Do Not Be Quiet
home
hillary
battlestar
clothing
competition
campaign
tshirts
buttons
past >>>
scrapbook
links
contact


back to index

Past Issues: Issue#6 August 2005

Advertising Standards Bureau:
The "Light-hearted" approach to feminism

- Erin Dolan

In 2003, the fast food giant McDonald's released a new range of food that promised a healthy alternative to their greasy staple. Yet the series of television adverts used to promote the Salads Plus range reinforced a harmful obsession with women's physical appearance.

Initially, the series of commercials looked innocent enough; people eating, enjoying and extolling the virtues of McDonald's nutritious, low-fat options. As the series progressed, the gender bias became apparent. In one, a son related how his mom now liked coming to McDonald's, a man did similarly with his female partner. In all the advertising, only women were subjected to the low-fat food.

Two in the series were particularly offensive. In one, two younger women stood at a McDonald's counter and were asked what they would like to order. The screen flashed to an imaginary dream sequence where the two women were gorging themselves on fatter McDonald's options. Back to reality, and the two girls conceded to ordering salads. The final commercial was a longer advert that showed a variety of changes and additions to McDonald's. Nearer to the end, a woman proclaimed that McDonald's had provided the "three little words every women wants to hear: What's in it?" immediately followed by a list of the calories in McDonald's food.

I believed these discriminatory commercials breached the Advertiser Code of Ethics, section 2.1, that states:

Advertisements shall not portray people or depict material in a way which discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of race, ethnicity, nationality, sex, age, sexual preference, religion, disability or political belief.1

However, if I thought I would be supported by the advertising regulatory system, I was wrong. The Advertising Standards Board (ASB), dismissed complaints made against McDonald's Salads Plus television advertising, claiming that "most people exposed to the advertising would recognise the advised light-hearted intent in its execution."2

In fact, the ASB routinely dismisses cases involving sex discrimination under the guise of humour. As a system to monitor advertising that reinforces negative sex stereotyping, the ASB is ill-equipped to treat these cases with the seriousness they deserve.

Self-Regulation

The ASB was set up in 1998 to regulate advertising that breaches "community standards". It is administered and funded through the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA), a national body that represents the interests of 85 per cent of the advertising industry. Complaints from the public are ruled on by the twelve board members of the ASB, most of who are employed in the advertising industry. Conflicts of interest are never discussed publicly in this system of self-regulation. Instead the AANA uses the ASB as an example of the advertising community's commitment to responsible advertising.

As advertising professionals, the board members neither reflect a demography of the general community, nor have any specialties in areas of discrimination.

In New Zealand, the respective advertising board is required to have at least one health professional sit on the board. This is not the case in Australia, although health groups have lobbied for significant change, particularly with advertising that deals with alcohol. The ASB began a separate committee just for these types of complaints. Another group that has made headway has been the Pedestrian Council who lobby against advertising that shows dangerous driving. In both cases, changes have occurred because the ASB admitted how advertising was harmful to parts of the community.

No Teeth

The ASB is a self-regulatory system, where advertisers contribute to its existence and voluntarily comply with its findings. The advertisers are under no legal provision to comply with the ASB and it is the inability to enforce its own decisions that the ASB has drawn the most fire.

Its most public debacle came in March 2000, when the ASB, inundated with complaints, upheld a decision against a Windsor Smith Shoes billboard. The advert suggested a woman performing fallatio; scantily clad, she sat below a male figure who guided her head towards his genitals. Windor Smith, already notorious for using provocative campaign to sell men's shoes, refused to immediately remove the billboards stating:

Windsor Smith have decided to stand by their belief that the billboard campaign that started from March 1 is not inappropriate and to leave the billboards up. Although we hold a high respect for the Board, we feel that in this case that the Board has made a bad judgement and used Windsor Smith as an example as a result of complaints we feel is from a minority.3

Sexuality versus Sex discrimination

In an odd alliance, conservative groups and advocates for women's equality found themselves united in their protest against Windsor Smith, albeit for different reasons.

Religious based "moral" groups, like the Australian Family Association, were concerned about sexuality, outraged by the suggestive poses and half-naked women. Feminists groups protested on the bases of sex discrimination. A press release from the Brisbane institute noted that "depictions of women as sexually submissive subjects of men insidiously undermines our fight for equality and equal status in the community."4

The ASB made no distinction between sex, sexuality and sex discrimination. Their determination against the Windsor Smith dealt only with the "sexual suggestiveness" of the billboard even though complaints were made on the basis of sex discrimination and vilification.

According to its own statistics, the number one complaint to the ASB is based on "portrayal of sex/sexuality/nudity". There are no sub categories. Furthermore, its statistics aggregates sex discrimination in the category of "portrayal of people" along with other types of vilification such as race and religion. The word "gender" is never used.5

This confusion is perhaps not based on political motivations, but on a lack of understanding from those within the advertising industry.

Another determination that highlights the ASB's mishandling of sex discrimination was the outcome of complaints against Gillette's Dufour advert. A billboard campaign, it showed the backside of four women in bikinis. The caption read: "Why Do One? DuFour". Community attitudes were clearly overwhelming - the ASB posted comments from twelve complainants. The majority of the complaints protested that the advert demeaned women by objectifying them; depicting them as "interchangeable commodities."6

In their defense, Gillette claimed that the Dufour ads were in line with the industry standard for men's deodorant, sighting the industry leader Lynx as an example. Yet from my memory, the Lynx ads represented a very different view of women. In one tv commercial, a man and women had a sexual encounter on an elevator, her attraction to him was overpowering, because of the deodorant. The man was dwarfed by the woman, she the sexual aggressor. In another, a man showering fell amongst a women's aerobics class. Again, it ended in another sexual encounter where the women was the initiator. In both examples, the women were active partners rather than passive objects, the nudity was minimised behind closed doors, and perhaps most significantly, the women had faces.

tongue-in-cheek

The ASB dismissed complaints against the Dufour ad because it viewed the sexual connotations as a "tongue-in-cheek play on words" although this phrase was never defined in the context of the advert. Presumably the ASB was implying that Gillette were insincere in their claim that shower gel would give men enough sex appeal to attract multiple women. Again, the ASB never acknowledged a difference between sex and sex discrimination and the objectification of women was never addressed.

The ASB dismissals are routinely stated in simplistic, single sentence rulings. Phrases like "tongue-in-cheek" and "light-hearted" are used to describe the ASB's lack of seriousness towards advertisement that discriminates against women. In Victoria, the Office of Women's Policy provides guidelines to assist advertisers create positive portrayals of women in advertising. These guidelines, state that the use of humour "does not serve as an excuse to stereotype women."

Positive Reinforcement

Perhaps the biggest fault of the ASB is their inability to promote empowering images of women in advertising. The founding member, and recently retired chief of the AANA, admited to this defect:

"If everyone was not satisfied [with the ASB], it was because the system was designed to reflect prevailing community standards, not dictate them."

Certainly this is debatable. Community standards, an indistinguishable descriptor, acknowledge that sex discrimination should not be tolerated; how else would mechanisms like the Office of Discrimination have been created.

In fact, the ASB has the ability to support a dialogue on empowering advertising. On their website, the ASB provides a system for positive feedback, similar to its complaint process. However, this feedback is neither reported nor made public on the ASB website. Like much of the structure of the ASB, how these reports are used is a matter of self-regulation. It seems that there can be little reasons for advertisers to alter sex stereotyping.

Yet there are examples worth mentioning. Take the recent example of a Yoplait television commercial. It begins with a close up of a woman eating yoghurt and discussing her busy day. Instead of the usual stereotype of children and housework, the woman breaks into a run, and is seen apprehending a purse snatcher, the busy day is her life of a police woman.

I just hope the advertisers weren't trying to be humorous.

If you would like to make a complaint, or commend an advertiser, contact The Adverstising Standards Bureau

Time to Get On Board the Long Road Towards Equality

- Aron Paul

'You're on your own.' That is perhaps the best summation of Labor MP Lindsay Tanner's address to the Pride or Prejudice forum at Melbourne Town Hall on 16th June. While the less generous among the 100 strong crowd might have found his message galling, his honesty is helpful in assessing where gay and lesbians stand as a community and the nature of the task ahead. 'The ALP', Tanner told us 'is not a vanguard party' but a 'mainstream party'. The essence of this message was that the ALP has decided it cannot or will not back GBLTI rights from opposition even when individuals members such as Tanner may be sympathetic. This is important to know, because it means that the battle to achieve full equality cannot rely on an appeal to political parties. Neither the Liberals, who refused to send a representative to the forum, nor Labor will help us.

Democrats leader Senator Lyn Alison, who also spoke at the forum with Greens candidate Gemma Pinnell, illustrated the opposing strategy of the 'minor parties' not to 'let sleeping dogs lie', but also pointed out its limitations given refusal of Labor to take a stand. Sadly, June 2005 marks the departure of Democrats Senator and gay rights activist Brian Greig from the Senate, and the concurrent control of the upper house by the Coalition government. The Senate results for the last federal election have considerably weakened the cause of progressive politics in parliament as a whole and we cannot rely on our friends in the smaller parties who have been weakened to make the same impact in a parliament overwhelmingly hostile or indifferent to our community. The Sexuality Discrimination bill introduced by Sid Spindler in 1992 that sought to remove all discrimination on grounds of sexuality will remain undebated, and the Marriage Amendment (2004) bill, that redefined marriage to exclude same-sex couples, will remain unchallenged until the larger political parties decide that community opinion is with us.

Facilitating this shift in 'mainstream' public opinion then is our task as a community over the coming years. We have to show politicians like Tanner, the ALP and Liberals that we are not 'on our own'. This means both strengthening the links between gay and lesbian community groups and perhaps more importantly those links with the broader community. We do not want to see a repeat of the fiasco of the 2004 Senate Inquiry into the Marriage Amendment bill, where antigay submissions numbered in the thousands and our own in the hundreds. We know there are more than a few hundred progressive Australians out there, let along GBLTI people, so we clearly need to get more organised.

One of the reasons 'mainstream' parties have abandoned gay and lesbian Australians is that they have seen a stronger, more cohesive and louder 'niche' in the new fundamentalist Right, whose flagship is their antigay agenda. Given developments in the United States where this style of neo-conservative identity politics originated, we cannot take this challenge laying down. Groups such as the so called Australian Family Association (AFA) have declared that they are opposed not only to recognition of same-sex marriage, but to recognition of any kind that 'makes homosexuality acceptable' socially or otherwise. Left to set the political agenda, these groups will not only prevent reform, but attempt to wind it back as demonstrated in the previous state election in Western Australia. Bill Meuhlenberg of the AFA has called human rights 'vague notions' and continues to further a political rhetoric that marginalised us and endangers the health and safety of us all, our young people and families in particular.

Fundamentalist churches however do not speak for most Christians, let alone most Australians. To date they have rallied their troops against an 'international homosexual agenda' that does not exist. Rather, the GBLTI community, like the progressive and liberal community more generally, has been fragmented and demoralised by the vehemency of the attacks on the values that lay at the heart of the Australia we knew ­those of human rights, openness and diversity. Thus, as Marion Maddox has pointed out in her book 'God Under Howard', the fundamentalist Right in Australia has achieved a political influence far in excess of its numbers. Not only has it captured the government of the day, but it has also spooked the opposition into believing it stands for 'mainstream' Australia. We must not let ourselves be similarly spooked but fight back to win back the heart of Australia.

In 1996 John Howard came to power in part promising to govern for a supposedly 'silent majority' that felt oppressed by political correctness. Nearly a decade later there has arisen a new political correctness far to the Right of evolving community opinion. In June this year John Howard felt compelled by the revolt of Petro Giorgiou and his small band of liberals to significantly roll back mandatory detention policy. This was not only the work of a small band of parliamentarians, but the result of the tireless work of refugee advocates and community groups like Rural Australians for Refugees in changing broader attitudes. Typical of the new Right Wing political correctness, Liberal MP Sophie Panopoulos branded Gorgiou a 'political terrorist', yet ended up looking like an idiot herself as her prime minister effectively surrendered to their key demands.

This points to the fact that John Howard is a little more savvy than his Liberal colleagues. He is happy to accommodate the rise of Right wing fundamentalism in Australia, but he is no doubt aware that Australia is not yet the mirror image of America. Here, progressive liberal opinion on social issues is stronger if less well organised, and the appeal of fundamentalist religion especially is historically weaker. Australians are essentially a pragmatic people distrustful of political ideology and religious extremes.

It is our task now to wake up this new silent majority in Australia, to mobilise and organise moderate and progressive opinion. To do this we cannot rely on the Labor party. As the June forum illustrated, the parliamentary opposition will only follow rather than lead community opinion. Neither can we rely on the smaller parties. The Democrats and Greens deserve our support for standing up for human rights and equality, but they are in a weakened position in parliament. Our best means of helping them is by helping ourselves and by helping each other.

The Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby has formed an Alliances working group to step up to do our bit in this task, but we need more volunteers. If you want to help, contact us and get involved.

Dr Aron Paul is a committee member of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby and teaches politics at La Trobe University.


MEN'S AND WOMEN'S INTERESTS:
Are They Interesting to Men and Women?


-Lyle Daymond

Many articles and books have been written about the contents of magazines and how they create, shape and reinforce modes of behaviour, body image and social attitudes. A lot is also in the public domain about the marketing strategies of big corporations, but sometimes the most obvious examples of dubious activity in this sector is so commonplace that it's often not acknowledged.

Most magazine racks in newsagents and the book store chains have sections that are rather curiously defined as Men's Interest and Women's Interest. Given the plethora of magazine sub-sections that will be used in a chain store, you could be forgiven for thinking that any mainstream, commercial production that would be interesting to men and women would already have a category. Any subject could also appeal to both men and women, so why is there a need for this type of crude gender stereotyping? Obviously we need the influence of a Big Brother to steer us away from taboo subjects. Like a tribal society or clan we have secrets that can't be revealed to the opposite sex!

Looking at the Men's Interest section in my local Borders it soon became apparent that only two types of magazine were present: those devoted to tattoos and the "lads mags" like Maxim, FHM and Ralph. While I haven't adorned my body with ink, it's clear to anyone walking down the street that this aspect of our culture is shared quite happily by men and women. If you're interested in body art, I would think you would prefer to find your magazines in a culture section than associated with Ralph. A product of Consolidated Press, part of the media empire of Australia's richest man, Ralph purports to be aimed at the fun loving, Australian male who has an appreciation for the beautiful women of the world. That's right, Warnie has his own magazine, a paean to bogan behaviour, crude jokes and female nudity! Obviously this part of Men's Interest will only be interesting to certain men.

Mens Interests?

The Women's Interest section is usually to be found gently nestled among the Female Fashion, Young Female Fashion and Cookery areas, an indication of what you can expect. It's also noticeable that this section will be larger and more prominent in most stores than the Men's Interest section will be. Seemingly it's more important to point out to women the types of magazines they should be reading and to make it obvious enough so that stray males can quickly turn back to the sporting section.

While the Women's Interest section in Borders' Carlton store has approximately thirty titles, this isn't an indicator of the diversity of subjects that are interesting to women. Instead, what you will see traditional magazines like Women's Weekly, with their strange mish-mash of articles (warnings on eating disorders with helpings dieting advice), their flashier and trashier celebrity gossip cousins, like Who Weekly, and magazines that show that a woman really belongs in the home. It's somewhat depressing to see that after more than a century of the women's movement and the struggle for equality in Western culture, that magazines can still blithely assume that homemakers will be female and in need of instruction in the domestic arts.

Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, one thing that is not part of Women's Interest is feminism. Let's not have any ideas in a section devoted to women, rather let's pique their interest in the mundane, trivial and domestic. Happily feminist magazines or any magazines devoted to intellectual pursuits will be tucked away in a quiet corner, where only the determined aficionado can find them.

Surely newsagents and bookshops could display a little honesty in what they sell and instead of Men's and Women's Interest we see categories that reflect content. It can't be that difficult to have sections called Celebrity Gossip and Bogan Behaviour.

Sin in the City

- Mark Potter

In the screen adaptation of Frank Miller's comic book series, Sin City, the directors, Miller and Rodriguez, confront the viewer with a matrix of brilliant visuals, graphic violence and sexual fantasy. The film is dominated by its male characters, a point made explicitly from the first scene. The visual elements of the opening draw us in seductively into the monochromatic world of Sin City. A man walks slowly toward a beautiful woman in a red dress: 'Her perfume is sweet promise that brings tears to my eyes. I tell her that everything will be all right; that I'll save her from whatever she's scared of and take her far, far away.' We see them as potential lovers until the shock of the woman's murder. Far from being a saviour, the man turns out to be a killer. Sex and sexual violence, and the power over women that sexual violence gives to men, are intimately intertwined in this film.

The violence in Sin City is highly stylised, in keeping with its comic book origins, and the formula established by other "cool" films such as Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. In fact Sin City owes more to this genre of films that disguise their explicit violence behind clever scripting and editing, than to Film Noir, of which Sin City is touted as an example. One important departure from Film Noir is the place of women. Far from being the clever protagonists of classic Noir, the women of Sin City are victims, and expressly sexual ones at that. There is no doubt that Miller and Rodriguez have made a visually stunning film, one that faithfully recreates the action, imagery and feel of Miller's comic strip. Yet at its heart the film blends sexism and misogyny to explore the dark sexual fantasies of adult men. They are fantasies in which women are brutalized and dominated through sexual violence.

The message of the film is that no women can be both strong and good. Women need men to save them from an evil world. The policewoman Lucille is the closest the film comes to an independent powerful female character. But even she is ultimately made to bow before male patriarchy. She is physically and symbolically disempowered when she has her hand cut off. Lucille doesn't meet the fate of the other women whose heads are displayed like trophies on the dungeon wall. Trophy wives you might say, as all are young and beautiful. And all are the victims of depraved sexual violence. There is no capability for the women to save themselves. Even the powerful band of women who protect their business in Old Town from marauding men, in the end are threatened, and finally saved by men.

The women of Sin City are in the main one dimensional, patronised, and largely defined by their scantily clad bodies. Apart from Lucille, the women of Sin City play weak supporting roles, and as such their nudity is a reflection of their exploitation and appropriation by the men around them. They are effectively victims, with men either their attackers or protectors. Lucille offers the possibilty of escaping patricarchal dominance but even she dies violently after Marv helps her escape from the cell. Ostensibly the leader of the prostitute gang, Gail, is a powerful female figure in the movie. Gail and her gang have used the system to broker a deal with the police that allows them to operate independently and protect themselves with guns. She effectively controls the action as the policeman Jackie Boy and his cronies are visciously despatched by a samurai sword wielding Miho. Miho is a powerful warrior figure in the vein of Uma Thurman's character in Kill Bill. Yet she doesn't speak. Her silence sets her apart from the other female characters. She only has power over men by being different to her female companions, by being more violent than the men she kills. By being more manly.

While Gail and her gang offer the hope of females usurping patriarchy, they are soon brought to heel. Dwight and Gail have been lovers before and, in the crisis following the discovery that Jackie Boy is a cop, Dwight takes control. Despite a brief moment of protest, Gail gives in to his demands and plans. The women of Old Town therefore, are stripped of their power, and ultimately their dominatrix outfits, all breasts, buttocks and fishnets, reflect male sexual fantasy. Gail's real potential for power is undermined by Dwight's possession of her. She ends up captured by her enemies, waiting for a man to save her, which Dwight does.

Perhaps the darkest of sexual fantasies is reserved for the "heroine" of the film, Nancy. It may be argued that the resolve of Nancy in stoically taking a whipping from the crazy yellow killer is a statement against this. But really, it's just another form of sexual gratification. And Nancy hardly rings true in any case. How many eleven year old girls enter a hospital room by themselves and declare to their saviour that she is still a virgin! On his release from goal, Bruce Willis' character is pushing seventy years of age. He meekly resists the temptation of sleeping with a nineteen year old woman. Though he takes a shower, presumably cold, the inevitable is only interrupted by the killer's return. Though Willis takes his own life, ostensibly to save hers, maybe he is acting against a darker impulse, the impulse to consummate his relationship with Nancy.

It is never revealed what the beautiful woman at the beginning of the film was scared of. What she was running from. The appearance of the assassin at the end of the film suggests it has something to do with the prostitutes of Old Town. Ultimately the assassin's motives are hidden from us. His gun is not. The "sweet promise" of Sin City lies in its gorgeous visuals and face-paced action. The silent killer of the film is the subordination of women to male fantasy and the use of violence to keep women where they belong. In Old Town, in their heels, lace and leather.

WANTED
Young Australian Women Aged 18 to 23

- Penelope Robinson

WANTED
Do you fit this description?
If yes, we would love you to participate in our study.

WHY?
As part of my studies in Sociology at the University of Newcastle, NSW, I am currently conducting research into the attitudes and expectations of young Australian women. The study is investigating what young women think about work, relationships, children and feminism. I want to find out about the decisions young women make and expect to make with regard to career, motherhood and how they believe they will combine work and family responsibilities. This project will also be examining how popular culture shapes women's perceptions, values and expectations.

WHAT IS INVOLVED?
If you agree to participate in the study you will be asked to take part in ONE of the following:
· A telephone interview, which will last approximately one hour.
· An interview carried out via email, to be completed in your own time.

As a research participant, you would be asked to talk about a range of issues. For example, you may be asked to discuss what sort of job or career you have planned, if/when you plan to have children, your perceptions of feminism, how you think your life differs from previous generations, what kinds of TV shows, films, books and music you enjoy.
If you decide to participate, you may withdraw from the study at any time without explanation.

WHO TO CONTACT?
If you are interested in being involved in the study or would like further information, please contact Penelope Robinson at:
 Penelope.Robinson@studentmail.newcastle.edu.au or
Phone: 0402 956 420 (call or text message). For more information, visit her website
Thank you for considering this invitation.

This project has been approved by the University's Human Research Ethics Committee, Approval No. H-026-0405. Should you have any concerns about your rights as a participant in this research, or if you have a complaint about the manner in which the research has been conducted, it may be given to the researcher's supervisor Associate Professor Deborah Stevenson
Email: Deborah.Stevenson@newcastle.edu.au or
Phone: 02 4921 6031.
If an independent person is preferred, contact:

The Human Research Ethics Officer,
Research Office,
The Chancellery,
The University of Newcastle,
University Drive,
Callaghan,
NSW 2308,

Phone (02) 4921 6333,
Email Human-Ethics@newcastle.edu.au


Transparent Advertising and Notification Of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005

Senator Natasha Stott Despoja

23 Jun 2005

The Transparent Advertising and Notification of Pregnancy Counselling Services Bill 2005 seeks to prohibit misleading and deceptive advertising and notification of pregnancy counselling services; promote transparency and full choice in the notification and advertising of pregnancy counselling services; improve public health; and minimise the difficulties associated with obtaining advice to deal with unplanned pregnancy.

Although the Trade Practices Act outlaws conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose or the quantity of any services, most pregnancy counselling services are not subject to the Trade Practices Act because they usually do not charge for the information and other services they provide and are thus not considered to be engaging in trade or commerce.

This bill essentially makes pregnancy counselling services subject to the same laws regarding misleading advertising as organisations, which are engaged in trade or commerce.
I have been campaigning for greater transparency in the advertising and notification of pregnancy counselling services since last year, when concerns about the way one pregnancy counselling service, Pregnancy Counselling Australia, was listed in the White Pages was first brought to my attention.

Those who contacted my office at the time were concerned that the way Pregnancy Counselling Australia was listed in the White Pages gave the impression it was an impartial or non-directive pregnancy counselling service, yet in fact it is run by a pro-life organisation, and does not refer for terminations.

I raised this issue in the Senate in August last year, and subsequently wrote to Sensis - the company which publishes and distributes the White Pages - urging it to remove Pregnancy Counselling Australia from the emergency and community help pages of the White Pages, and replace it with a non-directive pregnancy counselling service. I also urged Sensis to engage in corrective advertising to advise the public of the true nature of the service Pregnancy Counselling Australia provides.
Sensis responded to my letter by writing that, following concerns raised in 2003, it had, in conjunction with Pregnancy Counselling Australia, already altered two previous listings: Abortion Trauma and Crisis Pregnancy Counselling, to read Pregnancy Counselling Australia (Pregnancy termination alternatives and post-termination counselling.

Sensis went on to explain that Pregnancy Counselling Australia complies with its rules for listing in the 24 hour Service and Community Help sections of the White Pages, which include that the content of the listing must not misrepresent the nature of the service provided. In other words, Sensis believes the listing is as clear as it needs to be, and does not need to be altered - let alone removed. However, Birthline, the group behind this service, is not mentioned in the listing, nor is the fact that Pregnancy Counselling Australia does not provide referrals for terminations.

Sensis response, and my increasing awareness of a number of other pregnancy counselling services which like Pregnancy Counselling Australia, do not refer for terminations yet do not mention this in their advertising and notification material, has encouraged me to continue to push for greater transparency in this area, to ensure women are able to make informed choices about who they contact for information when they are deciding whether they can continue with a pregnancy, are seeking support in continuing their pregnancy, or have decided to have an abortion.
Specifically, my Bill does the following.

Firstly, it prohibits pregnancy counselling services from printing, publishing, distributing, displaying or broadcasting (or causing, permitting or authorising to be printed, published, distributed, displayed or broadcast) any advertising material that is misleading or deceptive as to the services it provides, or any notification of its services that is misleading or deceptive as to the nature of the services it provides.

Secondly, it requires that advertising and notifications by pregnancy counselling services which do not refer for terminations to include a statement that This service does not provide referrals for terminations of pregnancy or a like statement.

Breaching either of these conditions would result in a penalty.

Thirdly, my bill would ensure that telephone directories such as the White Pages could only include non-directive pregnancy counselling services in their 24-hour health and help call pages of these directories.

In my bill, non-directive pregnancy counselling service refers to a service that offers counselling, information services, referrals and support on all three pregnancy options (raising the child, adoption, and termination) and will provide referrals to terminations of pregnancy services where requested.

I would have liked this clause to be able to read that the directories must list a non-directive pregnancy counselling service in these pages, but unfortunately, due to a lack of Federal Government funding, there are currently no national 24 hour pro-choice pregnancy counselling services.
In fact, there are only two dedicated pro-choice pregnancy counselling services in Australia - Children by Choice in Queensland, and the Bessie Smyth Foundation in NSW. Neither receives any Commonwealth funding.

On the other hand, the Government allocates over $240,000 each year to the Australian Federation of Pregnancy Support Services (AFPSS) for pregnancy counselling services (the AFPSS is linked to pro-life organisations and does not refer for terminations).

The next clause of the bill would ensure that where a participating State receives financial assistance from the Commonwealth for making payments to pregnancy counselling services and the service is found to have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, or has not met the notification requirement of the Act, financial assistance is not payable until the service has ceased to engage in the misleading or deceptive conduct or has met the notification requirements.

This bill also makes Commonwealth-funded pregnancy counselling services ineligible to receive a grant of financial assistance unless it first discloses whether it is a pregnancy counselling service which does not provide referrals for terminations of pregnancy, or a non-directive pregnancy counselling service.

Additional reporting requirements contained in the bill include that the Minister must report annually on the amount of each payment to each State and each service provider, the name of each service provider receiving the payment, and whether each service provider is a pregnancy counselling service which does not provide referrals for terminations of pregnancy, or a non-directive pregnancy counselling service.


back to index



Pregnancy Counselling Australia

Sign the petition

View the article