It's no secret that Zed Seselja is a devout Catholic and a prominent member of the socially conservative wing of the Liberal Party. So when the ACT Liberal senator appeared at an election debate on Tuesday hosted by the Australian Christian Lobby and declared the protest-free zone around Civic's abortion clinic to be an intrusion on freedom of speech and religion, the first reaction of Canberrans was probably: "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Barr government's decision in 2015 to legislate for the imposition of a "privacy zone" around the Dr Marie clinic in the ACT Health building was politically and legally charged. Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury, the bill's sponsor, said women going to and from the clinic were being verbally harassed and even photographed or videoed by right-to-life protesters. The creation of buffer zones, he said, would ensure the right of these women to privacy.
The ACT Right to Life Association has always denied any intimidation was taking place. It said its members were merely maintaining "peaceful vigils" to remind passers-by of the wickedness and immorality of terminating pregnancies. The bill's framers saw it rather differently, however, setting down relatively harsh penalties for breaching the buffer zone. Anyone charged with importuning or intimidating a woman within the zone is liable to be fined up to $3750. Those publishing images or videos of people entering or leaving the clinic face fines of up to $7500 or six months' imprisonment.
When the first person charged and fined for breaching the "protected area" said earlier this year that he would challenge the infringement notice, police withdrew it, citing "ambiguities" about the boundaries of what comprised the zone. The government responded promptly by extending the zone to include surrounding streets, alleyways, footpaths and outdoor areas.
While the general public appears to be not particularly troubled by "privacy zones" for clients of the Dr Marie clinic, Senator Seselja is right to look askance at the legislation. The impingement on people's right to protest is arguably mild in this case, but any erosion of the rights of free speech and association is cause for concern because these are so frequently implied in the law or the constitution, rather than stated unequivocally. The rush to enact freedom of association restrictions on bikie gangs shows just how susceptible governments are to winding back civil liberties.
If there's a perception that Senator Seselja spoke up on Tuesday only because of his pro-life leanings, his commitment to free speech (and his support for winding back the more illiberal aspects of the Racial Discrimination Act) is long-standing. His attitude in this respect is commendable. Labor senator Katy Gallagher's decision to attend the debate as a supporter of the current abortion clinic laws, and to defend that position, is also creditable. By contrast, ACT Greens Senate candidate Christine Hobbs boycotted the event, and in doing so lost the opportunity to articulate her party's views on the matter.
