Today in Parliament, Abigail contributed to a debate in support of the Abortion Law Reform Amendment (Health Care Access) Bill 2025, emphasising the importance of ensuring equitable access to abortion services across NSW, particularly for women in regional and rural areas.

Abigail said:

I support the Abortion Law Reform Amendment (Health Care Access) Bill 2025. As one of the co‑sponsors of the Abortion Law Reform Act 2019, I am very pleased that we have reached the point of having it well recognised that abortion is legal in New South Wales. Some of the, frankly, hysterical responses from public figures and others saying that this bill is somehow a significant step forward for New South Wales really miss the point of what happened in 2019. In 2019 many people thought abortion was already legal—I grew up thinking that—because in practice it had been. At least for those of us in wealthy enough circumstances and in metro areas, where we were able to see sensible doctors, it was seen as widely available. To be honest, it came as quite a shock to me in 2019 to discover that the law had not actually kept up with the practice and we were all relying on a piece of case law that may not be immune from political interference.

So it was that the abortion law reform Act was progressed across different parties and came to this place. As a Greens member I find the idea of conscience votes quite interesting. The Greens are pro‑choice. I do not really understand other parties. I understand that The Nationals also have a similar view when it comes to abortion—or at least they did in 2019. The Greens policy is decided by our members on the basis of evidence and listening carefully to the science and with careful regard to the principles and basis on which our party was founded, particularly, in this case, when it comes to social justice. To us it is obvious. Every Greens MP in every State and Territory and in Canberra will vote for reproductive health rights for women every time.

Back then we did not have Dr Amanda Cohn in the Chamber. It is such a delight to have her. Dr Amanda Cohn is a doctor of medicine. She has firsthand understanding of what it is to be a patient in a border town not close to a city needing medical assistance. She has brought that expertise in introducing this very sensible, largely administrative bill. It does not seek to make abortion legal because it is already legal in New South Wales. Instead, it is trying to correct how that law has been implemented throughout the State by making sure that that service is free and accessible.

It is worth noting that "free" aspect. When we say "accessible", it is obvious. If you are living in a regional town and there is not somebody there to provide reproductive health services, you have to travel long distances to get it somewhere else. That service is not equally accessible across New South Wales. But there is also a cost aspect. If you are living somewhere in the middle of, say, central New South Wales and you have to travel to a city in order to get the health care that you require, you may have to put your children into some sort of babysitting arrangement and you may have to fly or drive or whatever it is and then stay over at a place. There is a huge financial cost involved for something that might be free to somebody who lives in a city. Free and accessible access is important.

Ultimately, it comes down to equity. In New South Wales we do not typically make laws that only apply to certain people. After at times a really quite excruciating debate in 2019, which put us all through quite a lot, we decided as a Parliament to pass a law, but that law is effectively being applied to different people in different ways. Although it is great for wealthy women who are living in areas where reproductive health care is readily accessible, that is simply not the case for people living in regional areas. I will not relitigate all of the reasons we gave in 2019 for why it was so important, particularly for women in regional areas, to be able to access abortion. Unfortunately, the review showed us that after five years, although the majority of the provisions have held up, some aspects need reform in order to complete the picture and allow it to be the equitable reform it was supposed to be.

I touch on an aspect that the Hon. Rod Roberts raised in relation the idea that we are somehow coercing people to provide an abortion to a patient. It is very clear that the bill does not do that, but I understand how that impression might be drawn for those who just read the bill and no other legislation. The bill proposes a duty on the Minister for Health to ensure that abortion services are available throughout the State within a reasonable distance from where people live. As my colleague explained in her second reading speech, that duty is deliberately broad and does not apply to all hospitals and health services, so it would not be reasonable to suggest that specialty hospitals such as psychiatric hospitals would be required to provide an abortion, nor would it be reasonable that very small rural hospitals without the capability to provide abortion services would be required to do so.

The mechanism proposed for the Minister to carry out the duty—that abortion services are available throughout the State a reasonable distance from where people live—is through direction to public health organisations as defined by the Health Services Act 1977. That includes local health districts, statutory health corporations or affiliated health organisations but not private hospitals and health services. So it is not true that private hospitals will be required to offer reproductive health services under the Act. The bill does not propose any penalty mechanism for practitioners or health services that do not provide abortion services. Concerns were raised about the potential impact on faith-based hospitals. That seems to stem from a theoretical impact to faith‑based affiliated health organisations that are part of the New South Wales public health system.

The requirement to ensure abortion services are available a reasonable distance from where people live means an affiliated health organisation could not be required to provide abortion services in areas where services are already available. Under the Health Services Act 1997, affiliated health organisations are required to carry out such functions as conferred or imposed on them under any Act or as may be prescribed by the regulations. The bill does not impose any functions on affiliated health organisations, but the Minister already has the power to impose functions on affiliated health organisations through regulation. As per section 65 of the Health Services Act 1997, the Minister may, from time to time, determine the role, functions and activities of any recognised establishment or recognised service of an affiliated health organisation and, for that purpose, give the organisation any necessary directions.

Before making a determination, the Minister is to consult with the affiliated health organisation concerned, having regard to the healthcare philosophy of the organisation. That is a very long way of saying that when we view the bill in the context of existing legislation, it is incredibly clear that there is no coercion. The bill does not operate in a way that would force all hospitals, including affiliated and private hospitals, to provide abortion services. Unfortunately that story was picked up by a lot of people looking for reasons to oppose the bill as being something that it is not, so that must be knocked on its head. I understand the Hon. Rod Roberts may have that impression. I hope he has heard my explanation and read the frequently asked questions document that was sent out by my colleague to explain exactly how the bill works.

A previous contributor to debate mentioned that this is a divisive bill. I do not think it is divisive to unite regional and rural women with their city peers. That is effectively all the bill does. The bill does not create any change to the legality of abortion in this State. Proudly, because of the work that was done across party lines in 2019, abortion is legal in New South Wales. The bill makes sure that the benefit of that can be shared by everybody across the State, no matter their postcode or bank balance. That was the original intention, as was passed by an overwhelming majority of members in this Parliament. That is all the bill does. If there is divisiveness, it is because people have chosen to make the bill about something that it is not.

I finish by praising the work of my colleague Dr Amanda Cohn. She is a Doctor of Medicine. Her approach to treating this matter as a healthcare issue about healthcare accessibility for everybody in this State is consistent with everything she does in the health portfolio and as a doctor. Her work is to be commended. It is unfortunate that silliness has surrounded debate on what is an incredibly reasonable administrative bill. I am very proud to be associated with this Greens bill and hope we see very sensible changes when members return to debate it on the next sitting day.

Read the debate in Hansard here.

26 March 2025