The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) is considering lifting a 12-year-old ban on foreign aid funding for abortion services, a proposal which has sparked significant divisive debate across the entire Australian political spectrum. The current policy prevents Australian aid funds from being used for "activities that involve abortion training or services, or research trials or activities, which directly involve abortion drugs."  In practice, this has prohibited aid recipients from providing women access to abortion services, even when an abortion would be necessary to save her life, as well as information and education about safe and unsafe abortions. 

The parallels to the US global gag rule are obvious. The Australian policy was instigated by pro-life independent Senator Brian Harradine. Despite the fact that Senator Harradine retired in 2005, the aid restrictions have remained. Senator Harradine also secured a ban on emergency contraception, which was overturned in 2002, and RU-486 (Mifepristone), which was overturned in February 2006 after a conscience vote in Federal Parliament. 

A strong opponent can been found in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population and Development, which in May 2007 published a paper arguing for amendment of the funding restrictions. The report, "Sexual and Reproductive Health and the Millennium Development Goals in the Australian Aid Program - the Way Forward" rightly described the restrictions as "cruel and illogical." The report also recommended that family planning, contraception, and sexual and reproductive health services should be integrated with HIV/AIDS programs and that the proportion of Australia's overseas aid budget devoted to sexual and reproductive health should be increased to at least 10 percent. At the time the report was released, in the lead up to the last Australian election, it was ignored by former Prime Minister Howard.

However, change is in the air.

The current Prime Minister Rudd, who beat Howard in the last election in January 2008 thanks to voters seeking fresh leadership and new ideas, is thankfully reconsidering the issue. 

This change could not possibly be needed more urgently given the grave harm to women's health and rights that result from the narrow-minded restrictions. Australia's aid program focuses on Asia and the Pacific, with selective assistance also provided to Africa and the Middle East. Approximately, 50 percent of unsafe abortions globally occur in the Asia-Pacific region and about one-third of these results in maternal death. I recently reported on the dire family planning needs of East Timor, a country that suffers 68,000 unsafe abortions a year. Australia has indeed been one of the strongest supporters of East Timor, with an estimated overseas development aid for 2008-2009 of $AUS96.3 million. It is truly tragic that misdirection of these funds in any way contributes to the stark number of maternal deaths amongst Timorese women resulting from unsafe abortion.

Australia will also have an estimated overseas development aid of $AUS113.5 million for South Asia from 2008-2009, covering Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Nepal has already experienced hampered family planning services under the global gag rule, reflecting negatively on the likely impact of AusAID's guidelines. In India, too, at least 18,000 women die every year as a result of unsafe abortion.

Any policy that denies women access to comprehensive family planning information and safe legal abortion services leaves women little choice but to seek unsafe services, despite the likelihood of death or the health complications that inevitably result. 

Concerning for those waiting for change, however, is the voice of Senator Ron Boswell, a conservative of the National Party. Boswell is leading efforts to keep the restrictions in place. Warning Prime Minister Rudd that he could face a backlash from Christian voters, he recently commented: "[Prime Minister Rudd] cuddled up to the churches for the last election...If he does this to them then they'll turn upon him." Ultimately, the fate of women's health in the region is largely in the hands of Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, who will make the final decision on whether to amend the government policy.

It is an inherent contradiction that Australia's overseas development agency, whose aim is "to assist developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development" has guidelines that restrict women's access to a full range of family planning information and services. Australia's "aid" to countries in the region cannot be truly effective unless it aligns with, rather than is contrary to, the countries' needs and priorities. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the centrality of reproductive health to development with a high-level commitment to achieving universal access to reproductive health by 2015. This clearly reflects the importance of integrating this goal in overall strategies for sustainable development. It is not that the Australian Government does not recognize the value of the MDGs, but rather its focus reflects a prioritization of some goals, like climate change and business development, over others like reproductive health. 

Chief of the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance Jane Singleton has encapsulated the issue: "This is not about providing abortions in countries where it is illegal but providing full access to family planning and education about unsafe abortion and where abortion is legal, to safe abortion."

Interestingly, Australia has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, with relatively broad accessibility on paper and in practice. If the rights of Australian women to make choices about their reproductive health are guaranteed, there is no reason why these rights protections should be denied to women in the region. An AusAID commitment to ending poverty and gender inequity in the region demands abolition of these funding restrictions.