedious speech which I am sure most of us could not comprehend, the debate in the Senate today on this important question has probably brought forth some of the most important contributions that we have had on this subject. I think it is significant that we have seen the presentation of argument that has not been expressed in such a broad way in the past. Whatever the result of the vote tonight there is no doubt that those who have decided to support Senator Ryan have won the debate because they have presented their argument in a coherent, cogent and rational manner. The few honourable senators who have suggested they will oppose Senator Ryan’s motion have made very brief contributions. They have not produced any substantial argument against those that were produced by speakers from the Government and the Opposition side. Of course, we are dealing with this matter on a non-party basis.

Those of us who took an enlightened view in 1971 on capital punishment were criticised. I remind Senator Harradine that that legislation concerned the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. We made a decision to abolish capital punishment in the territories under our control. I do not see the relevance of that decision to the recommendations made by the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly in respect of the termination of pregnancy. The Parliament in its wisdom established the Assembly in 1974 and gave to that body certain advisory rights in the belief that it would act in that capacity and be responsible to the Minister of the day. Therefore it is wrong to say that we should adopt the same attitude in respect of abortion as we adopted in respect of capital punishment.

Those of us who took the position that a breakdown in marital conditions should be dealt with in an enlightened way were criticised when the Parliament discussed the family law legislation. Again we voted on a non-party basis. One would hope that the same mature consideration would be given to this debate as was given to the debates on capital punishment and family law. Like most honourable senators I have been besieged with largely hysterical letters in which terms such as mass murder and infanticide are used. The letters come from a variety of sources. The indications are that the letters have been organised and sent on a national basis by people who do not understand the responsibilities of the Senate. I will refer only to a small number of these letters at this point in the debate. Clearly pro forma letters have been circulated throughout Australia. The letters all appear in identical terms. For instance, some of the letters I have received state:

I am strongly opposed to abortion. Every abortion kills a baby before birth. I urge you to vote against Senator Ryan’s motion to disallow the ordinance banning abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory. The vote is the concern of all Australians. So I ask you to vote against the motion.

Letters have come to me from such places as Coolac, Lake Cargelligo, Mittagong, Greenwich, Balgownie, Oakdale and many other places outside of the Australian Capital Territory. What strikes me is the similarity of those letters and the fact that in a majority of cases they come from New South Wales where Judge Levine made a decision in one of the lower courts that has meant that from 1971 the responsibility for terminating a pregnancy has rested entirely on the judgment of a single doctor. That has been the practice in New South Wales for the last seven years.

My purpose in refering to the letters is to draw attention to the fact that people who are expressing these sorts of sentiments come from a State in which a legal abortion can” take place on the decision of a single doctor. I do not take the view that those who disagree with what I say should not have the right to express their’ viewpoint, but I yield to no one in refusing to believe that those people who have taken such an emotional stand on this issue are the only ones who are concerned about human life. In fact the whole motivation of all those who have spoken in support of Senator Ryan’s proposals has been based on a concern for human life. Yet one could imagine on the basis of the great number of letters which have been sent to senators that only one group has this concern. I would estimate that something in excess of 100,000 letters have been sent to 64 senators in the last several weeks. All this has done has been to give the Australian Postal Commission something like $2m in profits. This will help us to reduce our deficit but it will do very little to allow us to approach this question free from the emotion that we have seen expressed publicly outside the Senate and with one or two exceptions during debate in the Senate today. Of course, I accept that these points of view are coming from people who are entitled to express an opinion. These people have been organised to present that point of view.

I respect their obligation to represent that viewpoint to each and every one of us, but it comes from people who largely accept the principle of representative democracy rather than participatory democracy which is the cause with which I would prefer to be associated. It is the cause which I would rather see the community follow. I would like to see citizens participate in decision making in this way. Having said that I support the general principles of representative democracy I think I am entitled to say that the Senate is entitled to consider the views expressed by the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. The writers of these letters have been uninformed or misinformed and what they have said does not really have much bearing on the issue. To read the letters one would imagine that the effect of Senator Ryan’s motion would be to terminate the pregnancies of all Australian women forever. The truth, of course, is close to the opposite. There is no spontaneity in the protest movement. In fact, there has been overkill.

Some time back I was involved in a court action in which the case was lost because of an overkill situation. We know what happened in respect of President Nixon and Watergate which was an overkill situation. What we have witnessed in recent times is an attempt to impose on the Senate and on honourable senators a point of view which, I submit, does not really represent more than a small organised minority viewpoint, as much as I accept the right of that minority viewpoint to be expressed.

What does Senator Ryan’s proposal seek to do? First of all, it is limited to the. Australian Capital Territory. This is not a matter that has implications beyond the Australian Capital Territory. Secondly, it has the support of a majority of the people and specifically, I suggest, of the women of the Australian Capital Territory and of the elected representatives. Thirdly, and perhaps the most important of all, it is an action which, if supported, will give women even greater freedom for it is an extension of women ‘s rights to have control over their own bodies. It is the right to legally solve an issue that faces most women.

I think that the Legislative Assembly has acted very properly and very democratically to try to come to that decision. I think that Senator Ryan has acted very properly in placing this matter before the Senate for its consideration. I certainly join with Senator Puplick in saying how much I regret, as I am sure the Senate regrets, the campaign of vilification, criticism and intense pressure that has been the fate of Senator Ryan in these recent weeks. I believe that she has shown herself to be a courageous person who has withstood an unprecedented campaign, a campaign which can only be described as lacking in principle, lacking in understanding and lacking in information. I think that Senator Ryan is to be commended for taking a stand, knowing full well that there are organised groups in the community that would seek to belie her motivation and would seek to denigrate her both personally and politically. That is what the letters, in their great quantities, right throughout Australia have said.

Senator Ryan has shown that the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has contradicted his undertaking to the Legislative Assembly that this matter would be dealt with according to the Assembly’s wishes. I cannot accept the rather specious argument put forward by Senator Harradine that there is some ambiguity in what the Minister’s obligations were and what the Minister said. I have heard members of the Minister’s own Party draw attention to the fact that they are dissatisfied with the role of the Executive and that the responsibility therefore rests with the Senate, if it so desires, to set aside the decision of the Executive and to put into effect the expressed wish of the Legislative Assembly.

The Minister, when he made those statements, might not have taken such an undertaking very seriously, but the Legislative Assembly did and certainly many members of the community did. What did the Assembly do? In March 1977 it set up a committee of competent people. That committee was not a secret or a closed group. There was no question of arbitrariness or of dogmatism on the part of the committee. The committee advertised publicly and called for the views of concerned people in the Australian Capital Territory. It was a committee established and working as part of the democratic process in the Australian Capital Territory. It received submissions from no less than 1 1 9 individuals and organisations representing both a wide range of opinion of many thousands of people in the Australian Capital Territory and an expert range of opinion. Sixty per cent of the opinions came from women- and that in itself, I think, is significant. They came from women’s organisations, doctors, nurses, lawyers, social workers and, of course, mothers. Others were from concerned social groups such as churches and from a whole range of other groups. Needless to say, the Right to Life Association groups in the Australian Capital Territory, and even outside it, were quite vocal and participated in this process in a democratic way, putting their point of view, and these were heard by the committee. The written submissions were followed by a call for witnesses and the committee heard 48 witnesses. Again there were a wide range of people and organisations of all viewpoints. Much expert and personal testimony was heard and considered by the committee. Part of this testimony included two surveys of public opinion in the Australian Capital Territory on the issue of termination of pregnancies. The results of these surveys are interesting. I reject the view put forward by Senator Archer that we ought not to take too much notice of surveys. The fact is that we know that surveys have an uncanny knack of being able to show very clearly what public opinion is from time to time. One example is the recent survey conducted in New South Wales in respect of Premier Wran prior to the New South Wales State election. The results of that election reflected exactly the results of that survey. What did the survey conducted in May 1977 show? Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls conducted what it referred to as:

A strictly controlled probability sample of the voters resident in the two ACT Federal electorates of Canberra and Fraser . . . designed to give all voters in the ACT an equal and known chance of representation in the survey.

Comparative reference was made to a similar survey conducted nearly two years earlier in November 1 975. I want to look at both surveys and draw comparisons. In November 1975, in response to the question ‘Do you approve of easier abortion laws?’- and I do not think that that question could be misconstrued or in any way considered to be ambiguous as it is a fairly simple question- 54 per cent of the people said Yes’. In May 1977, some 18 months later, this figure had risen to 59 per cent. ANOP noted this increase in positive attitudes as statistically significant considering the space of time. Looking more closely at the 59 per cent in favour, one sees that 66 per cent- a clear two-thirds of the people under 25 years of age and the people most directly affected- were in favour while 60 per cent of the 25 to 45-year-olds and 54 per cent of the over 45-year-olds were in favour.

The reasons given for favouring easier abortion laws are significant too. Of those in favour, 55 per cent saw such laws as giving women ‘freedom to decide one’s self or as ‘enhancing women’s personal choice’. A further 1 1 per cent saw them as necessary for ‘unmarried mothers and young girls’ in particular. A further 7 per cent said that they supported easier abortion laws to ‘stop dangerous back street abortions’. These responses were to a completely open-ended question and showed the concern of the majority of people in the Australian Capital Territory to give women greater freedom and control over their own lives and bodies and futures- a right which they should exercise themselves and which the law should protect and guarantee.

The survey further showed that a massive 70 per cent of the Territory people surveyed were in favour of ‘clinics where doctors carried out abortions under suitable medical conditions’. Only 24 per cent, that is, less than one-quarter, of people in the Australian Capital Territory disagreed that such clinics should exist in Canberra. Even 27 per cent of those people thought that if such clinics were attached to public hospitals, Canberra should have such clinics. So here is a clear and reasonable indication of the opinion of people in the Australian Capital Territory- the people who are, after all, directly affected and whose views in a democracy should not only be respected but should be paramount. A second survey, predominantly of adult women, was carried out in 5 1 Canberra suburbs and responses were obtained from 713 people. Of these, 66.61 per cent believed that ‘action should be taken to liberalise the provision of abortion services in Australian Capital Territory hospitals’ and 57 per cent believed that the existing arrangements in the Territory were unsatisfactory. All of this indicates that there is some evidence that within the Australian Capital Territory there is majority support for liberalising abortion.

Senator Harradine:

– Surveys by whom. Senator?

Senator GIETZELT:

– If Senator Harradine had listened, he would know that they were surveys by ANOP. We have had a number of tenets presented to us in this debate. Senator Evans has shown us what the options are. He has indicated that the amendment he has moved to Senator Ryan ‘s motion would have the effect of overcoming any of the difficulties that have been suggested by Senator Harradine. Even if by some mischance that did not happen, clearly the contingent notice of motion of Senator Rae would overcome any of the objections that Senator Harradine has put forward.

I am not suggesting that the matter which the Senate is debating is not an important one. I am not suggesting that it is one in relation to which honourable senators do not have to examine their own consciences to understand the dissenting points of view. I respect the fact that there is a considerable difference of opinion among honourable senators from both the Government parties and the Labor Party. But, having passed propositions giving certain obligations and responsibilities to the Legislative Assembly, we have to decide whether that body has carried out those obligations and responsibilities by setting up a committee of inquiry and inviting submissions. That procedure is no different from that adopted by the Senate when from time to time it conducts inquiries. The Legislative Assembly took that evidence and considered it. It was assisted also by the surveys, which show that there is considerable public opinion that the right of women to terminate a pregnancy at a government clinic should be legally established. That being so, it ill-becomes either the Senate or the government of the day to take a shortsighted view and set aside the initiative and the decision taken by the Legislative Assembly. To do so would be to destroy the value of the democratic process that we have seen followed by the Assembly.

The Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly carried out its obligations to the people of Canberra and to the Parliament. Unfortunately, when the Federal Minister intervened he acted contrary to the way in which he was asked to act. I think it is to the credit of those honourable senators who have spoken in support of Senator Ryan’s motion and particularly to the credit of Senator Ryan that they should have drawn to the attention of the Senate the implications of the Minister’s action in setting aside very sound recommendations that were made by the Legislative Assembly. If Senator Ryan had not taken the opportunity to give notice of disallowance of the Ordinance in order to have this matter debated, the Legislative Assembly’s decision would not have been given mature consideration and the people of the Australian Capital Territory would not have had a chance to express through their elected representatives the belief that there should be established such principles and such ordinances that would bring the Australian Capital Territory into line with the way in which most Australian States are operating.

Some honourable senators have suggested that approximately 200,000 pregnancies are terminated each year in Australia. That is an alarming number, if in fact that estimate is correct. I do not know whether it is correct. Senator Walters shakes her head. When another honourable senator mentioned that figure there was no reaction at that time which indicated to me that it was a false or exaggerated statement. Senator Walters said that the figure was approximately 50,000 or 60,000, as I recollect her contribution. Whatever the number is, each one represents a personal decision that has had to be made by individual women throughout the Commonwealth. It matters not whether the number is 5,000, 50,000 or 200,000; each one represents a decision that has had to be made by women. As the law stands in this country at the present time, such decisions have been made after consultation, in the majority of cases, with a legally qualified medical practitioner. They are not decisions which the women concerned have taken lightly; they are not decisions that doctors have taken lightly. But they are decisions that have been taken having regard to emotional stresses, the personal difficulties, the financial difficulties, the breakdown of marriage or any of the social causes which would prompt a woman to take that sort of step.

I believe it is about time that the Parliament as well as the Australian community respected the position of a woman who has decided to take that step. I do not think it is the responsibility of an individual senator or a person belonging to the Festival of Light or the Right to Life Association to sit in judgment upon a woman who has to make that decision. It is a hard decision to make. If, after considering all the circumstances, it is decided to terminate a pregnancy, that decision is one which has been made privately and personally and ought to be the concern of any other section of the Australian community.

Some people have used the term ‘legal murder’ in relation to the termination of a pregnancy. If that is the case, we had better start building many more prisons in this country because many people are committing crimes in the name of those people who espouse the views of organisations such as the Festival of Light and the Right to Life Association. The plain fact of the matter is that women do not make those sorts of decisions care-free and without regard to their responsibilities. As a male I can say only that a tremendous responsibility rests with those women who are forced to make these sorts of decisions. It is proper that in the Australian Capital Territory they should have recourse to a doctor to be assisted in determining the issue legally, in the event that they have to make such a decision.

Senator Harradine was quite critical of the remarks made by Senator Baume. It appears that Senator Harradine has no conception of the need for women to be given help when making decisions about whether to proceed with a pregnancy. Senator Baume pointed out in his contribution that he, together with the husband, has had to counsel and assist a wife who has continued with a pregnancy. As well as that he has had to assist the parties concerned when a pregnancy has had to be terminated. It seems to me that it is in that area and that area alone that we ought to be making a judgment in relation to these matters. The very simple strategem that Senator Ryan has adopted in this case is to give the Senate an opportunity to disallow an ordinance which was made by the Minister when he put aside the advice given to him by the elected representatives of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. If we support, as I believe many honourable senators in this chamber say they support, the principle of freedom of choice, then we ought to give to the women of the Australian Capital Territory freedom of choice in relation to these matters. In that regard it is my intention to support not only the motion moved by Senator Ryan but also any amendments which will have the effect of helping to achieve that objective.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I have waited some time to enter this debate because I wish to speak only at this stage to Senator Evans’s amendment, which seems to highlight the problem which we face in this chamber tonight. What is the issue that we are debating? Is it a question of the process of government? Is it a question of the right of the people of the Australian Capital Territory to self-government? Is it a question of abortion in the Capital Territory? Is it a question of the Senate powers vis-a-vis the Executive? Is it a combination of all questions? I think one other matter is of importance. I refer to the credibility and the integrity of this chamber as part of the Commonwealth Parliament. I believe that if we are to vote on a confused basis because we are in favour of home rule or against it, in favour of abortion or against it, in favour of free standing private abortion clinics or against them or a combination of any of the other things, without having some clarification of the issues we are voting about, I think this chamber could be validly held up to public ridicule.

I believe that it is essential that we clarify what is the issue on which we are voting. Therefore I was interested to read Senator Evans’s amendment. In order to remind honourable senators of its wording I shall read it. It commences:

Al end of motion, add:

in order that an Ordinance may be made prohibiting the establishment of private abortion clinics in the ACT; 1 pause there to say that I know of only one honourable senator who has expressed a view in favour of private abortion clinics. I think that is still the situation. Therefore I imagine that there is a general acceptance within this chamber of the view that there should be an ordinance prohibiting private abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory. Certainly that accords with the view which was expressed by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory. Paragraph (b) of Senator Evans’s amendment reads: to enable the Government to take such other administrative and legislative steps as are necessary to implement the recommendations of the ACT Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health in its Report No. 26 entitled ‘ Pregnancy Termination ‘.

That is a matter far from agreed around this chamber. Some of the speakers say that that is an important part of the reason for disallowance. Others say that they do not agree with all the recommendations. Others say that they agree with some. A general difference appears to exist on that. Whilst I commend Senator Evans for his endeavour to clarify the issue we are discussing, I believe that an amendment which I have foreshadowed would better clarify and identify the issue on which honourable senators will vote. If Senator Evans’s amendment is not agreed to I will move an amendment to Senator Ryan’s motion. The foreshadowed amendment reads:

At end of motion, add:

in order that an Ordinance may be made prohibiting the establishment of private abortion clinics in the ACT; and

the Senate is of the opinion that this disallowance should take place in order that the Senate have an opportunity to have its views in relation to (i) the question of abortion in the ACT and (ii) the relevance of the opinion expressed by the ACT Legislative Assembly, considered before a final Ordinance is made and in order to ensure the matter is further considered by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth in the light of the debate which has taken place in this Chamber; and further

the Senate is or the opinion that a motion rescinding the disallowance should be carried as soon as possible to enable a new Ordinance to be introduced forthwith in accordance with the provisions of section 12 (7) (a) of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act.

If Senator Evans’s amendment is defeated I propose to move that amendment so that we can vote and identify some of the things that seem to be at issue. This is a way in which we can clarify what the Senate is attempting to achieve from this debate instead of leaving us open to the suggestion that we are voting for a confused and wide cross-section of reasons none of which bring together a real consensus amongst those voting either for or against the motion. I hope that what I have outlined is germane to the arguments which have been put by probably a majority of the speakers, certainly by a significant number. I believe that a vote on my amendment would help to clarify the matter and help this chamber appear to be a little less confused than it was at the end of the one hour tirade from Senator Harradine, which did not advance the proposition one iota. His laugh just now when I talked about endeavouring to clarify the issues also did nothing to advance the proposition either. He muddied the waters for an hour with some statements with which we would all agree, with some statements with which we might agree if we did not know the truth and other statements which were impossible to understand.

Senator Harradine:

– What about answering them?

Senator RAE:

– I do not propose to waste the time of the Senate for an hour answering some of the stuff Senator Harradine went on with.

Senator Harradine:

– I challenge you to a debate in Tasmania. How about that? Is the challenge accepted?

Senator RAE:

- Senator Harradine wishes to issue a challenge. Any challenges issued should be taken up outside this chamber and not during the Senate’s time. Let Senator Harradine issue the challenge outside. Anything for a bit of cheap publicity appears to be Senator Harradine ‘s endeavour. Maybe he will get some. Senator Harradine apparently believes that he would have a lot of fun showing that I have a particular view about abortion. I have not expressed a view about abortion.

It would have been interesting if we had been debating simply the issue of abortion law, but that is not what we have been doing. This debate has been under constraint because of the provisions of section 12 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act which provides a rather funny way for dealing with what is a funny form of legislation. Ordinances are a rather odd form of legislation which are made by the Executive, subject to disallowance by either House. Either House is entitled to do certain things in relation to an ordinance. The debate about an ordinance takes place when a motion is moved to disallow an ordinance. When a motion to disallow an ordinance is moved one or two courses can be taken. The Parliament can disallow the ordinance and say to the Government that introduced the ordinance: ‘We do not want to hear anything about this or something similar to it for another six months at least ‘ or ‘ We will disallow this ordinance so that you can think about what we have said and introduce something else straight away’. I would have thought that the second course is the obvious desire of those who would wish to see the current Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance disallowed.

For some people to adopt the attitude that by disallowing an ordinance the Senate is doing something extraordinary I think is to be unreal in the light of the history of the Senate Regulation and Ordinances Committee reports, which are adopted almost invariably. Such a stance is unreal in relation to the means by which the House of Parliament in the democratic process have an opportunity to debate what is a law. Because an ordinance is introduced and may then be disallowed as opposed to a Bill being introduced and debated a different procedure applies. It is only the matter of this chamber wishing to debate, wishing to have its views expressed and wishing to have those views considered that we are talking about. So far as I am concerned, it is no more than a matter of ensuring that before a final conclusion is reached and the law becomes final it is debated and the views expressed are taken into account. Therefore I do not believe that the Government is covered in credit when it says: ‘Notwithstanding anything that you may say in debate we, the members of the Cabinet who discussed the matter, have made up our minds and we regard ourselves as infallible and unable to be aided in any way at all by anything that may be said in this debate ‘. The parliamentary process requires that there be an opportunity for debate and for consideration of the views which can be put forward to contribute to achieving the best result. As I said. I do not wish to debate the issue of home rule or the issue of abortion. I do not wish at this stage to do more than comment in relation to Senator Evan’s amendment and to say that I do not believe that it clarifies the matter in a way that would enable a majority of honourable senators to vote. I think that the one that I have outlined probably better covers the majority of views which have been expressed. Therefore, I foreshadow that I shall be moving that amendment in the event that Senator Evan’s amendment is not accepted by this chamber.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– After listening to Senator Rae when he foreshadowed another amendment I felt like the Irish policeman who apprehended a prisoner and, after interrogating him, said: ‘You may be right, you may be wrong, but I do not think so ‘. I came into the chamber earlier today with an open mind to sit and listen to the propositions that would be advanced. With the greatest of respect to the legal fraternity and to our own Queen’s Counsel from South Australia, I became more and more confused as dme went on. I do not think that I have been the only one in that situation, because we have a motion, amendments, foreshadowed amendments and probably more to come. However, we are discussing a very serious matter on which all honourable senators have a conscience vote. I believe quite sincerely that the matter has been thoroughly canvassed throughout the day and into half the evening. After listening to the speeches one thing has become crystal clear to me; that is, that we find ourselves in the dilemma we are in at present for one reason only- the Silence of Dean Maitland attitude that has been adopted by the Minister. He has remained strangely silent on this whole matter. If he had given some lead or expression of opinion we may have been able to resolve this much more easily.

Senator Teague:

– The Minister supports the ordinance.

Senator McAULIFFE:

-Well, he has been very silent about it. Senator Teague is able to tell me. Has he spoken about it?

Senator O’Byrne:

– He has not spoken.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– He has not spoken on it. As far as this national Parliament is concerned, only four people in the Australian Capital Territory could properly seek clarification of the position, and one of them is Senator Sue Ryan. I believe that Senator Susan Ryan has acted properly and correctly in bringing this matter forward. I want to dissociate myself from those who have vilified her and put her under extreme pressure for the stand that she has taken. I want to compliment her on the fact that throughout this campaign she has comported herself with credit and dignity and has acted responsibly as a senator representing the Australian Capital Territory.

I am opposed to the establishment of private abortion clinics but I support the facilities that are already operating in the Canberra Hospital. I do not want to speak at any length because I want to indicate to the chamber the way in which I am going to vote, but allow me to address myself to the question before us. What is the debate really about? When we push away the trees and look at the wood, what is the debate really about? As I see it, the purpose of the motion is to provide a public clinic in the hospital grounds. Who will deny that there are already adequate facilities in the Canberra Hospital? To support this contention may I give a concrete illustration? I quote from report No. 26 regarding pregnancy termination of the Standing Committee on Education and Health of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Paragraph 83 on page 38 says:

The Decision Making Process

The Standing Committee understands that all legal abortions performed in the ACT at the present time are performed under the auspices of the Terminations Committee. The Terminations Committee is comprised of an Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, a Psychiatrist, a General Practitioner, a Physician and a Hospital Administrator. Each member is nominated by their respective Colleges, and one member is usually a woman.

Paragraph 84 says:

The Chairman of the Terminations Committee tendered the following advice:

The Terminations Committee was formed in October 1970. From that date to 21st March, 1977 1,106 applications have been received by the Committee. Of these 22 were withdrawn after being received. Of the remainder 49 were not approved. The rest were approved. The Committee acts for both Canberra and Woden Valley Hospitals.

That means that over 1,000 applications have been approved. The facilities are there, they are being applied for and they are being carefully supervised. I do not know why anyone wants to disturb what is already in existence. To give the other speakers on your list, Mr President, the opportunity to express their views, I will sum up by saying, as I said earlier, that before the debate started I came into the chamber with an open mind. Having heard the arguments advanced, I must come down on the side of those who are opposed to the motion and the amendments before us.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I think the statement that has just been made by Senator McAuliffe is characteristic of the way in which this debate has been conducted for the most part- in a constructive and non-partisan fashion. One thing it has done is give rise to many different approaches to the issue and to different points of view. For example, some honourable senators have dealt with this matter as if the issue were abortion in the community. Others have dealt with it as if it were a question of self-government and the democratic rights of the people of the Capital Territory. Other honourable senators, including Senator Cavanagh, have raised other issues relating to the drafting of the ordinance, its potential effect on what I think Senator Cavanagh referred to as civil liberties and the prospect of inconsistency in the application of the law relating to abortion in the Capital Territory as a result. My colleague Senator Baume is supporting Senator Ryan, despite the fact that he goes further on one particular issue which Senator Ryan and the Legislative Assembly do not support.

I must compliment Senator Baume on a fine contribution to this debate, but I think that this situation illustrates the complexity of the issues to which Senator Ryan’s motion has understandably given rise and the variety of points of view that have been raised with respect to those many issues. I would like to address myself to the substance of the motion moved by Senator Ryan in the Senate on 1 1 October and quote from her speech on that day. She said:

I point out that I am not wishing to canvass the issue of abortion laws; nor am I wishing to canvass the issue of abortion clinics in the Australian Capital Territory. This is not the proper forum or the proper occasion for such a discussion. I have a very limited purpose in moving the motion of disallowance. I have moved it because the Ordinance defies a principle of self-government; it defies a democratic principle in its present form.

Senator Ryan reiterated that point during her speech and concluded it in these terms:

I have not moved anything relating to the laws affecting abortions or the facilities provided for them.

Again illustrating the diversity of view on this matter, Senator Button suggested that it was glib to approach this debate as if it were simply one of self-government and to dismiss the issue of abortion. I believe that Senator Ryan, in presenting this matter to the Senate, based her argments very clearly on the question of selfgovernmentthe rights of the Legislative Assembly and its role in the Australian Capital Territory. This raises a number of questions about the role of the Senate and the role that the Senate is seen, not only by us but also by others, to have in relation to the Capital Territory. For example, before and since this Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance came into effect the Government rejected the advice which the Assembly has given on many matters. I would like to refer to a few of those because some of them are matters of considerable substance. They included questions relating to the referendum to be conducted on 25 November, the question ofthe Canberra-Royalla power line, the Territory Authorities (Finance Provisions) Bill, Land Titles Office fees, teachers for occasional care centres and the national velodrome. Therefore, the issue with which we are dealing is only one of many on which the views of the Legislative Assembly have not been accepted by the Government.

If it is a matter of democratic rights, selfgovernment and the role of the Assembly, surely the suggestion is that this Senate is going to have to deal with these other issues when governments do not take the advice of the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly has also proposed that there should be a casino in the capital. There is a question as to whether, since the Government has rejected that advice, this Senate ought then to be moving to implement the advice ofthe Assembly on that matter as Senator Ryan has suggested that we ought to implement its advice in respect of abortion law. Senator Ryan has based her argument on the fact that Mr Hunt said that the Legislative Assembly should decide the matter. But as far as I am aware he did not say that the decision of the Assembly would be anything other than advisory, as has been the case in relation to many other issues to which I have referred.

Many comments have been made about Mr Hunt’s statements. Senator Ryan based a substantial element of her argument on them but I do not believe that Mr Hunt’s statements can be viewed out of the context in which they have to be seen, and that is in relation to the powers of the Legislative Assembly. The Ordinance establishing the Legislative Assembly points out that the Assembly may advise the Minister in relation to any matter affecting the Territory including the making of new ordinances or the repeal or amendment of existing ordinances. I emphasise the words ‘may advise’. The Assembly Ordinance goes on to say that the Minsiter may refer to the Assembly any matter upon which he desires the advice of the Assembly. It is my contention that Mr Hunt’s statements cannot be viewed outside that context of the statutory powers of the Legislative Assembly as it exists, and certainly not before 25 November when a referendum will be held in the Capital Territory on that issue. Perhaps after that date the situation will be different. In relation to the status of the Legislative Assembly, Senator Ryan herself conceded in her statement of 1 1 October:

The Legislative Assembly is not a self-governing body.

Of course it is not a self-governing body, as indicated in the Assembly Ordinance. In addition, I think we have to ask what the Minister sought advice on. It is necessary to refer to the letter which the then Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Staley, sent to the Legislative Assembly on behalf of himself and the Minister for Health. In that letter he said:

The Legislative Assembly will have been made aware by newspaper reports of the intention of a private organisation to establish a clinic at Phillip, ACT, at which abortions can be carried out.

The Minister for Health and I have had strong representations against the merit of this proposal and both Ministers have been urged to consider action to prevent the establishment of the clinic.

It is in that context that the views sought by the Minister have to be seen. The request related to the proposal to establish a private abortion clinic in the Territory. The then Minister then indicated that the Assembly might wish to consider the general issues involved and offer advice, but it is clear that the primary intention was for the Assembly to advise the Minister in respect of the proposal to establish a private abortion clinic in the Territory. It is worth pointing out that on that issue- the issue which was basic to the advice sought by the Minister for the Capital Territory and the Minister for Health- the advice of the Assembly was accepted. The Assembly decided and advised that there should be no private abortion clinics in the Capital Territory, and the Minister accepted that advice.

It was suggested earlier by Senator Tate that the existing Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance may well permit the implementation- in fact, I think he suggested emphatically that it could- of the other main recommendations in respect of a public clinic. Senator Evans conceded in his speech this afternoon that it certainly was an arguable case in respect of a free-standing clinic at a hospital. I think it is worth remembering in this context that the Capital Territory Health Commission is a community based body. It in fact has on it three members of the Legislative Assembly, one of whom was chairman of the committee responsible for report No. 26 which this debate is about. As I understand the situation, this matter has not been raised in the

Health Commission since that time. The Commission has not moved to test the Ordinance in the way that Senator Tate suggested it might be tested. So the matter must remain one for conjecture. But as Senator Evans suggested, it certainly seems to be an arguable case.

I would like to go back to the question of Senator Ryan’s statement that this matter involves basic democratic rights. The question of self-government or constitutional development in the Capital Territory is to be decided by the people of the Capital Territory by the most democratic possible means- a referendum- on 25 November. If the people of the Capital Territory or a majority of them accept option A the Legislative Assembly will in fact, under Stage 2 of those proposals, have executive power over health matters. If the community does not accept option A the Legislative Assembly will not have executive power over health matters immediately after the referendum or subsequently as a result of that decision, and one must assume that under the Constitution the Parliament will retain this traditional role. But this matter will be decided by the people of the Capital Territory on 25 November. If the people opt for proposal A of the referendum proposals then the Legislative Assembly eventually will have transferred to it powers over health matters and will therefore be competent to legislate on them in its own right. If the people in the Territory do not opt for proposal A but instead opt for proposal B or C then the Assembly will not have those powers and the Government will retain control of those matters as is now the case.

I would like to refer briefly to the Legislative Assembly committee that dealt with this subject. One member of that committee has since died but of the four members one is a member of the Australian Labor Party and another is the Chairman of the Assembly. The remaining two members have in fact both been critical of Senator Ryan’s motion. I want to refer to statements they have made. In a letter to all honourable senators on 25 October, Mr Ivor Vivian wrote:

As an Australian Democrat member of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, I urge you to vote against Senator Ryan’s disallowance motion against the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance 1978.

Whilst I would agree with Senator Ryan that all of the Assembly’s recommendations should be implemented, it is essential that this Ordinance be enforced as an initial step.

The Assembly has endorsed this Ordinance and its disallowance would be a blow against the moves by the Assembly towards Self Government.

I repeat the last sentence. Mr Vivian stated:

The Assembly has endorsed this Ordinance and its disallowance would be a blow against the moves by the Assembly towards Self-Government.

That is the statement of an Australian Democrats member of the Legislative Assembly and a member of the committee which drew up the report which the Senate is now considering. Senator Ryan has made the point- it is a fair point as far as it goes- that this is a matter of selfgovernment and democratic rights. It is that issue that I want to examine. So I am examining the statements and reactions of people in the Assembly to this motion. In addition, Senator Ryan based the substance of her motion for disallowance on the question of self-government, on the democratic rights of the citizens of the Capital Territory. But the Labor Party itself then agreed to a conscience vote. Surely it does not have a conscience vote on self-government. One would assume then that the issue is abortion.

Senator Ryan:

– Do you? You seem to be having one.

Senator KNIGHT:

-We have too. I am suggesting that Senator Ryan’s motion was allegedly based on the question of selfgovernment, yet the Labor Party Caucus saw not that but abortion as the issue. That is why a conscience vote has been provided for by both sides. Another member of that Committee, Dr Peter Hughes, issued a statement on 25 October in the following terms -

Senator Ryan:

– A defamatory statement, by the way.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I think that it is unfair. I wish to read it so that the point is made but, if I may say so, I think that the reflections on Senator Ryan are unfair. The statement reads:

Dr Hughes said that Senator Ryan’s sudden concern to support Legislative Assembly recommendations is unconvincing, as it has only been sparked by one of Senator Ryan ‘s enthusiasms, easier abortion in the ACT.

He went on to say that Senator Ryan’s statement that the Ordinance prohibits the establishment of abortion clinics by the ACT Health Commission is simply incorrect, and part of the smokescreen that Senator Ryan has set up around her attempts to have easier abortion in the ACT.

Senator Ryan:

– You know that it is defamatory. You should not read it out.

Senator KNIGHT:

– The next sentence accuses me of leaving the country to avoid the debate. I think that it was unfair to me also. I reiterate, because it relates to the point made, that -

Senator Ryan:

– The views of somebody who makes those sorts of unfair allegations cannot advance your cause.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I listened to you Senator Ryan, in silence out of courtesy. I would like to repeat, because it is relevant to what Senator Tate said and to comments by Senator Evans to which I have referred, the statement ‘that the Ordinance prohibits the establishment of abortion clinics by the ACT Health Commission is completely incorrect’. That may be Dr Hughes’s opinion but it is an opinion that I think is worth taking into account. It seems to me that the argument about self-government and democratic rights simply does not stand up. Senator Ryan herself indicated yesterday in a letter to, I think, all honourable senators that if this disallowance motion is defeated tonight she will introduce a private member’s Bill.

Senator Ryan:

– I would be prepared to consider it if the Minister does not act.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I see. Senator Ryan said in her letter that she is prepared to introduce such a Bill rather than to consider doing so.

Senator Ryan:

– If the Minister does not act.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I accept that. But the honourable senator said that she was prepared to introduce a Bill, not simply to consider doing so. That would seem to me to get to the crux of the problem because really the substance of the debate will have to be about abortion law. In my view it is not about self-government and it is not about the democratic rights of the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory; it is about abortion. If we are to have a debate about abortion let us do so. The introduction of a private member’s Bill would be a good way to do that. I conclude simply by saying that, on the basis Senator Ryan has put the case for disallowance, I do not believe that it stands. I believe that the argument is specious and that to try to debate the matter as a matter of self-government or democratic rights really is to avoid the most fundamental issue that is at stake, that is, the question of abortion law. Senator Ryan has indicated now that if the Senate disallows her motion she will adopt another means to have this report implemented by introducing a private member’s Bill. That would seem to me to be an appropriate way to do it because we would then be debating the real issue and that is abortion.

But we really do have to ask about the implications of this sort of move for the Senate. Senator Ryan says that if the Senate disapproves the disallowance motion she will introduce legislation into the Senate. Is the Senate to become the legislative body of the Capital Territory? If option C is adopted by the people of the Capital Territory on 25 November- if they opt for no change; if they make it clear that they want an advisory body- would the Senate then become the legislative body for the Australian Capital Territory? Would we begin to legislate on casinos as well as abortion and all the other issues? Is Senator Ryan going to take the view, because she believes in self-government, that she will introduce into this place legislation on any matter on which the advice of the Assembly is rejected by the Minister or by the Government and have the Senate either disallow the ordinance concerned or pass legislation on it? Is that to be the case?

Senator Ryan:

– You are extrapolating beyond reason.

Senator KNIGHT:

-Perhaps it is a little beyond reason but I do not think that it is an entirely unreasonable suggestion. It seems to me that the motion is based on a spurious argument. Therefore I cannot support Senator Ryan’s motion for disallowance. In the first place I believe that we should wait to hear the views of the people of the Capital Territory in a little over a fortnight. In any case, if Senator Ryan’s motion is disallowed, she has indicated that she will introduce a private member’s Bill and we can then debate the substantive issues which I believe are really at stake.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I enter into this debate for the purpose of declaring my position. I do so without any expert knowledge of the subject of whether a woman should be able to choose how her lifestyle is planned, whether she should continue with a pregnancy if she does not wish to do so and, above all, who should be the person to decide that issue. This is perhaps a matter that has come into this chamber through the back door method of subordinate legislation by way of an ordinance and, in my view, through a method that has not been as straightforward as it might have been because it disguises the main purpose behind the ordinance, that is, to satisfy the pressures that a section of our society is exercising against the principle of the termination of pregnancy in any form.

The argument today has ranged over the whole field of whether there should be termination of pregnancy in any circumstances. There are many people who would hold the view that there should be no termination of pregnancy, that life was created by God and that no man should put that life asunder. Of course this theory is carried into other areas, such as marriage. There is a theory that marriages are made in heaven and that what God has joined together let no man put asunder. But this theory is observed more in thought than in deed. We live in a hypocritical society and in a state of double-talk. We never come down to the fundamental issues of what actually happens in life today.

The subject of pregnancy is with us whether or not we like it. Pregnancies have been occurring since the beginning of time and they will go on until the end of time. The idea that life begins at the moment of conception is a matter of opinion. As someone said, what about the millions of little sperms that are living but never create life. If honourable senators want to go into these theoretical areas of where life begins, let us have a different debate. What we are debating in the Senate today is the right of people to decide how they will live their lives. The matter has been decided by an overwhelming majority of males who have set themselves up as authorities on the way people should live and on the morals of other people. They are raising many outworn theories that perhaps were acceptable in times past when ignorance reigned supreme. But in a more enlightened age, it just becomes a ridiculous argument.

It is my view that termination of pregnancy is a fact of life, not only in Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory but also throughout the world. One in three pregnancies is terminated in this country, whether or not we like to admit that fact. If the law of averages prevails, one in three pregnancies is terminated in Canberra. So what is all this humbug, all this cant and all this hypocrisy about? Why are we arguing about whether we should set up a clinic that is under the supervision of trained medical personnel to conduct the termination of a pregnancy. The Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance before the Senate today is avoiding the issue insofar as it will prevent, as far as it is possible, the legalisation and the acceptance of the fact of life that people will require to terminate pregnancies in the Australian Capital Territory. The Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly realises those facts. It has recommended to this Government- if any other government had been in power the Assembly would have made the same recommendations- that it requires a properly organised clinic to be run under proper supervision in Canberra and that it expects such a clinic to be established here.

The members of the community in Canberra expect the Parliament, and I should think they expect the Legislative Assembly, to be reasonable and rational about this whole issue. Why are we closing our eyes to the facts of life? We are arguing around the point all the time as if it is a mystery, as if there is something sinister about a clinic where pregnancies can be terminated.

People in their hearts and in their minds recognise that there must be such clinics. We must face up to the fact that clinics for the termination of pregnancies are necessary.

Senator Harradine:

– I do not.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– The honourable senator must recognise the facts of life. What he thinks personally is no good. Abortions will take place. The medical profession accepts the fact that they will take place. We are spending all this time debating whether the Australian Capital Territory will have a properly organised clinic in the hospital grounds. That is what this Ordinance is directed towards preventing. It will prevent the setting up of a properly organised clinic. If honourable senators analyse the Ordinance they will see that it contains no provision to erect, to staff and to continue the operation of a clinic in the Australian Capital Territory for the termination of pregnancies. In my view, the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has purposely hoodwinked this Parliament by introducing this Ordinance into this Parliament so that he can satisfy both of the pressure groups- on the one hand, those people who realise the inevitability of a properly organised clinic and on the other hand those people who, because of religious beliefs or other reasons, are diametrically opposed to the termination of a pregnancy.

In my view, we are acting out a charade. It is a charade for us to be arguing about whether or not such a clinic should be established. We should be debating where the funds are coming from, how we will go about getting the most efficient staff and how we are to start to establish sex education clinics where we can teach people the facts of life instead of all this stupidity, darkness and ignorance that still exists in our community. In our so-called enlightened schools on which we are spending so much money no attempt is being made to teach children some of the facts of life to prepare them for their development as young people. We know that most females will become pregnant. In my view, it is repulsive for us to be wasting our time on the negative aspects of whether we should be establishing a clinic in the Territory.

I would like to compliment Senator Ryan on her courage, despite all the criticism and all the attacks that have been made on her. This is an historic point in the debate on this very controversial matter. At least honourable senators have expressed their views and we will get the message through to the Minister that it is no longer possible to avoid the issue. It is a matter of facing up to the facts of life that the Australian Capital

Territory needs a properly organised clinic that is financed by the Commonwealth Government. At a later stage it may be necessary to finance the clinic from taxation paid by the people of the Australian Capital Territory. We have a clear cut plan to establish a clinic at which one-third of those women who become pregnant can have their pregnancies terminated instead of using different methods as they are now. For example, they will not have to travel to Sydney or use backyard abortion clinics or whatever they may be called. Instead of that, they will be able to go along to those facilities and have the medical treatment that they desire.

Finally, for us to pass judgment in this day and age on how a person deals with her moral and physical problem of whether she wishes to continue with her pregnancy is intruding on a matter which is for her to decide. It is a great decision for a person to make, but she has to bear the consequences. No one else can help her; she can only help herself and should be able to decide this matter herself. Many people have voiced their views that on moral and other grounds they cannot support this motion. To me it is a recognition that in this day and age, instead of our living in the unenlightened society that has prevailed in this country and many other Western countries for centuries, the veil is lifting and people will see reason and will be able to assist those who want to plan their lives and be able to plan their families so that they will support the children that they can afford to rear and the ones that they feel that they are capable of seeing through their early childhood on to maturity, and in that way fulfil their proper destiny.

If we try to stop that inevitable process, we will be acting in the same way as those people who have opposed many of the reforms and needs that our present society enjoys. I delare myself to be in support of the motion to disallow this ordinance because in my view it is negative and looks backward rather than forward. I think that the Senate would be serving not only the community of Canberra but the whole Australian community well if it were to have a completely new look at this problem and assist in setting up in Canberra the facilities that any enlightened and modern community should have. Therefore I support the motion.

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

– I have listened throughout the day to this debate with great interest. I will briefly outline my position. I have taken the point that a number of honourable senators have made that in such a debate in which there is a free vote, which I welcome, if we have the opportunity it is right to indicate how we will vote and why. About half of the members of the Senate have spoken in this debate today and I very much respect the individual philosophies that have been stated including the views of those honourable senators with which I do not agree. The matter that is before us essentially comes to a sentence which is contained in clause 3 of the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance. It states:

A registered medical practitioner shall not carry out treatment for the termination of a pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

The motion that is before us has been moved to disallow that ordinance. This debate is about abortion. It is about the extent of abortion carried out in the Australian Capital Territory and it is about the facilities provided for abortion in the Capital Territory. The ordinance restricts abortion to the current practice in hospitals by registered medical practitioners. I think that this debate about abortion must come fairly and squarely to the words of the ordinance to see that this motion aims to disallow that restriction and to see an extension in abortions. As I see it, the motion is proposing a division between those people who will allow an extension to abortion in the Territory and those people who deny an extension. I am opposed to an extension of abortion in the Capital Territory, so I do not support the motion of disallowance. In saying this, I believe that, like all other honourable senators, I have the right to speak even though I am a South Australian senator. In these matters it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to make ordinances about health in the Territory and it is the right of the Parliament to disallow such an ordinance.

As senators in this House I believe that we are all competent to speak directly about this matter and to make our own conscientious decisions without any criticism that because we do not live in the Territory or because we do not vote for the members of the Legislative Assembly we do not have the right to pass judgment. I want to come to that point more directly later on. Similarly, I regard it as fully within the right of the people of Australia, from whatever electorate, to represent their views by writing letters to us. Some honourable senators have criticised the hundreds and thousands of people who have an interest in this debate, 99 per cent of whom see the debate as being one about abortion and who therefore quite rightly have sent letters of opinion to us. They have every right to do so. I do not associate myself with extreme points of view on either side of this question and I do not associate myself with those people who have taken abusive approaches to any particular senator, including Senator Ryan who has moved the motion for disallowance.

I shall make two observations on the debate, as I have seen it today. The first observation I make is that almost everyone, whether supporting the disallowance motion or opposing it, is most reluctant in his or her own capacity to support an extension of abortion. A number of honourable senators have risen to say that they would not have an abortion themselves, they would not encourage another person to have an abortion and they would not want any of their actions to encourage more abortion in the Capital Territory. They take the view that, nevertheless, they will support this disallowance motion because it is not their responsibility to thrust their personal views upon any other person or that their personal judgment in this debate should have any consequence for the people of the Territory. I think it is an interesting observation that amongst those honourable senators who are supporting the disallowance no one has wholeheartedly said that they are in favour of an extension of abortion in the Capital Territory.

The second observation that I have made in listening to the debate today is that many of those honourable senators who want to disallow the ordinance argue on the basis that they want to pass on the responsibility of decision making to somebody else. There are those people who want to argue that the responsibility should be that of the Assembly. I believe that Senator Knight has given a very clear exposition of the rights of the Assembly as against the rights of the Commonwealth Government and the pending referendum to be held in the Australian Capital Territory. Like him I believe that we would negate our responsibilities in the Senate if we tried to pass the buck, if we tried to pass the responsibility for this decision on to the Assembly. There are those who want to pass the decision beyond the Assembly to the -

Debate interrupted.

page 1907

ADJOURNMENT

Senate Debate

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

- Mr President, I was on my feet. I do not think that you would deny me the right to speak briefly on the adjournment. I merely want to indicate -

Senator Young:

– We are voting against the adjournment.

Senator GEORGES:

-But we intend to vote against the adjournment also. That is why I am on my feet. The Opposition takes the view that after such a long debate we should come to a decision tonight. That is the reason we go along with the Government. Let me also say that because the debate will not be adjourned possibly we will deny three other senators the right to participate in this matter of conscience next week. I believe this factor also ought to be taken into consideration. Nevertheless it could always be argued that they should be here tonight. It is possible that if this debate continued next Tuesday the result would be different from that which we will reach tonight.

I had intended to move for the adjournment of the debate. It will proceed if we oppose the adjournment of the Senate. I was going to move along those lines. However, I have again considered the fact that the debate has been a long one. I have yet to speak and when I do possibly I will explain why I think the debate should have been adjourned so that the matter could be reconsidered by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. However, I will not use this opportunity as a device to explain the reason why I intended to seek an adjournment at a later stage.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1908

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ORDINANCE 1978

Motion to Disallow Ordinance

Debate resumed.

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

– I was making the observation that many of those who want to disallow the Ordinance argue that they want to pass on the responsibility of decision to some other body. I have outlined how some want to pass it on to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly Some want to pass it further- to the people ofthe Australian Capital Territory for decision by way of a special referendum. I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to make a decision on the motion before us. There are some who have tried to argue that the decision should be passed on and become subject to legal procedures. A number of amendments have been proposed by Senator Evans and Senator Rae. I believe that these amendments would take away the substance of any decision that may be made as a result of this single vote by a majority of senators. I do not see any prospect of good coming from the supposed apologies that are put in the amendments to try to clarify what this issue is about. The words of the Ordinance are what this motion is about. The motion proposes the disallowance of that Ordinance. We can only interpret the meaning of the motion in terms of the words of the Ordinance. I agree with Senator Cavanagh that any such motion does not need the kind of apology that Senator Evans or Senator Rae proposed by way of amendments. I reject the amendments.

I believe that a tortuous debate on procedure and on what we are trying to do would be a red herring that would only confuse the question. Members of this Senate have before them a motion on which they are to vote yes or no. That is a decision which we must take because the responsibility for it is ours. There are some who want to pass responsibility for the decision back to the Federal Government. They want to disallow the Ordinance and then to pressure members of the Government in the corridors with the intention of bringing in a new ordinance. Proposals have been put forward in the debate as to what the terms of a new ordinance might be. But again I believe this is passing the buck, passing responsibility on from this point of decision. In the ultimate, those who want to see the greatest extension of abortion are those who want to pass the decision from legislatures and community groups altogether to members of the medical profession throughout Australia. Passing responsibility for a decision from the Senate to the Assembly to a referendum of the people, to the Government, to legal procedures or to the medical profession is characteristic of the first observation I made when I said that most individuals taking part in this debate are not in favour, personally, of an extension of abortion but they do not want to take the decision. They do not want to have the responsibility of their decision having an effect on someone else.

I must say, as did Senator Tate and Senator Harradine, that some of the confusion has come from those in this debate who want to hang their hats on the words of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) in answer to a question from Mr Beazley in the House of Representatives in March last year. A large part ofthe argument of those who are in favour of the disallowance of the Ordinance rests on a commitment which they suppose the Minister for Health made not merely to receive advice from the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly but to accept it. Senator Harradine has referred to the context of what the Minister for Health said. The Hansard report of 24 March shows that there was uproar in the House of Representatives; it shows a call for order; it shows a very unstable and provoked Minister for Health trying to make a decision in answer to the question asked by Mr Beazley. Mr Beazley was opposed to any extension of abortion and he was trying to get a similar commitment from the Minister. Mr Beazley said that in 1973 the House of Representatives had rejected an extension of abortion by the huge majority of 98 votes to 23. He was one of those who voted with the large majority. He believed that the House of Representatives had made a decision which had not been rescinded. He therefore pressed the Minister for Health to say how the view of the Parliament could be neglected when procedure was under way for an expansion of abortion in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister for Health said that the Assembly would be consulted and he mentioned the word decisions’.

I think there is something in Senator Harradine ‘s point about alliteration. The Minister said there would be decisions in respect of the recommendations. Senator Tate put it so well at the beginning of the debate when he said that the Minister for Health accepted that there would be decisions about what recommendations the Assembly would give to the Government and the Government would make its decision. How could the Minister do otherwise? Constitutionally, the decision in these matters lies with the Federal Government. It lies with the advice that the Minister brings to the Federal Government. I believe that honourable senators who are influenced by what the Minister said do not have hooks on which to hang their hats if they look at that page of Hansard for a promise given to the Assembly that its recommendations would in every respect be acted upon. But its principal recommendations have been acted upon.

In summary, my observation of this debate is that various devices have been used by those who want the Ordinance disallowed to pass the decision to somewhere else. I believe that this is symptomatic of the attitude of legislatures throughout Australia in the movement in the last 10 years towards liberalised abortion in this country. I am not in every case opposed to abortion. I would not move a motion in this chamber to disallow the current practice of abortion in the Australian Capital Territory. But as I said at the outset, I am opposed to the extension of the practice of abortion, and that is what this motion is about. Those who will be voting for the disallowance will be voting for an extension of the practice of abortion and those who will be opposing the disallowance will be voting for no extension of the practice of abortion.

I must say that I have real sympathy for the position that was outlined by Senator Puplick because I believe that he most conscientiously believes that, regardless of whether the Minister has made commitments to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly and of whether honourable senators have any say about abortion laws in this Territory, on principle he will not make any decision for anybody else with regard to that person’s choice as to whether to have an abortion. I respect that opinion but I do not share it. Similarly, I respect the argument put by Senator Baume as a medical practitioner and as a person greatly experienced in counselling persons contemplating abortion. He has adopted a consistent position, and he is singular-minded in this regard, as to allowing private clinics to operate. The rest of the honourable senators are opposed to private clinics and I believe that a majority of us are opposed to any extension of abortion on any grounds.

My position is that I believe that the Senate has a decision to make on this motion and that it should not pass on the responsibility for making that decision to some other body. I believe that those who are opposed to an extension of the practice of abortion in the Australian Capital Territory should vote against the motion for disallowance.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My remarks on this matter will be brief. I join in this debate only because, like some of my colleagues on this side of the House, I feel that I have to vote against the motion that has been moved by my colleague Senator Ryan. I would like to say at the outset that I very much appreciate the sincere way in which Senator Ryan has proposed the disallowance of this Ordinance. I also want to say- some honourable senators have suggested during the course of their remarks in this very long and exhausting debate that they feel this way toothat I am appalled at some of the types of letters and messages that have been sent to me. I believe that this debate should be brought down to a matter of practicalities. The matter of practicalities that is involved in this debate is not a question of abortion versus anti-abortion; it is a question of whether an abortion should take place in a public institution or a private institution. Section 3 (2) of Ordinance No. 16 of 1978 states:

A registered medical practitioner shall not carry out treatment Ibr the termination of a pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

It is really a debate on what are the best circumstances in which an abortion should be carried out. If a woman desires an abortion, should the abortion be carried out in a public hospital or a private institution? For those reasons I come down on the side of believing that such an operation should be carried out in a public hospital.

Having said that, I say that I am not prepared to do anything which in the slightest way might open the way for private operators, private abortionists, to operate in Canberra. I very much appreciate the remarks of my colleague from New South Wales, although of a different political persuasion, Senator Baume. Senator Baume adopted the attitude that private institutions should be allowed for the purpose of conducting abortions. Having given the matter some consideration, I am one of those who disagree with him in that regard. Before I became a member of this Parliament, and that was some time ago, I worked in the criminal courts of this country. I saw certain people arraigned for trial for using illegal instruments. The facts and circumstances relating to those trials were abhorrent to me personally. I emphasise to honourable senators that I am personally not opposed to the principle of people wanting an abortion. But if women are of that belief, then I emphasise that I believe that such an abortion should be conducted under the strictest supervision and in a public institution. Most of the trials I saw- I say this in fairness to the accused- resulted in the accused being acquitted. But the circumstances and the ordeals involving those who had to give evidence were such that I was always convinced that at any time in the future, should I be in a position to have to make such a determination, I would determine that the facts relating to those circumstances would be carried out only in a public institution.

In that regard I refer to the report of the Standing Committee on Education and Health of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly- the report that really raises the subject of this debate. My colleague Senator McAuliffe has already referred to page 38 of that report. He cited the fact that a terminations committee exists in the Australian Capital Territory. In paragraph 84 of the report it is pointed out that the Chairman of the Termination Committee tendered the following advice to the Committee:

The Terminations Committee was formed in October 1970. From that date to 2 1st March, 1977 1,106 applications have been received by the Committee. Of these 22 were withdrawn after being received. Of the remainder 49 were not approved. The rest -

That is over 1 ,000-odd- were approved. The Committee acts for both Canberra and Woden Valley Hospitals.

Frankly, I cannot see any objection to that. If one turns to paragraphs 1 1 1 and 1 12 on page 49 of the report, one notes these remarks: ill.

Currently, there is no provision in ACT public hospitals for first trimester abortions to be performed on a day-care basis. The Committee was persuaded that terminations up to 1 1 weeks can be as safely performed on a day-care basis as they can in an in-hospital situation, provided sufficient safeguards exist.

I emphasise the words ‘provided sufficient safeguards exist’. The paragraph goes on:

The Standing Committee does not hold the same view in relation to terminations of pregnancy over 1 1 weeks; these carry considerable risks and should be performed only in an in-hospital situation.

I ask: In the proposals that have been put forward today, has anyone been able to give us the assurance that sufficient safeguards will exist in regard to terminations of pregnancy up to 11 weeks that are not performed in a public hospital? Paragraph 1 12 of the report reads:

The Standing Committee was persuaded by the arguments that abortion was a matter of great consequence for the general well-being of the community. Therefore, it seemed to the Committee that any facility established for the provision of abortion should be under the most effective control that can be devised. This control must be over personnel, standards and quality of the service. The Standing Committee considered that in order to ensure such control the abortion facility should be associated with and in the grounds of a public hospital, and should be under the direct control ofthe Capital Territory Health Commission.

As I see the proposition which has been put to us today, if this Ordinance were disallowed it would mean that certain operations might be able to be carried out not in association with or in the grounds of a public hospital; nor need they necessarily be under the direct control of the Capital Territory Health Commission. That is a matter which might be open to a question of law. However, it appears to me that if there be any doubt of that nature in the matter then we have to reject the motion for disallowance. With the experience that I gained in the criminal courts in this country before I entered this Parliament, I believe, and have believed for a long time, that abortions should take place in public institutions and that under no circumstances should private profit or gain be involved in such delicate human decisions. As I have mentioned, I have seen medical men placed on trial for alleged misuse of instruments. I have always found that related circumstances have been abhorrent, and I have always said that if such operations are to be performed they should be carried out in a decent way and in a public institution. If I thought that disallowance of this Ordinance would mean the establishment of a clinic in the grounds of a public hospital, under the control of that hospital and under the supervision of the Capital Territory Health Commission, I would support the proposition. However, as I read the motion, disallowance could mean- I do not necessarily say that it would mean- the operation of private clinics for private gain. As a senator representing the State of New South Wales, I cannot possibly condone that situation.

Senator Evans’s amendment suggests that the Ordinance should be disallowed to enable the Government to do certain things, namely, to prohibit the establishment of private abortion clinics and to enable the Government to take other steps as outlined in the amendment. If the Senate carried Senator Evans’s amendment, the Senate would be merely expressing an opinion, as it were; the vote would not be something that was binding on the Government. Having regard to past experience of such motions or amendments that have been carried by the Senate- motions or amendments expressing an opinion that the Government should do this, that or the otherfrankly, I am afraid that if we carried the motion it would have little significance or effect or influence on the present Government. In shortand I said I would be short- to me, it is not a question of abortion as opposed to anti-abortion. To me, it is simply a question of whether an abortion, if carried out in the Australian Capital Territory, should be performed in a public hospital or a private institution. I come down on the side of such an operation being carried out in a public institution. Therefore I am in support of the Ordinance and, as much as I appreciate the sincerity that prompts my colleague Senator Ryan to move for disallowance of the Ordinance, I regret that I cannot support her proposition.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I have been involved in two sweeps this week. In the first of those which was conducted on Tuesday I did not do too well, and in today’s sweep I am again almost at the bottom of the list. However, 1 intend to be very brief in my remarks. In this long debate two features stand out very clearly to me. The first is the legal position as stated by Senator Tate as a legal man. I believe he has a very clear comprehension of the position in the Australian Capital Territory. The second feature was Senator Chaney ‘s speech. He spelt out the position with abortions and the moral dilemmas that face people who consider both sides of the argument. Senator Chaney made clear to me the issues involved. Indeed, I believe he made them clear to the whole of the Senate. He spelt out the point that life begins at conception. If one accepts that proposition, then the Opposition’s argument regarding the rights of the living cannot be reconciled. That is a fundamental issue which I have to face and which I have faced. I accept the point that life begins at conception. Therefore I am opposed to abortion. I state that as a personal view only.

I wish to discuss the rights of the people in the Australian Capital Territory. I believe that is the key to our problem today. The fact is that the way the Capital Territory Health Commission in its operation of the public hospital system carries out abortions in accordance with the law and the Menhennitt ruling quite clearly is accepted by the bulk of the population of the Australian Capital Territory and is accepted by honourable senators in this chamber. I believe that most honourable senators understand and comprehend quite clearly the law which applies in the Australian Capital Territory and agree with it. I believe that the law is being applied properly and the Commission is operating within its boundaries. Mr Hunt’s responsibility as Minister for Health is quite clear; he has responsibility for the administration of health and abortion law in the Australian Capital Territory. That is clearly spelt out in the letter dated 16 March 1 977 which was written by Mr Staley, the Minister for the Capital Territory at the time. In referring to the Legislative Assembly’s report, the third paragraph said:

This appears to the Minister for Health to be a matter of great community interest and one in which he would expect to have the views of the Assembly before he institutes positive action, of any kind.

I draw the attention of honourable senators particularly to the words ‘the views of the Assembly’. Clearly the object of the Government in contacting the Legislative Assembly was to ensure that its views were made known in the Australian Capital Territory, and conveyed to the Government so that it could form its own view. Many references have been made tonight to Mr Hunt’s so-called abrogation of duty. Attention has been drawn to certain statements that he made in the Parliament on 10 March 1977, 17 March 1977 and 24 March 1977. None of those statements as I read them- they do mention the. key word ‘decisions’ with regard to the Legislative Assembly- in any way refers to the binding effect that those decisions might have on the decision of the Government. Rather, the context of those remarks clearly points out that the decision was to be taken by the Legislative Assembly after forming its own view.

The decision was to be made by the members of the Legislative Assembly after drawing together the views of the ACT community. The Assembly was to form its own judgment and having decided upon a view was to send that view to the Minister. To make the point that that decision is binding on the Government is, to my mind, misrepresenting the case. I hope that Senator O ‘Byrne is listening. He was making the point that the Minister was somehow hoodwinking the people of the Australian Capital Territory and the members of this Parliament. I believe that the words are quite clear. Attempts by honourable senators to represent the case otherwise are designed to skip around the major point to which I now return. The official statement sent to the Legislative Assembly on 16 March 1977 by the then Minister for the Capital Territory, the Hon. A. A. Staley, quite clearly asked for the views of the Legislative Assembly. That, to my mind, clears up that matter without any doubt whatsoever.

I turn now to a matter which Senator Puplick mentioned during his speech. He referred to the question of abortion being a morality issue. It is, but it is not within the context of the authority and the responsibilities and duties of the Minister for Health. This aspect is referred to quite clearly in an answer the Minister gave to Mr Stewart, the honourable member for Lang, on 17 March 1977 in the House of Representatives. In response to Mr Stewart’s question, which I will not read as it has been quoted before tonight, the Minister said:

I thank the honourable member for Lang for the question. The only point that I wish to make in addition to those that I made in the House a few days ago is that the Capital Territory Health Commission considered the safety and medical aspects of the operation of free standing abortion clinics at its meeting yesterday. I am awaiting a formal report from the Commission. However, I have been informed that the Capital Territory Health Commission gave consideration to a report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on the health aspects of free standing abortion clinics. It is my understanding that the Commission is concerned that proper health safeguards should be imposed to ensure the safety of patients receiving any clinical service. It is recommended that properly qualified staff should undertake such operations in clinics within hospitals conducted by public authorities. The Capital Territory Health Commission will be formally reporting this recommendation to the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly.

That answer makes it quite clear when considering the questions to which we have addressed ourselves in this debate that this is a health question and not a moral one. On those grounds the Government obviously came to the conclusion to draft the ordinance in the form that it has in order to protect the health of those who within the law are seeking abortions within Mr Justice Menhennitt ‘s ruling.

That question seems to be quite clear. Within the legal terms drawn earlier tonight by Senator Tate, it seems to me that the proposition the Government has put forward, which I strongly support, that abortions within the law be carried out in a public hospital in the form that has been outlined is the correct way to handle this matter. Within the terms of the statements made earlier tonight by Senator Baume, it is clear that the report of the Legislative Assembly which was brought down in the course of its deliberations on this matter makes the point that abortions within the law are to be carried out within the grounds of a public hospital. In fact, the emphasis is on abortions, admittedly after 12 weeks, being carried out within a public hospital. To my mind, that clears the basic issues in this matter.

We are addressing ourselves to the question of the Government’s administration of the health facilities in the Australian Capital Territory. The Government has not only a right but also a duty and a responsibility properly to carry out its health activities, especially within the boundaries and parameters of the decisions that relate to the law, and I mention particularly the Menhennitt clauses. Consequently, the Government is acting properly in ensuring that this ordinance is put into effect. I therefore reject the motion that is before the Senate tonight.

Senator GEORGES (Queensland) < 1 1 .7) - I have been given the right to vote on conscience, a right which I did not desire. If it is a matter of conscience for members of this place to vote upon such an issue, which clearly is a moral issue in spite of the fact that it commenced as a debate on technicalities, then surely it is a conscience vote for the whole of the community. If it is a conscience vote for the whole of the community, surely we can take it further and say that it is a conscience vote of the person most concerned, the individual woman, and that is where it rests. For that reason I want to put my position clearly on the record so that everyone should know it, if they do not already know. Perhaps they do know my position because I was not flooded with the same number of letters as others have received, although I did receive some telephone calls to which I responded.

My position is clearly this: I will oppose any law or ordinance that comes into this place which limits a woman’s right to exercise her conscience in this very important matter. Further, I support the proposition that any laws which limit that right should be taken off the statute book, except those laws which concern health procedures and govern the various health institutions. Let me make it clear that I believe this is a matter of conscience for the individual most concerned. That individual if she desires to consult with her spouse or her spiritual adviser or her medical practitioner is free to exercise that right, but the decision remains hers and hers alone. I find it distasteful that in this place we should be debating the matter in the manner that we have. I believe it to be a grave invasion of privacy, and I think that that is how it ought to be considered from now on. I listened to those people who rang me in order to impress me with their views, but what did impress me was that they had little faith in their own faith and endeavoured to support that with a secular law. To my mind that shows a weakness in their position and in their ability to establish in themselves, in the community in which they live and within their family the standards which they spiritually support. I would not thrust my views on another and I would hesitate to advise that others should do the same to me. This I clearly state. I say again that no matter what regulations or ordinances of that nature come before this place, I will resist them. I will seek the repeal of all such laws on the statute book. This matter came before this place in such a way that if it had been properly considered in the first place the decision which may be reached tonight could have been different. It astonishes me- I must confess that I am also guilty in this respect- that four members of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which had the responsibility to scrutinise this Ordinance, are now opposed to the Ordinance.

Senator McAuliffe Who are the members of the Committee?

Senator GEORGES:

– If the honourable senator looks at the Notice Paper he will find out who are the members of the Committee. I am one of the members of that Committee. For some reason or another this Ordinance got through the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances without receiving the scrutiny that it should have had. If it had had that scrutiny, I would say, based on the opinions voiced by members of that Committee, that they themselves would have moved for the disallowance. I say that they would have moved for the disallowance because when the Ordinance came before the Committee on 14 September 1978 Senator Hamer, who addressed himself so well to the proposition today, raised the question of whether the subject was too important to be dealt with by ordinance. In other words, he was saying that it was a matter which should be dealt with by substantive legislation. He was right in raising the matter, but I am afraid that the advice given to him, on scrutiny, appears to be incorrect.

Senator Missen:

– Why do you say that?

Senator GEORGES:

– I say that because section 4, clause (3) on the first page of the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances says:

That the Committee would recommend to the Senate that it be authorised to revise its charter so that it will no longer apply to A.C.T. Ordinances approved by the Legislative Assembly the Committee’s fourth principle relating to substantive legislation.

It was not until Senator Cavanagh raised the point that it may have been necessary to have considered this matter with more caution -

Senator McAuliffe:

– He is a member of the Committee, too.

Senator GEORGES:

-He is a member of the Committee. I do not say that we ought not to raise this matter. If I had spoken earlier I would have moved possibly for the adjournment of this debate so that the matter could go back to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Senator Missen:

– What use would that have been?

Senator GEORGES:

– It would have allowed the Committee at least to discuss it and to come forward with the proposition that the Ordinance should be disallowed. It should not have been the initiative of Senator Ryan to move for the disallowance. I am convinced that the Committee, which has so much standing in this place, would have brought the matter forward to be dealt with not by ordinance but by substantive legislation.

Senator Missen:

– That is not true, Senator, and you know it.

Senator GEORGES:

– If the matter had been brought forward by the Committee in this way, I would have supported Senator Hamer in his view. From what he and Senator Cavanagh have said today it would have been a matter for substantive legislation and the Ordinance would have been disallowed. The matter cannot be adjourned at this late stage. Members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee have spoken strongly against this particular Ordinance and supported the proposition that it be disallowed. We will have to rest on their advocacy in this place. But I suggest that we look carefully at that recommendation and be clear about it. If the Legislative Assembly rejects the Ordinance we will have to apply the fourth principle about which Senator Cavanagh spoke. I believe that if the matter had reached the Senate in this way, the Senate would have been influenced in a different manner to the way in which it has been influenced today.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I claim to have been misrepresented. I speak as Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. In view of the allegation which has just been made by Senator Georges I think it should be said that of course he is a member of the Committee and of course the Committee had before it this Ordinance among others. The Committee had fourth method, a fourth criterion.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It still has it.

Senator MISSEN:

– It still has it. In some circumstances it can certainly recommend that a matter be dealt with by Act of Parliament rather than by ordinance. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has recommended the circumstances in which this should happen and I mentioned that in my speech tonight. Of course it would have been possible. The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee recommendations would have been entirely against the course that Senator Georges suggested. Senator Hamer asked a question about this matter. If he or others wanted to raise the matter they could have done so. On the other hand, it would be highly unlikely that such an action would have been taken by the Committee. It would then have been a matter merely of bringing before the Senate a recommendation to disallow the Ordinance on the sole ground which Senator Georges suggested, that is, that the matter should have been dealt with by Act of Parliament instead of by ordinance.

This is a matter which has social consequences. Senator Georges’ suggestion was raised at a late stage in this debate. No doubt it is confusing to honourable senators. It is a matter that he could have raised at the meeting of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. The Committee was certainly not advised by its legal adviser in any way to make such an objection. Other than in a question by Senator Hamer, it was not raised by any member ofthe Committee. It did not come before the Senate as a recommendation. Senator Georges is confusing the issue tonight.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– Entering this debate after 11.15 p.m. I will be brief. I enter the debate to state my own position and to make it clear why I will vote the way I shall. Before mentioning that I say publicly that I am thankful to those people who wrote constructive letters to me. I started to reply to them but the sheer volume of the letters after a while exceeded the facilities of my office and I could not reply to them all. Like most of my colleagues in the Senate today I have listened to the debate with great interest. I entered the debate with an open mind and was prepared to listen to the arguments carefully to see which way I should vote on the matter. Of course, I had a certain philosophical background to the way I feel about the abortion issue. I will mention that shortly. But perhaps there was more to it than that. Therefore, I listened to the debate carefully. I must admit that when 1 listened to the legal advice first from one side and then from the other I was a little confused to hear the legally qualified people giving different views. At one stage during the day, thinking of the technicalities, I formed the opinion that I would support the motion to disallow the Ordinance. That is not now the case because I have listened carefully and, using the background of my experience, I am forced to believe that I cannot support the motion.

Let me outline my personal opinion on the matter of abortion. As I have said, I had certain philosophical views on it. Personally I am opposed to the idea of abortion. That is just a personal view. I would not like to see the process of abortion carried out on a member of my family, for instance. Perhaps I would accept it if it happened but philosophically I would not like it. But I do acknowledge that there are others within the community who will seek out the facilities for an abortion and they will seek them out with their own conscience clear. Because of this I will always support the need for facilities for an abortion to be available in a community, provided those facilities are safe facilities.

I think I am explaining my position clearly. Personally, I would not like to have a member of my family involved in the process of an abortion. On the other hand, I know that there are people who will seek out these facilities therefore they should be available because if they are not available these people will seek out facilities that are unsafe, which of course would be dangerous to their health. One has only to go into an establishment in Brisbane which refers people from Queensland to some parts of New South Wales were facilities are available for the termination of a pregnancy to understand that there will be a demand for such a service even if the facilities are not available. When one looks at the map on the wall in the office of this establishment in Brisbane one can see that people have travelled to New South Wales from the very north of Queensland to have a pregnancy terminated.

Despite the cost involved, the demand is still there.

Like most honourable senators. I have had some experience with people who have found themselves faced with the task of making a decision as to whether to continue with a pregnancy or have it terminated. Probably the most regrettable situation that I have experienced occurred when I was teaching in a secondary school. I saw students who were only about 15 or 16 years of age who had to seek facilities for an abortion. If those students were not able readily to obtain a service- where I was teaching they had to travel to Sydney- they would have obtained it in some other way. We probably all know of people who have tried unsafe methods of termination of pregnancy. From my background I have a fair understanding of the needs of some people for these facilities. Although I am opposed to abortion, I accept that the facilities must be made available and when these facilities are made available the decision is up to the conscience of the individual. I think that my personal view can be best expressed by a slogan that I once saw, and I think how true it .is: Abortion is a right but contraception is a responsibility.

As far as I can see the facilities are available in the Australian Capital Territory for the termination of a pregnancy. This evening two honourable senators have quoted from report No. 26 of the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Education and Health. I will not quote from it at length because Senator McAuliffe has quoted significant parts of it. Not too long ago Senator Douglas McClelland quoted quite extensively from it. The part that interests me, the part that sways me in deciding the way I will vote this evening, is at page 38, paragraph 84, which points out that 1,106 applications were received by the Terminations Committee to 21 March 1 977. Of these, 24 applications were withdrawn, 49 were not approved and the rest were approved. As far as I can tell from this report, these terminations were carried out in Canberra at the Woden Valley Hospital.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Have you any concern about the 49 applications which were not approved? I ask the question quite seriously.

Senator COLSTON:

– The honourable senator probably realises that usually I do not respond to interjections. As he probably knows, the reason I do not respond to interjections is that I am hard of hearing and I cannot hear them very often. I heard the honourable senator’s interjection quite clearly so I shall respond to it. Yes, I am concerned about the 49 applications that were not approved, but at this stage I do not know why they were not approved. I imagine that they were not approved for some very sound reasons. Like the honourable senator, because we have to make a decision on this matter, I would like to know why they were not approved. The fact that so few were not approved seems to suggest to me that in those cases there must have been quite sound reasons for not approving them. So the facilities are available in the Australian Capital Teritory. In part, the Ordinance which the motion before us seeks to disallow states:

A registered medical practitioner shall not carry out treatment for the termination of pregnancy otherwise than at a hospital conducted by the Capital Territory Health Commission.

If we repealed that Ordinance theoretically it would mean that terminations of pregnancy could be carried out in places other than hospitals. I listened very carefully to the debate today. I was not in the chamber at all times, but 1 think I missed only very little of the debate. The part which I would have missed would have been when I was travelling from my office to this chamber because when 1 was not in the chamber I was listening to the debate on the intercom. I was not in the chamber when Senator Baume was speaking, but I did hear the whole of his speech. I was very impressed by the argument he put forward. I concede that Senator Baume has far better qualifications than I have for making a medical judgment on whether terminations should be carried out in hospitals or not in hospitals. I will have to make a decision when I vote on this issue in this chamber tonight. I must say that at this stage I cannot accept that it would be safe to terminate a pregnancy in a place other than a hospital. Because I cannot accept that, I cannot accept that this Ordinance should be disallowed. If it were disallowed the possibility of pregnancies being terminated in places other than hospitals would arise.

In some respects I find myself in a very awkward position in having to say that I will vote against the disallowance of this Ordinance. I find myself in an awkward position not because I am following my conscience- that is not an awkward position for me. I am in an awkward position because I fully realise the zeal with which and the direct and sound way in which Senator Ryan has brought this matter before the Senate. I congratulate her for doing so. At this stage I cannot support the proposition.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I would like to thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, for permitting this debate to take place. When I moved my motion on 1 1 October it would have been available to the Government to call for a vote on the motion immediately and to dispose of the matter without proper time being allowed for consideration of it. Senator Carrick did not do that and I thank him for the opportunity the Senate has had to consider the issue before it. I have also been gratified by a number of the contributions made to the debate in the highly principled, well researched, serious and well argued contributions of Senators Evans, Hamer, Puplick and Baume. I believe at this stage that all the points of substance which I would wish to make have been made in speeches of that kind. However, there are a few points which I think I must make in reply for the sake of the record. First of all I was surprised to hear Senator Knight quote a letter from Ivor Vivian, a member of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, claiming that the Ordinance which we are now discussing was endorsed by the Assembly. It was not. I have before me evidence that it was not. It is the Hansard record of the Legislative Assembly debate of 30 May 1978, when the Deputy President of the Assembly, Mr Vivian himself, put the following motion to the Assembly:

I propose the question that the Bill-

That is, the Ordinance we are discussing-

  1. . be agreed to in principle.

To save the time of the Senate I just report that according to this Hansard record that motion was negatived. The Ordinance was not agreed to in principle by the Assembly. It was rejected by the Assembly and I cannot even start to speculate on the motives of Ivor Vivian in suggesting that it was endorsed by the Assembly.

The other great red herring in the debate has been the issue of private clinics. I think that that has been brought in deliberately by some opponents of my motion to confuse the issue. Nobody has argued for the establishment of private clinics. One senator, Senator Baume, has pointed out that he does not have in principle objections to private clinics. But nobody has argued that a private clinic of the type conducted by Population Services International (Australasia) Ltd should be established. The Assembly was opposed to that. The Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, made it clear that he was opposed to that. The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, has made it clear that he is opposed to that. I have made it clear, as have many of my colleagues and contributors to the debate.

It was claimed that, should my motion be successful, the Minister would have no powers for a period of six months to prevent the opening of a private clinic. Again I think that that argument has been disposed of, particularly by Senator Evans, but I would like to remind the Senate at this stage that that is not true. I have always believed, as I said when I first moved this motion, that the ordinance which I would seek to implement the Legislative Assembly’s report would be an ordinance different in substance from the Ordinance before us and, therefore, would not involve the six-month waiting period. There is a great weight of legal opinion to support that view. Because of the lateness of the hour I quote only part of a judgment by Mr Justice McTiernan, a High Court judge, in a case concerning the meaning of ‘in substance’. Justice McTiernan said:

The expression ‘the same in substance’ does not fix precisely the limits of the prohibition imposed on the Executive. In my opinion a new regulation would be ‘the same in substance ‘ as a disallowed regulation if, irrespective of form or expression, it were so much like the disallowed regulation in its general legal operation that it could be fairly said to be the same law as the disallowed regulation.

Clearly, an ordinance which specifically provided for the establishment and operation of a public abortion clinic would not have the same legal operation as an ordinance which prevents such a clinic. However, the Minister has said in a letter to me that he fears that there could be a challenge to the substance argument and, therefore, he feels that he would be without recourse to making a new ordinance in a period of six months. Other mechanisms are available to the Minister. Senator Rae’s foreshadowed recision motion is a motion which, if passed, would wipe the slate clean with regard to the powers of the Minister to legislate on private abortion clinics. Senator Rae is of that belief, and any senator who understands the recision motion must agree that the effect of a recision motion would be the same as if the original ordinance had never existed. Therefore there would be no impediment to Mr Hunt gazetting immediately a specific ordinance prohibiting private clinics, if that were his wish- and he has always said that it is his wish to prevent the establishment of private clinics. So why have some people at least been pretending that the Minister would be powerless to prevent the opening of private clinics should my motion be successful? It seems to me that most of those who have been arguing that view are people from the Right to Life Association who claim that they are against private clinics but who also are against public facilities for the performance of abortion and, for that matter, against the provision of health insurance in respect of it. So it seems to me to be a very misleading position for the Right to Life Association to adopt, as it has done in public advertisements, that it is concerned only with stopping private clinics when in other statements and on other occasions it has admitted that it is opposed also to the establishment of a public clinic.

It is clear that the Minister does have the power to prohibit private clinics while at the same time moving to implement the Legislative Assembly report in full. So. let us not vote with that confusion still with us. It is also clear that the Government does not wish to implement the Legislative Assembly report apart from the one recommendation against private clinics. I have two letters from Mr Hunt pointing that out quite clearly. They have been referred to earlier in the debate, so I will not refer to them again. Yesterday in the House of Representatives the Prime Minister made it clear that he does not intend to implement the other recommendations of the Assembly- that is, he does not intend to have established a public clinic.

So, that brings us back to the real issue we should be considering tonight. Where should a decision of grave social consequence regarding the Australian Capital Territory be made? I say that such a decision should be made in the Legislative Assembly. The Minister, Mr Hunt, also said that and he has been quoted extensively on that point in the course of the debate. Yesterday the Prime Minister in a local radio program on radio station 2CA said that he believed that the Australian Capital Territory should have full self-government I concur with that view. But I hope that he does not mean that it should have self-government so long as the elected body does not make any decisions that would embarrass the Federal Government. If he qualifies his commitment to self-government in that way, perhaps he should spell it out. Tonight we have had from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) an account of the history of the ordinance, so I will not go over that ground again.

The final permanent ordinance that we are considering this evening is unsatisfactory. It is unsatisfactory because it ignores the main part of the Legislative Assembly report. It has been argued by Senator Tait in particular that a public clinic could be opened under the present ordinance but I think that anybody who has read the Legislative Assembly report or the letters from Mr Hunt or heard what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had to say yesterday would know that this is not the case. The disputed phrase in the ordinance is that an abortion can be performed at a public hospital. In the context of the debate that has taken place, this means the status quo and the status quo involves the permission of 7 doctors before termination can take place.

I also should point out that although the Prime Minister said yesterday that he approves of abortion under the Menhennitt rule, the Menhennitt rule is not what is operating in Canberra public hospitals at this stage. Senator Baume has explained that. The operation of the Menhennitt rule in New South Wales and Victoria requires that one doctor needs to say that, according to his conscience and medical judgment, the abortion is in the interests of the woman’s health. In Canberra that is not the situation; that is not the status quo. The status quo is that a woman seeking an abortion first of all has to get two doctors to sign and put in a report to the Termination Committee. The woman herself does not go before the Termination Committee which consists of five other doctors who have to agree that the termination oan take place. That is not the Menhennitt rule as it operates in other States. So, let us be in no doubt about that.

During the debate it was suggested that all the recommendations about counselling and advice and so on were already being implemented in the Australian Capital Territory. They are not. The Terminations Committee provides no counselling to a woman. She cannot even put her own case. Two doctors must put her case in writing for her. She has no opportunity for counselling one way or the other. So clearly the other recommendations of the Assembly are not being implemented at this stage and will not be implemented if the status quo remains. The position will remain as it is if this ordinance is allowed to pass into law this evening.

It has also been suggested that the words hospital’ and ‘clinic’ mean the same thing, that permission to have a public hospital abortion is the same thing or somehow encompasses the idea of a clinic abortion. Again, that view can only have been put forward by people who have not read the report and who do not understand the purpose of the clinic. The clinic, as proposed in the report, is different in many ways from the current situation at the hospital. It has specially trained staff. The permission of only one doctor is needed for an abortion. There is counselling for and against the abortion and so forth. Outpatient facilities are proposed. None of these criteria prevails in the current situation at the hospital. It seems to me to be quite misleading to try to interpret the phrase ‘at a public hospital’ as encompassing the clinic as recommended by the Legislative Assembly.

Honourable senators may be wondering at this late hour of the evening why we are debating this matter. We are debating it because the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, delegated the decision regarding the abortion clinic properly to the Legislative Assembly and then reneged on its decision. I, as a senator representing the ACT, have exercised my right to move disallowance of the ordinance. There have been many suggestions in the letters and publicity surrounding this issue that I am somehow acting improperly. Every honourable senator and every member of the House of Representatives has the right to move for the disallowance of any ordinance that the honourable senator or the honourable member disagrees with. I am exercising my right because I represent the ACT and because the decisions of the citizens of the ACT as expressed in the report presented to the Legislative Assembly are not contained in this ordinance and, in fact, are obstructed from implementation by this ordinance.

The report is not my report as some people seem to have imagined. I have had no part in its preparation. I made no submission to the Committee of the Legislative Assembly. It is the report of the locally elected Legislative Assembly of the ACT. But I argue its merits in this case. Of course, I agree with the report that a public facility for early term abortions is needed in the ACT. How could I not agree given that women in other parts of Australia have such a facility available to them? I am reminded of Senator Baume ‘s principle about the importance of equal access to medical facilities. Unlike the Right to Life Organisation, I cannot put my head in the sand and pretend that if the facilities are not provided here abortions will not happen. I know that desperate women and girls will travel, for example, to Sydney or to Melbourne for this operation. Where is the moral virtue in defending this situation?

I also know that some women who need abortions will not be able to afford the fares to travel or that some women, having no one to leave their families with for a couple of days, will be forced to go through with a pregnancy that will damage their health and the welfare of their families. Where is the humanity and moral righteousness in defending such a situation? Everybody here knows that through the ages thousands of women have died as a result of backyard abortions. Thousands of others have had their health, their sanity and their lives ruined because they could get no assistance in their desperate circumstances. Everybody here knows that unwanted children continue to be the victims of child abuse and worse. The Legislative Assembly was aware of all these matters and made a humane, rational and responsible series of recommendations to cope with these tragic problems and to prevent many of the problems arising. Why should the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, or the Senate reject these decisions? What will be gained? Who will benefit? I suggest that nobody will benefit. The problems will be swept under the mat, shipped interstate, but they will not cease to exist.

If we look at where the opposition to this motion is coming from, it is outside the Parliament, it is not on the whole coming from citizens of the ACT. It is an organised, orchestrated lobby by people who hold a minority view on this grave matter, a view to which they are entitled. But there are people who are unwilling to accept that our society is a pluralistic society, that the contrary view to their view is held just as sincerely and strongly by many Australian citizens. They are determined to make all citizens live according to their minority view, regardless of the cost. I cannot accept that position. It is an abhorrent position to those of us who truly accept the principles of democracy. It is also abhorrent to us who hold strongly to the democratic principles that a Minister of this Parliament should make a promise in this Parliament that the elected representatives ofthe people of the Australian Capital Territory, the Legislative Assembly, could make decisions with regard to the termination of pregnancy and then later repudiate his serious promise.

The Ordinance before us is a bad ordinance. While it does implement one specific recommendation of the Legislative Assembly’s report, it prevents the implementation of most of the others, including the all-important recommendation 5 for the public clinic. I have moved for its disallowance in the sure knowledge that procedures are available through the Senate and to the Minister to continue the prohibition on private clinics while enabling the rest of the report to be implemented. I seek support for my motion on those grounds.

Question put-

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Evans’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 22

NOES: 39

Majority……. 17

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-When I spoke to Senator Evans’s amendment, I foreshadowed that in the event that his amendment was defeated I would move another amendment to Senator Ryan ‘s motion. I propose to do so. My amendment is to add to the end of her motion which is a motion for disallowance, what amounts to an explanation and an expression of opinion so that it is a little clearer on what the Senate really is voting than would be the case arising out of a somewhat confused debate. I suggest that this may clarify it. I move:

I have already explained to the chamber my purpose in moving this amendment. It is an effort to record a little clearer what honourable senators are expressing in voting for or against Senator Ryan’s motion.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Missen:

– Yes, I second it.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Rae’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 26

NOES: 35

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Friday, 10 November 978

Question put-

That the motion (Senator Ryan’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 24

NOES: 36

Majority……. 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senate adjourned at 12.7 a.m., Friday.

page 1921

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Tasmania (Question No. 578)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is balance coverage or news and political affairs by the Australian Broadcasting Commission severely hampered by the lack of a regular television link between Launceston and Hobart.
  2. Will the Minister examine the possibility of establishing a regular television link between Launceston and Hobart so that ABC coverage of news and political affairs is no longer determined by the proximity of an event or an individual to the ABC studios in Hobart.
  3. Has the ABC in Tasmania considered filming interviews in Launceston for later transmission in Hobart until a regular link is in operation; if so. what was its conclusion: if not, will the ABC undertake to do so.
  4. Has the ABC considered filming videotaped interviews in Canberra for relay to Tasmania by broadband or by air for the next night’s programs, particularly in view ofthe necessity for two of Tasmania’s Federal spokesmen to spend much of their time in Canberra.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator ‘s question:

  1. 1 ) Balanced coverage by ABC News and Public Affairs programs is not hampered by the absence of a television link between Launceston and Hobart. Visual coverage, however, is seriously limited, and at times impossible, because of the absence of such a link.
  2. The establishment of regional television studios upon which a regular television link between Launceston and Hobart would depend is a matter which is being kept under review by the Government.
  3. The ABC regularly films interviews in Launceston for later transmission in Hobart. Such interviews have to be arranged to allow time for transport to Hobart.
  4. The ABC does, where practicable, record interviews in Canberra for This Day Tonight and sends them by broadband to Hobart via Sydney. Direct Canberra-Hobart links, which are very costly, have been used on occasions. Because of the topical nature of news items, and of most public affairs material, the use of domestic air transport from Canberra to Hobart is generally less than satisfactory. Another factor which militates against more regular filming of interviews in Canberra for despatch to Hobart is the availability of staff and technical equipment in Canberra. When the Parliament is sitting, the ABC’s Canberra Bureau is extremely busy recording material for national use.

Coastal Surveillance: Air Charter Service (Question No. 710)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the details of the contract for the proposed air charter service designed to provide a surveillance service for the Northern Territory.
  2. What are the conditions of the chaner, and the frequency of the service to be provided.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Full details of the proposed air charter arrangements for coastal surveillance are contained in Tender Schedule No. C2/78/71 which is a public document available from my Department.

The tender calls for two separate contracts for a two year period, one covering aircraft to undertake daily surveillance flights of the northern coastline between Geraldton and Cairns, and the other covering three aircraft for full time use by Customs authorities. The Customs aircraft will be based at Port Hedland, Darwin and Townsville and will be deployed as required.

Briefly, the conditions of the charter will be that the operator provides the aircraft, crew and fuel and will be responsible for the maintenance ofthe aircraft.

Treasurer: Statutory Corporations (Question No. 727)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Treasurer to Parliament.
  2. What arc the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Treasurer for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1 976-77.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Details as requested by the honourable senator for each statutory corporation having a responsibility to report through the Treasurer to Parliament are as follows:

A. ( I ) Reserve Bank of Australia (but sec answer to question (2)).

Section 81 ofthe Reserve Bank Act 1959 requires the Reserve Bank Board to prepare:

a report on the operations ofthe Bank during the year: and

financial statements in accordance with the prescribed forms. and furnish that report and those statements, together with a report of the Auditor-General upon those statements, to the Treasurer. The Board is also required to transmit true copies of those reports and statements to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to be laid before the Senate and the House respectively.

and (4) True copies of the audited accounts and annual reports for 1976-77 were transmitted to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on 17 August 1977 and tabled on 18 August 1977. The corresponding documents for 1977-78 were so transmitted on 1 6 August 1 978 and tabled on 1 7 August 1 978.

and (6) Not applicable.

B. ( 1 ) Commonwealth Banking Corporation and its constituent banks Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia; Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia: Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia; (but see answer to question (2)).

Section 121 of the Commonwealth Banks Act requires the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Board to prepare-

a report on the operations of the Corporation and each of the banks during the year; and

financial statements in accordance with the prescribed forms, and furnish that report and those statements, together with a report of the Auditor-General upon those statements, to the Treasurer. The Board is also required to transmit true copies of those reports and statements to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to be laid before the Senate and the House respectively.

and (4) True copies of the audited accounts and annual report for 1976-77 were transmitted to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on 20 September 1 977 and tabled on the same day. The corresponding documents for 1977-78 were so transmitted on 1 9 September 1 978 and tabled on the same day.

and (6) Not applicable.

C. ( I ) Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC).

Under the provisions of section 37 of the AIDC Act, the Board of the Corporation furnishes the Treasurer with a report on the Corporation’s operations together with financial statements in such form as the Minister for finance approves and a report from the Auditor-General on those financial statements as soon as practicable after each 30 June. The Treasurer is required to table the report in each House of Parliament within 1 5 sitting days of receiving it.

and (4) The audited accounts and annual report for 1976-77 were presented to the Treasurer on 12 Oct. 1977 and tabled in the House of Representatives and the Senate on 27 Oct. 1977. The corresponding documents for 1977-78 were presented to the Treasurer on 25 September 1978 and tabled in the House of Representatives and the Senate on 28 Sep. 1978.

5 ) and ( 6 ) Not applicable.

D. ( 1 ) National Debt Commission.

Section 18 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966 requires the National Debt Commission in the month of August each year to furnish to the Treasurer, for presentation to the Parliament, a report on the operations of the Commission in relation to the National Debt Sinking Fund.

There is no statutory provision for the accounts and annual reports of the National Debt Commission to be audited. However, the accounts and reports of the Commission to the Parliament are audited by the AuditorGeneral under independent arrangements.

The annual report of the National Debt Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978 was presented to the Treasurer, for tabling in Parliament, at the 76th meeting of the Commission on 28 August 1 978.

The annual report of the National Debt Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 978 was tabled in Parliament on 12 September 1978.

and (6) Not applicable.

E. ( 1 ) Australian Taxation Office.

Section 14 ( 1 ) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 requires the Commissioner to furnish to the Treasurer annually for presentation to Parliament, a report on the working of this Act. Corresponding provisions are included in the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (in relation to exchange control taxation certificates), in the assessment Acts relating to sales tax, payroll tax, estate duty, gift duty and stevedoring industry charge and in the Export Industries Grant Act 1 97 1 .

and (4) The 56th Report of the Commissioner of Taxation was prepared in time for it to have been tabled on 27 October 1977. It was however tabled on 2 November 1977 when a sufficient number of copies was available to permit their distribution to Senators and Members of Parliament as soon as the motion to print the document has been passed.

and (6) Not applicable.

F. ( 1 ) Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Section 24 ( 1 ) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975 requires the Australian Statistician to report annually through the Treasurer to Parliament as soon as practicable after each 30 June.

and (4) The annual report for 1976-77 was presented to the Treasurer on 1 November 1 977 and was tabled in Parliament on 2 November 1977.

and (6) Not applicable.

Telecom Dispute: Newspaper Advertisement (Question No. 757)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) In which newspapers did the advertisement ‘Telecom dispute- Communications Crisis ‘ appear.
  2. What was the cost of the advertisement in each case.
  3. Did the advertisement appear in any place other than newspapers; if so, where did it appear, and what was the cost in each case.
  4. What was the total cost of placing this advertisement in newspapers or other media.
  5. Were there any costs other than those mentioned in (4); if so, what are the details of those costs.
  6. To what budget vote or appropriation did Telecom charge the cost of this advertisement.
  7. Did Telecom offer funds to the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association to similarly advertise its side of the dispute.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. 565,885.29.
  3. No.
  4. General operating expenses.
  5. No.

Overseas Loans (Question No. 831)

Senator Messner:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 1 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the total amount, expressed in Australian dollars, of loans raised overseas in the year 1 977-78.
  2. How much was borrowed in each transaction, through which bank was each loan negotiated, and what were the terms and interest rates applicable to each loan.
  3. Were all such loans lodged outside Australia; if not, what proportion was lodged within Australia.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. $AI, 763.6m.
  2. Loans raised by the Commonwealth Government during 1977-78.
  1. Each of the above loans was raised outside Australia; subscriptions by Australian residents to loans or other fixed interest securities is contrary to the Government’s policy on portfolio investment overseas.

Television Station Licence in Perth (Question No. 841)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 21 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have any approaches been made to the Minister, officers of the Postal and Telecommunications Department, or members or officers of the Broadcasting Tribunal, regarding the allocation of a third commercial television licence in Perth: if so, who initiated such approaches.
  2. Have any predictions, promises or statements referring to a third television licence for Perth been made by any Minister, Departmental officers, or members or officers of the Broadcasting Tribunal; if so, what are the details.
  3. Have copies of prospectuses or any other form of invitation to subscribers to invest in a company, the purpose of which is to apply for a third television station in Perth, been made available to the Minister, his Department or members or officers of the Broadcasting Tribunal.
  4. In the event of any official consideration of the allocation of a third television licence for Perth, will a planning proposal be written by the Department of Post and Telecommunications: if so, to whom will it be circulated for consideration and comment preceding any action.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Yes- Mr R. Bailye; Mr B. Treasure: Taimac Video Corporation; TVW Enterprises Ltd; Swan Television & Radio Broadcasters Ltd; Ace Theatres Pty Ltd.
  2. References to this matter include:

Senate Hansard 1 1 May 1978 page 1643, being a reply by Senator Carrick to a question without notice by Senator Chaney.

Spokesman for the Minister as reported in the West Australian dated 12 May 1978 page 1 and 13 May 1978 page 3, indicated that there were no plans at present for a third commercial station in Perth, but that the Department was examining the matter. (3)I have not received material such as described, nor as far as I am aware has it been made available to the others suggested by the honourable Senator.

  1. Should consideration be given to the allocation of a third television licence for Perth, a planning proposal would be prepared by my Department. This proposal would be discussed with

Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations

Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Public Broadcasting Association of Australia

May I add that no such proposal is currently being prepared by my Department. I am not convinced that a proposal along these lines should be developed at this time, and particularly not before the Government has completed its consideration of the Satellite Task Force Report.

Joint House Department: Staff (Question No. 847)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many administrative staff are employed by the Joint House Department, and what is their present order of seniority?
  2. What is the salary range of each administrative staff member, and what are his duties?

  3. How many staffare currently employed in:

    1. the Parliamentary Kitchen;
    2. the Parliamentary Dining Room;
    3. the Staff Canteen;
    4. the Members’ Bar: and
    5. the Non-Members’ Bar and who is responsible for engaging staff in those areas?
  4. What are the responsibilities and duties of the elected members of the Joint House Committee?
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The answers to the above questions are as follows: (l)and(2):

The duties of the aforementioned administrative officers of the Department are wideranging and provide necessary support for 225 positions which cover all mechanical, electrical, air-conditioning, carpentry, painting, security, cleaning, nightwatching, door control, public tours, liquor and food services and secretariats for the Joint House Committee, Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Public Works. As duty statements for these positions are quite voluminous they have been forwarded to Senator McLaren except for the position of Permanent Head of the Department which traditionally has no set statement of duties, but in general carries the responsibility for the discharge of all the functions that by legislation or administrative arrangement, are vested in this Department.

Staff employed in the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms are as follows:

The Manager and his two Assistant Managers are responsible for engaging sessional and casual staff subject to policy directions from the Secretary of the Department. The latter is responsible for the employment of full time staff, and follows normal governmental practices and procedures in recruitment.

  1. It is the function ofthe Joint House Committee to consider and report on such matters as are referred to it by either House. Currently, neither House has laid down any specific duty upon the Committee. The President ofthe Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives are the executive members of the Committee. The Committee as such has no executive power and most of its decisions are in the form of recommendations to the appropriate authorities.

Work-sharing Scheme Investigation (Question No. 899)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

Has the Minister discussed a work-sharing scheme with the President ofthe Queensland Confederation of Industry. Mr A. Willis; if so, (a) has the Minister or his Department investigated the scheme: and (b) what are the results of anysuch investigation.

Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Productivity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No. Mr Willis did raise with me the matter of a worksharing scheme in general terms and has recently sent me some specific material. This material is at present being studied by my Department.

Universities: Study Leave (Question No. 904)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Did the draft report of the Tertiary Education Commission examining study leave in Australian Universities find that study leave served a valuable function, enhanced Australia’s international reputation, provided benefits as a result of research, and that there was no evidence of widespread abuse.
  2. Did the report nevertheless recommend that time allowed for study leave be cut by 50 per cent and funding by about 33 percent.
  3. Will such cuts, if instituted: (a) limit the scope of valuable research; (b) interfere with traditional freedoms of universities; (c) abandon terms of service regarded as part of their contract by university staff many of whom are from overseas; and (d) reduce opportunities for international contacts.
  4. What are the Government’s intentions regarding these recommendations.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

I draw the honourable senator’s attention to my statement to the Senate on this matter on 19 October 1978 (Hansard, page 1454).

Nomad Aircraft (Question No. 919)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 17 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Australian Government aircraft factory exhibit the Nomad aircraft at the most recent Farnborough Airshow
  2. For what special purposes, if any, was the aircraft being promoted.
  3. Was one of those purposes offshore surveillance.
  4. How many inquiries were received for the aircraft.
  5. How many firm orders were received for the aircraft and from which government instrumentalities or private firms were those orders received.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Productivity has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  2. The exhibition of Nomad was part of the world-wide marketing of Nomad and was used for the world-wide release of the stretched Nomad version- the N24A commuter.
  3. ) Yes- Nomad with a chin mounted radome suitable for a 360 degree search radar was exhibited in the static park.
  4. As well as general public enquiries 50 to 60 enquiries were received from possible potential Nomad operators.
  5. Two firm orders were received for the N24A version, one each for Eastern Carribean Airways, and Air and Sea Services Switzerland. In addition one of our distributors received a deposit for two aircraft. Further sales prospects are being followed up.

Rural Adjustment Scheme (Question No. 965)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 October 1 978:

  1. 1 ) How many farmers in Australia left farms in 1977-78, and how many farms were involved.
  2. How many farming establishments received aid through the Rural Adjustment Scheme in 1 977-78.
  3. 3 ) What was the estimated cost of the scheme in terms of: (a) payments made; and (b) administration costs, in 1977-78.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Statistics showing the number of farmers leaving the industry are not collected. Australian Bureau of Statistics data on the number of agricultural establishments in Australia is not yet available for 1 978.
  2. In 1977-78 2,227 applications for assistance under the Rural Adjustment Scheme were approved.

  3. (a) In 1977-78, the Commonwealth provided $38.5m to the States for rural adjustment assistance purposes.

    1. The Commonwealth’s administrative costs associated with the Rural Adjustment Scheme are not calculated as a separate item. The Commonwealth contributes to the State’s administrative costs up to an amount equivalent to I per cent of annual approvals. Claims have not yet been received from the States in respect of 1 977-78.

Citizen Band Radio

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 24 August 1978 Senator Thomas asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question without notice:

Is it true that only one officer is available in Western Australia to investigate complaints against interference from CB. Radio? Would the Minister agree that the delay of many months before complaints can be investigated is unsatisfactory and that the problem is becoming more serious because of the increase in the use of CB. Radio and because of the increase in the illegal, and in many cases, dangerous broadcasting of so-called pirate calls?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

No, there are three officers employed on interference investigations in the Western Australian office of my Department. Their duties, however, relate to all interference complaints, including those connected with CB. Radio.

Yes, I agree that a delay of many months before complaints can be investigated should not be allowed to go unchecked. Accordingly, a detailed review of staffing requirements has recently been completed and action is now in hand to expand the Department’s manpower resources for undertaking interference investigations.

It is anticipated that two additional officers will shortly commence duty in the Western Australian office, and these officers will be engaged in the area in question. I am confident that as a result of this action it will be possible to reduce delays in investigations and to gain more effective control of illegal transmissions.

Proposed Domestic Satellite System

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 11 October 1978 Senator Mcintosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question without notice:

Is it a fact that the Government is contemplating the expenditure of nearly $200m on a domestic satellite system? If so, how much more rapidly will national and international news be distributed to the people of Australia when a satellite is in orbit than it is now, with radio? Will the satellite be manufactured and launched in Australia, or will the Government find yet another way of accentuating the already deplorable condition of our international debt? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the effect that the satellite would have in reducing the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, or will it be like Telecom’s most recent venture and cause large numbers of trained people to be thrown on the industrial scrapheap?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government has set up a Working Group of officials to consider the recommendations of the Task Force on a National Communications Satellite System. This Working Group is expected to bring forward proposals for the Government to consider in reaching a decision on this issue.

The speed of dissemination of news, both national and international, to locations presently served by live broadcasts, will not necessarily be enhanced. For locations not receiving live television at present, and areas not at present within the range of a radio transmission, the introduction of a national communications satellite could be expected to provide opportunities to disseminate radio and television news and, for that matter, all other programs of immediate interest at the same time as they are received in the rest of the country.

If the Government did decide to proceed to establish a national communications satellite in the time frame envisaged in the Task Force Report, it seems likely that, as was pointed out by the Task Force, the participation of Australian industry in the manufacture of a first generation of Australian satellites would be relatively small. The Task Force has suggested that Australian industry participation in future satellite models may be possible if the Government chose to encourage this approach. The Senator will be aware also that at present, Australia does not possess a capacity to launch such a satellite. Nevertheless the Task Force has indicated, in its Report, that if a contract were let to an overseas manufacturer to produce the necessary satellites, it seems likely that appropriate offset contracts might be arranged. Such an arrangement would, of course, offset the balance of payments effects. The Task Force has recognised that there would be the possibility of Australian industry participation in the manufacture of earth stations for the system but has warned that this may have cost implications.

The full impact of the introduction of a national communications satellite on employment opportunities would be difficult to determine at this stage. It is not unusual, however, in respect of the introduction of technology of this nature, for job opportunities to be increased rather than diminished. In respect ofthe industries most closely affected, the Task Force concluded that the employment implications of the introduction of a national communications system would be minimal.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19781109_senate_31_s79/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant