Bills

Termination of Pregnancy Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (20:45): I would like to make a contribution this evening on the abortion legislation that is currently before our parliament. I indicate straight up that I will not be supporting this bill at its second reading, but it is my sincere hope that this bill will be amended in such a way that I will feel comfortable supporting it becoming law at its third reading.

In saying that, I do acknowledge that a number of hurdles have to be gone through. There are a number of amendments—not only the amendment that I have moved but amendments from colleagues on both sides of this house—that would have to be passed before I felt comfortable seeing this legislation pass.

I will not be voting for this bill at its second reading because I believe it is out of step with the will of the South Australian community. As a local MP representing Adelaide's southern suburbs, I have been contacted by many hundreds of people who have raised concerns about this bill, while I have only been contacted by a handful who would like to see it passed in its current form.

I am acutely aware, as many members no doubt are, that there are many passions involved in this debate, and I am conscious that by taking a sample from my electorate, peppered with various anecdotes and particular biases and motivations, I might not be getting a particularly scientific or rigorous sample of exactly how my electorate feels. However, I am confident that I have the measure of the people I represent in the seat of Black and I feel that the majority of those will be pleased to hear that I am making attempts to amend this bill and to improve this legislation.

I want to outline clearly the position from which I approach this legislation. I enter this chamber as someone who accepts that there is a place for abortion within our medical system. I believe that abortion should not be classed as a criminal act and that South Australia's legislation should and must be modernised to move the act of terminating a pregnancy from the criminal code to a more appropriate place within health laws. I am of an unwavering belief that this is where the act of abortion should be codified and that it is appropriate for a framework for safe abortions to be provided as a legislated medical procedure in the 21^st century.

Further, I strongly believe that the majority of South Australians are comfortable with abortion being legislated as a health procedure. I believe that, like me, the majority of South Australians believe there is a place for abortion in society. While they perhaps would prefer there were not as many abortions carried out—I know it is something that people do not necessarily want to turn their minds to on a day-to-day basis—they accept the existence of abortion and that the ability to terminate a pregnancy, for a variety of reasons, is part of life in the society in which we live.

However, I believe there are some threshold issues for this bill which must be discussed. The most significant of those is the capacity of this legislation to create a pathway to late-term abortion. While I have just mentioned that I believe most people in society, and certainly most people who make representations to me, feel there is a place for the availability of abortion in some form, I strongly believe that the majority of South Australians are uncomfortable with late-term abortion—that is, abortions which could occur after a child would ordinarily live with or without medical intervention outside of a mother's womb.

As such, I have concluded that most South Australians want their parliament to create a legislative framework in which late-term abortions are carefully governed, appropriately restricted and are by and large an option of last resort. It is for this reason that I have chosen to move an amendment in my name to secure a legislated gestational limit within the bill, whereby abortions will not be able to occur beyond 22 weeks and six days. That is the medically accepted age—and it is accepted in this legislated, it is accepted by our Department for Health and Wellbeing in South Australia and it is accepted by our Attorney-General—at which a baby is known to be able to survive externally from a mother's body.

Within the amendment will be what I deem to be sensible exceptions to enable an abortion to take place for a number of reasons, including if the life of a mother of an unborn child were to be at risk, or if a medical emergency were to unfold. My amendment clearly limits this new abortion law, and it does so because I believe the term, which is currently held within this legislation, being 'medically appropriate' is simply too wide. I do not know what 'medically appropriate' is. The member for Lee just made a very similar statement.

I hear arguments from those who would disagree with this amendment and disagree with my stance on this legislation that we need to trust the experts, the medicos, the doctors who have gone through years of training and developed a particular set of skills that enables them to make an interpretation as to what medically appropriate is and so be able to therefore deliver an abortion at this late term.

I actually think we should be defining the parameters through which our doctors do their jobs. I think that is okay, and I know we provide parameters for many people to do aspects of their jobs, and we provide those parameters across a whole range of different careers and professions within legislation, depending often on the sort of risk that that job poses to the health and safety of individuals or groups within our society. I see absolutely no problem at all in creating a safe and sensible framework to help our medical experts make a decision around the provision of a late-term abortion.

Some speakers who have made presentations to this house have said in their contributions that the law currently, after 28 weeks, allows abortions to occur for mental health reasons or psychosocial reasons or however we want to describe that, but I do not believe that that is the case. It is very much my understanding from the current law that an abortion can only occur after 28 weeks, which is an outdated threshold not based on the modern available medical science, to save the life of the mother or another unborn baby, not for any other reason and certainly not for mental health or psychosocial reasons.

My central reason for pursuing improvements to this bill to limit late-term abortion is that I believe that at a certain point in a pregnancy a threshold is crossed between an unborn baby being 100 per cent reliant on its mother for its survival to a point where medical science—or perhaps not medical science, depending on that phase of the pregnancy—enables that child to have a fighting chance of living externally from the mother's womb.

At that point, my thinking deviates from the principle that a woman can and should have autonomy over her body to a point where another human life is involved in that decision. It is a simple biological fact that we have two, or potentially more, lives to consider: the mother, who clearly has many rights and many decisions that should be respected and upheld, but then also an unborn child who, unlike the mother, cannot express opinion, cannot protect itself and is the epitome of vulnerable.

This, I believe, requires the state to provide extra layers of protections to give that unborn child a chance of survival. I do not believe that my position is extreme in any way. Anyone who has held a premature baby I believe should be able to reach a conclusion that if that baby were within the mother we should not be confronted with a situation that that child could be aborted for particular reasons that are not governed by legislation.

It makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable that a child who could survive outside the mother's womb could be terminated because of psychosocial reasons. We know that this is not commonplace. I am not saying that the laws that are before the parliament, if passed in their current form, would create some sort slippery slope that would see hundreds of late-term abortions occur in South Australia. I do not believe that is the case by any means.

We do know that if we look to other jurisdictions, and particularly data from Victoria, there are late-term abortions occurring for reasons which are held under that banner of psychosocial. That makes me feel exceptionally uncomfortable and that is why I have presented an amendment to this house to provide that framework for our medical professionals to make these decisions and to, importantly, limit the pathway to late-term abortion in this state.

I also intend to support a range of other amendments on matters including sex selection abortion, something that I find to be quite abhorrent in its concept. I am told and assured that it really does not happen in South Australia. If that is the case, if it does not happen in this state, why not create another layer of protection? Why not translate it into legislation? That is why I will be supporting the member for Playford's amendment around sex selection abortion.

I will also be looking very carefully at and I am very likely to support enhancing the requirements around conscientious objection. I believe strongly in providing people with the freedom to make those decisions according to their conscience in the workplace. I am given some assurances that the current legislation supports conscientious objection, but there are also proponents of amendments who tell me that the conscientious objection clauses within this legislation ought to be strengthened, and doctors tell me that.

I know that the AMA has one view of this, but there are many doctors who have come to me and said, 'The AMA does not represent us.' It has taken a particularly legalistic view around this legislation, perhaps even an ideological view, and they do not believe that they have been represented by that peak body. They want extra protections.

It is my intention to support amendments that will provide medical assistance to a child born as a consequence of a so-called failed late-term abortion. I will support that amendment if my own amendment is unsuccessful, and that amendment is being moved and has been drafted by the member for West Torrens. It is my intention to support amendments that will expand reporting and data collection around the occurrence of abortions in South Australia, and I will also support a further amendment by the member for West Torrens that will seek to ban the sale of foetal matter.

This is an immensely challenging piece of legislation before the parliament. Conscience issues always are. I was elected in 2014. I am in my seventh year as a representative in the House of Assembly, and you do wrestle with social conscience issues that are brought before the parliament. I have recently been mentioned in the paper as a devout Christian.

I have never actually described myself as such in a specific sense, but I am someone with a Christian faith and that does influence me to an extent in terms of making these decisions—absolutely. It is the way that I grew up. It is part of my personal character, my DNA, but I did say in my maiden speech before this place that I came here as someone with a faith but not as someone who wanted to lecture parliament, or lecture society or the electorate I represent, in a pious way.

I, of course, will be shaped by my faith from time to time in the decisions that I make before this place, but equally I will be shaped by many other things. I will be shaped by friendships, by connections, by research, by where I grew up—and I have obviously grown up in two countries on opposite sides of the world. I will also be shaped by personal experiences. We have heard a number of personal experiences, as is often the case with conscience issues, shared with the House of Assembly this evening and today, and the member for West Torrens' personal experiences of his own family particularly spoke to me.

My experience around the value of life really comes from the very premature birth of my younger cousin, Rachel, who was born in September 1997. She was a couple of months early, and 24 or 25 years ago being a couple of months premature was a real fight for survival. Medical advancements even in the last quarter of a century have jumped forward substantially.

I remember meeting Rachel for the first time in mid-October, after she had been transferred from Dumfries hospital, the big regional hospital, to the local country town. I went in and I met her for the first time. She was the smallest thing I have ever seen. She remains the smallest thing I have ever seen. My aunt said, 'This is Rachel and you are going to be really good friends.' We are really good friends. I am 12 years older than her.

We send each other a Snapchat of something every day, and seven months ago she sent me a Snapchat of her newborn. She is someone who means a great deal to me and she fought for life for her first few weeks. She was the smallest human I have ever seen. We still call her 'wee Rachel'. She will always be called 'wee Rachel'. I will send her the YouTube video of this speech to embarrass her.

When I met her, I was instilled with a sense of a value for life. She could have remained in the womb for another eight weeks, but for particular reasons of medical emergency that was not to be the case. Instead, she was born those couple of months premature, and she has had an immensely fulfilling life for the last 24 years, to the point where she has had her own son, Jack.

It gives me a great sense of grief—and I really struggle with this—that someone of her size and state of development could be aborted under these laws. I do not think people would make such a decision lightly. I do not think, as the member for West Torrens foreshadowed in his speech, that people would just wander into an abortion clinic and say, 'I've changed my mind. I want to get rid of this baby,' in a late-term state.

I do not think people do that. I think in every abortion, and particularly in late-term abortions, those decisions are undertaken with immense emotion and difficulty, but I want to create a set of laws that South Australians can rely on, that have the protections in place so that those decisions are made in a medically appropriate way, but in a way that is acceptable and accepted by our society in South Australia.

The current laws before us at the moment do not satisfy my conscience, and I think it is okay to say that. I am quite proud to live in a state where I can say that, where we can have these discussions in a relatively compassionate, structured, democratic, evidence-based, cordial way. It has not always been cordial in this debate. I have seen emails and statements, particularly on social media, that have not reflected well on the people who have sent those emails on both sides of the debate.

I hope people will support my amendment. That will then create a situation where I can feel I will be in a much greater position to support this bill at its third reading. I do hope that, no matter what people think and wherever their conscience leads them to cast their vote for both amendments and the second and third readings, it is done with love, compassion and decency.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (21:05): I want to express my thanks this evening to all in my community who have written, called or dropped into my office to share with me their views about the Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2020 before us tonight. I have read every piece of correspondence—and there are many—both for and against.

I want to put on the record that when I vote it will be after careful consideration of each of the points that have been raised. It will follow having attended numerous briefing sessions, having asked many questions and having listened to church representatives and considered points raised by members of the legal profession and the Australian Medical Association, after having spoken to doctors and other medical professionals regarding the process and having heard from and spoken with many parents, grandparents and young people in my electorate.

Also, it will be after recollection of conversations over the years with friends, former colleagues, acquaintances and constituents who have been faced with very difficult decisions regarding continuing or ending a pregnancy, all for very different reasons. Many of them are desperately wanting a baby but facing devastating consequences. I am sure no woman makes the decision without significant consideration and often great heartache.

I support the intent of the bill where it repeals abortion from the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and creates a new standalone act, the Termination of Pregnancy Act, to regulate the termination of pregnancy as a lawful medical procedure. In relation to voting on the bill, I will carefully consider each amendment that has surfaced over the past 48 hours, and possibly more to come, as it is debated in this place before making my decision on how I will vote.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (21:07): I rise to make a contribution on the Termination of Pregnancy Bill, mostly out of respect for the large number of my constituents who have made the immense effort to fill in my survey and questionnaire as well as those who have met with me—church leaders, community groups, constituents—and those who have rung and emailed my office. In particular, I would like to note that 951 constituents from the Adelaide electorate took the time to fill in my 10-question survey. I am truly grateful for their comments and their time towards our democratic process.

The overall statistics from those who completed the survey were 699 (74 per cent) in favour of the bill as it stands and 252 (26 per cent) against. That does not mean I do not believe there could be further improvements, and there are concerns that have been raised with different issues. I would like to put on the record just some of the direct comments that have been made to give the house a bit of an idea of the variations of comments that have been coming through.

To quote, 'Contraception, education and counselling should be discussed and prioritised above amending the existing process to terminate a pregnancy.' So I am very interested in a possible amendment to ensure that information is provided at the consultation time when people seek advice. Another of my constituents said, 'As a primary school teacher, I have seen firsthand how some parents struggle with that extra mouth to feed, and the whole family, including already born children, can be negatively impacted by the birth of an additional, unwanted child.'

Another constituent said, 'The law should support women to make a decision in a safe way, providing information, emotional and medical support where needed, but not bringing judgement or opinion to the table.' Representative of many people, another constituent conveyed how very thankful they are for the opportunity to have their views heard and for our country's democratic process that is available to them. To quote parts of another constituent's long contribution:

I have a belief that life starts at conception…Therefore, abortion at any stage is, in my opinion, terminating a life…I have counselled a number of women who have presented with general guilt and associated depression as a result of having an abortion.

That is another reason why I am considering an amendment. I have one drafted. That requires information to be given to a woman when she is making a decision.

As a member of parliament, many people share very personal stories, and it is a great honour for people to trust us with that information. I had one very personal meeting with a woman who indicated to me that she was married and already had two children. She had a job, she was fully capable of making a decision and she made a decision to terminate a pregnancy. She was not given any alternative information, or any information about possible mental health effects or physical health effects, and she went ahead with the termination. For years now she has lived every day feeling guilty about that decision, and she implored me to ensure that information is given when a woman goes in for a consultation with a doctor.

Another constituent expressed their thanks for the opportunity to comment. There are hundreds and hundreds of comments. Another comment was, 'Make adoption better/easier so that females who are pregnant in situations that are not tenable, to see adoption as a third option.' Many in this house would be aware that adoption is something for which I have been strongly advocating. It is an amendment that will be discussed and debated in the Children and Young People (Safety) (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, which should be coming to the house in March. It has already been tabled. That is an opportunity to give people hope that, if they are unable to care for the child, there are other families who would love the opportunity to care for a child. To quote another constituent:

The proper provision of information should be mandated as abortion trauma is increased if full information is not provided.

Another constituent states:

I am a medical practitioner and am quite concerned about the proposed bill, particularly in regards to the right to conscientiously object. Conscientious objection by its very definition should not include referring a patient to someone who will perform the procedure.

Overall, there are general areas of concern for people in my electorate, noting again that 74 per cent are in favour of the bill as it stands, but I do believe that you can always improve something. There are some amendments that have been tabled that I am considering supporting. One of those is to do with a failed abortion, particularly a late-term abortion where a baby is viable. Medical support should be made available to that baby so that it can live. With improved adoption laws, that baby would have a chance of having a family.

I am against sex selection, so that is an amendment that I am looking at supporting. The conscientious objection amendments also look like they would satisfy some of the extra concerns of people in my electorate. I am told that the anaesthesia used in medical abortion for late term, which was one of the recommendations by several of my constituents, is more a medical practice procedure than a statutory law change requirement, so I will look at how we can let that be known to the AMA.

The psychosocial reasons used for late-term abortions in Victoria certainly have been of concern to several of my constituents. I think there are amendments already tabled that might help in that area, particularly for a late-term abortion. So the provision of information, I think, is important, and making sure that this does go through to the opportunity to debate clause by clause and consider all the amendments so that we can make the required changes, because I think the highest agreement is the fact that the abortion law should be in the health act, and it should not be illegal. So that is all for today.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (21:15): I wish to make a contribution to this debate because I believe I owe it to my community to make myself accountable to them so they have an understanding of how I form my views and also an understanding of why I voted in a particular way when I do vote at the end of this debate.

I would like to make some comments about the debate itself because I think it is important that the community understand what we have been asked to vote for, or against. I do not intend to address specific arguments for or against any elements of this bill. I think they have been canvassed quite widely today and, to be completely honest, I am not sure I could actually add much or enlighten the parliament any further than has already been done so.

Mr Cowdrey: You're underselling yourself, Tony.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you. I think the members have canvassed those, and I do not think my contribution, as I said, would actually add more to that. Another thing is that I cannot directly or indirectly speak about an experience. Obviously, as a bloke, I am not experienced in abortion, but neither is a partner of mine or a family member. I have no indirect experience of abortion, so I cannot speak from that perspective as well. My contribution will be around the general principles that I will adopt or follow in assessing this bill or any amendments.

A lot has been said in this debate with a great deal of sensitivity and respect, which I agree with. I think it is certainly an issue which engenders quite a bit of emotion, and I think we have to be respectful of different points of view. Having said that, some of the ways people have framed the debate and the use of language in this debate are also, in my opinion, not respectful or sensitive to different points of view, and I will explain what I mean by that.

All language we use is not neutral—we know that. The use of language is a very powerful tool. Language can be used in ways to, if you like, set the narrative in a way that actually engenders debate and enlightens people about what is being said, etc., or language can be used in a way to limit the debate. I have seen and I have heard both in this chamber today, from my perspective. I should say that these are my opinions. I will not present things as facts because these are just my opinions on how I think this debate is going.

To be able to expand and inform the debate, we need to all acknowledge that we believe in something but also we have to acknowledge we may be incorrect. I think that anybody who speaks with 100 per cent certainty on this issue is not being genuine, in the sense that they are being respectful to the views of others, because there has to be some doubt. In saying that, I have some doubt about my own views, which I will be expressing shortly.

The other thing I need to mention—and this has been touched on by one of the speakers a bit earlier—is that people might say, 'Why would a person who has not experienced an abortion have a say in an abortion debate?' If we do believe in gender equality, I think that both men and women have a right to have an opinion and a view about any issue and an opportunity to express that view should be provided. I think that would foster greater gender equality than saying, and I have read this in the paper, 'What would men know?' etc. I think we do have a contribution to make, but as an MP the reality is that I have a duty to vote a particular way in this debate, so it is in that context that I make that contribution.

As the member for Port Adelaide has, in my opinion, correctly asserted, this is a moral issue and by 'moral issue' I do not necessarily mean a moral issue based on faith or religion but a moral issue which can be based on secular principles as well. Not only do people of faith have morals, people right across the board have morals or moral positions and our moral framework determines how we see the issue. I believe it matters not how our moral framework is formed, but what is important is that each person has a world view which is valid.

In the debate I have heard today, I have tried to understand the different moral and world views and how they are formed, and certainly from that position I do not come from a position of absolute. I do not think this debate is black and white; it is more grey than black and white and that is the challenge we face. Because there is a lot of grey area in this debate, I think somebody else's opinion is just as valid as my opinion and I respect that. In the end, I may vote differently from some people but it does not mean their view is not appropriate.

As has been said earlier, I think it is very important for people on both sides of the argument to understand—and I say this because all of us have had representations on this issue from constituents, and some put them a bit more forcefully than others—that people of goodwill and compassion and mutual respect can arrive at different conclusions on an issue, particularly an issue that is central to our shared humanity.

I will give you an example: one member has expressed the view that not supporting this bill unamended imposes additional burdens, impediment and complexity for women. That is a view that has been expressed and that is a valid view for them. Equally, another person might say that what is proposed in amendments can be seen as safeguards rather than an impediment or complexity, etc.

This is true of a lot of other issues. For example, later this year we will be debating the euthanasia bill. That bill, as I understand it, as has been introduced in the other chamber, is based on the Victorian model. As I understand it, the Victorian government and the people who are supporting the Victorian model in this state assert that it is the one with the most safeguards in the world. I think it is very important to remember that because that comes up a bit later.

It has also been said that this bill is based on best clinical practice. I do not dispute that. Best clinical practice today is different from best clinical practice 20 years ago and best clinical practice in 20 years' time. If there is no legislative provision, then that is a question of public policy made by not lawmakers but other parties. We have doctors and lawyers, etc. who make those decisions. The reality is that in all walks of life when judgements are made by people there will always be possible errors in those judgements.

The bill also refers to 'medically appropriate' and defines that in a certain way. Having spoken to a number of people, that means different things to different people and, therefore, that grey area is something we need to address. The other issue being raised is conscientious objection. That would seem to be a reasonable thing in a Liberal democracy but, equally, what conditions are attached to that? Some doctors have expressed a view that if they want to express their conscientious objection, they are limited when they are forced to refer a person to a person who undertakes abortions, and I can understand that. It may not happen, it may happen, but I can understand that perspective for that person.

It has also been said, and this has been said today and I have read it in the media, that as MPs we should trust women and their medical teams. That is an extremely powerful statement to make, that we should trust women and their medical teams. Again, that is not neutral language. That language is not neutral; it is not a neutral position. It implies that if you oppose this bill you do not trust women and their medical teams. It is designed to frame the debate in a way that creates a 'them and us'—you are either with us or against us. I think that is very unhelpful if you are trying to open up the debate to have a meaningful discussion about that, because I think it is quite possible to have that discussion.

A few minutes ago, I mentioned the euthanasia debate. The proponents of the euthanasia debate talk about safeguards and conditions, etc., and they see that as a strength of the proposal which will come before us. One could argue, 'Don't you trust people who want to end their own life and their doctors?' Why attach conditions to it? Why frame a bill which says the person who wants to end their life, for whatever reason, cannot do that privately with their doctor? Nobody is actually arguing that. Even the proponents of the euthanasia bill in this place are not arguing that. So in the same way, I think to frame the discussion to trust women and their medical teams is designed not to help the debate but to make sure the debate goes one way, and I find that unhelpful.

The parliament has often, and will continue to do so, inserted conditions on a particular public policy matter, and there is nothing wrong with that. We are trying to find a balance of the different competing views in our society and trying to come up with something that society generally supports. We make our own judgement where that position is on that continuum. We make our own judgements about that, and I accept that. Also, when you think about it, all our laws are premised on the basis that we do not trust people.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We can trust you. Because all our laws are based on the fact that we do not trust people to do the right thing and that is why we have laws because people do the wrong thing. That is unfortunate. That is just a reality.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Not all of us.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We have laws because people like you—

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —may not do the right thing all the time. I am trying to get to the fundamentals of what underpins this debate because I think it is very important that we put it in its context. It has also been said that amendments are designed to frustrate the bill. In the debate today, it has been said that some of the amendments are designed to frustrate the bill. But equally it could be argued that they seek to insert some safeguards.

I would like to make some comments now about the guiding principles on the abortion debate we are having. In a very simple way, the abortion debate has been ongoing for many decades, and to some extent today as well. I acknowledge that abortions are lawful in this state, and they have been since 1969. People's views of abortion range from 'all abortion is wrong' to people who say abortion should be available—and I am happy to be corrected on whether it is the right terminology—'on demand'. In between, there is a whole range of different perspectives on what is an appropriate time to allow an abortion to take place.

In terms of us as legislators and people trying to determine public policy, I will paraphrase what I have read here because I think this particular article puts it better that I can myself. The challenge for us as parliamentarians is that one of the most difficult issues is how to make a sound policy that meets the needs of most people in a given society without focusing on the extreme views. In other words, how do we come to land on a public policy position that actually reflects what most people believe or what most people are prepared to accept? That is what the challenge is. It is certainly true on social issues, which are much more volatile.

On this issue, another reality is that it is never likely that we are going to get 100 per cent of people to agree. The issue will be black and white for some but it will never be black and white for others. Some people will be on the white side and some on the black, but most people will be in the grey area. The problem is that the issue of abortion will continue in a practical sense. I quote:

This means that a good policy does not rest on extreme views but tries to cover as many points of views, although being aware of the fact that one is not able to please every person in society. This would be an impossible task. It seems that one should adopt a moderate view rather than the proposed extreme views. This is not because the moderate view is 'correct' but because one needs a broad consensus for a sound policy.

I agree with that: we need to find a consensus position on this policy. People who are on either end of the debate also need to understand that as parliamentarians we need to find some common ground in this area.

I now come to the views expressed to me by my community. Like other members, I have received a great deal of correspondence and representation on this matter. I divided this correspondence and representation into four categories: firstly, those people who are in my electorate and those who are outside my electorate. That has been quite deliberate because my first obligation is to people in my electorate—

Mr Cowdrey: What do you do with the other ones?

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: They do influence it, but my first responsibility is to the people who vote for me or those who do not vote for me, as the case may be. I have also considered all representations within my electorate, and there are those who support the bill and those who oppose it. Based on the representations I received from my own electorate, certainly a majority of people oppose the bill in its current form.

There is some common ground, as mentioned by other members of parliament, in the issue of shifting the provisions from the criminal code to the health act. There seems to be very little opposition to that. I support the proposal to move the abortion provisions to the health act. I do not and will not support any amendments that seek to wind back the clock. Any provision that tries to go backwards I will not support either; I think that would be inappropriate. I will listen to the reasons given for the various amendments that are before us and that may come before us tomorrow.

I also indicate that I will vote in support of the second reading speech, to progress to the committee stage, as I believe the proposed amendments are worthy of consideration. People might say, 'Well, if you don't support the bill, why support that?' I think it is important that the amendments get a chance to be aired and debated. Certainly, based on what I have heard so far, I am likely to support some of the amendments and to oppose others.

What I can say is that I do not support the bill in its current form. Sadly, if the proponents of the current bill do not accept some of the proposed amendments, I would be forced to vote against the bill. I hope that does not happen. I hope that we can actually find common ground and advance the debate further, that we can all support an amended bill for what I think would be the common ground or that we support what we can actually do to advance the debate further. With those comments, I would encourage people to support the second reading speech on the basis that we should actually debate the amendments; I think they are worthy. We will go into committee and have a real debate then.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (21:34): I will be quite brief. As has been said, there is a lot of grey in this area; as has been said, we need to find a common ground; as has been said, we need to try to get the best for everybody. I do not believe that. To be quite honest, every single one of us is charged with making a decision. I do not believe in abstaining on issues like this.

I do find these issues very difficult and very challenging. I will support the second reading stage because it is impossible to make a decision on all the issues that come together, all the amendments, all the possibilities, if you do not support the second reading stage in a conscience vote. It is incredibly important to let everybody have their say. Every single one of us is not charged with finding the middle ground: every single one of us is charged with making a decision on what is put in front of us, amendment by amendment, on whatever is left at the end of the third reading. That is very, very important.

This is not something we can squib on; simultaneously, this is not something on which any one of us can think we are automatically right. It is challenging stuff, but at the end of the day we need to make a decision on behalf of our electorates. Some people have done polls, some people have calculated the number of responses they have had, pro and con, and said, 'Well, whatever that is, that's what I'll do.' I think it would be inappropriate to only do that.

We are elected, we are members of parliament and we need to consider what our electorates want. We also have a responsibility to have our own personal views also worked into that. To be perfectly honest, it is a bit of a cop out if somebody just wants to say, 'Well, I got three-quarters, 75 per cent, voting one way and 25 per cent voting the other, so that's what I'll do.' All that does is encourage campaigns. All that does is probably encourage digital campaigns.

I do not think any one of us should squib on our responsibility to make a decision. I will vote for the second reading so that every single member in this chamber who wants to put an amendment forward will have the opportunity of putting that amendment forward, if enough people vote for the second reading. I will consider every single one of those amendments on its merits and will vote for every single one of those amendments on its merits, as I see fit, based on my own assessment and my understanding of what my electorate wants. We will come to the third reading and I will make a judgement then.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (21:37): I rise to make a very brief contribution to this debate. I do not wish to hold it up because I think the important work is to be done in the committee stage.

Like many speakers before me, like the member for Stuart, I would like to indicate that this is not an easy decision to make; none of these decisions are easy to make. They come after much soul-searching and no small amount of heartache. You really feel the burden in these situations, trying to make the right decision for your community and for South Australians generally. None of us come to this lightly, but I do think it is important that, however briefly, we clearly put our position going into the debate because, as I said, this is not the debate, this is the preliminary stage.

I will support the second reading of the bill. I am likely to support the bill, certainly the spirit of the bill, as it stands. I think it is an important legislative change to remove these provisions from the criminal code to the health area. Much like the member for Stuart, I will consider each amendment on its merits.

I am a little disappointed that those amendments came so late. Members of the media were asking us how we felt about the bill and I freely told them that I supported the spirit of the bill but that there would be amendments coming, and I did not know what those amendments would look like. I assumed they would be the same as the ones in the upper house, but I really had no idea. It is impossible to make a decision until you read the fine print of those amendments.

I indicate that I am likely to be supporting the amendments that the member for Playford, I think, brought in around gender selection. I am not convinced that the bill makes it any easier to select on the basis of gender than it is now. I have had discussions with people wiser than me in the health area who tell me that it does not make much difference to the bill; it is simply a signal that that is what parliament expects. We do not want gender selection for any reason other than a serious, genetically based reason. There should be no reason at all why any gender selection should be considered medically appropriate, and I think an amendment just simply makes that clear. I will be supporting that.

I will be looking at various other amendments. I confess freely that I am still debating within myself and with others the merits of some of the late-term amendments brought in by the member for Black, the Minister for Environment. In terms of my problems with those particular amendments, I think that rather than that very rare occasion when there is a very late-term abortion, which I accept is very rare, the bill is currently drafted in order to facilitate some flexibility around that middle period, around the 23, 24-week mark when people are still making decisions, women are still weighing up what they need to do in certain situations.

I think that is the flexibility we need, and I do not think the member for Black's amendments really give us that. My inclination is not to support them at this stage, but I will be very interested in that particular part of the debate tomorrow.

I just want to say in closing that I have taken this very seriously, and I have spoken to people in the know, people who have consulted me about what I will be doing, people from all sides of the debate who have approached me in good faith. Obviously, I have spoken to the experts like Chris Moy, who also introduced me to Rosalie Grivell, the chair of the local Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, but more importantly I spoke to people in my electorate with whom I have a friendship but not always a lot of agreement.

I count among those my friend Pastor Lindsay Mayes, formerly from the Elizabeth Church of Christ. He is currently leading a Baptist mission in another electorate. Sadly, I have lost him; I do not see him as much as I used to. He came to see me, and we had a very robust discussion, a very fruitful discussion. I will be sending him a copy of these rambling remarks just to let him know that he did have an effect on the way I view this debate. Ultimately, I do not think I will make him entirely happy with my decision, but I hope he understands. I have had many detailed conversations with him about why I will be taking the course of action I will be taking.

I look forward to the meat of the debate, where the rubber hits the road, tomorrow. I look forward to looking at all these amendments on their merits, but I do want to put on the record that I do support the bill.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (21:43): I, too, wish to get on the record some thoughts around the bill. As many have acknowledged through debate so far today, this is a complex and vexed issue that none of us are treating lightly. It has been said many times already today, but for completeness this bill does not seek to make abortion lawful in South Australia. This was settled near 50 years ago. Women in South Australia have had access to safe and lawful abortion services over that time.

I also do not know anyone who would like to see South Australia return to the days where sepsis and infection were rife in the absence of a public health service. I, like nearly everyone I have spoken to, support the shift of this legislation relating to abortion from the criminal code to the health code. That being said, I do acknowledge and share the concerns raised in the many representations made to me as the local representative of my community, the overwhelming majority outlining concerns with the changes to gestational limits or the late-term aspects of the bill and some other aspects. I thank all members of my community who have contacted me outlining their concerns or support of all or aspects of the bill.

While I acknowledge the intent of what is proposed in this bill, that late-term abortions would happen only under very rare circumstances and only if deemed medically appropriate in all circumstances by two medical professionals, in short my reservations are similar to what has been outlined by other members today. It is not that I necessarily believe this will happen, but there is potential for the expansion of the intent I just outlined due to the largely undefined term of 'medically appropriate'. From the perspective of this chamber, we can only contemplate if and how the definition of 'medically appropriate' could perhaps shift into the future.

I also strongly believe that it is our responsibility as lawmakers not just to make clear what we deem is appropriate under law but also what is not. For this reason, I find it very difficult to simply dismiss the issue of sex selection. While I do not believe that this is happening in our society today, I have no issue with this parliament specifically outlining opposition to this concept into the future.

I recognise the time of night and will keep my comments brief due to that, but I hope that these words provide some context to my decisions through debate. I will be supporting the bill at second reading to continue debate and to allow consideration of amendments. I will be carefully considering all amendments that have been filed and flag now that I will be supporting some that I believe improve the bill and address the concerns outlined by my constituents.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (21:46): The decision to have a baby or not is one of the biggest decisions that a woman can make, and indeed not all women get the option to choose. Reproductive issues are among the most stressful, the most emotional, the most heartbreaking and the most confronting that a woman and her loved ones will experience. It follows, of course, that legislation dealing with reproductive issues and the termination of pregnancy will be among the most testing for us here to contemplate.

We have seen in this chamber today—and maybe right now—just how emotional this issue is for many if not all of us. Indeed, it is a heartbreaking issue for me. My heart goes out to all those women and families who have had to deal with the difficulties and complexities and raw emotion that comes with such matters. I want to say that I respect whatever decision you have made in the interests of yourself, your family and your unborn child. No-one can really understand your experience and what you have wrestled with unless they have lived it themselves, and even then the circumstances that women must contend with in this space are many and varied and no two experiences are the same.

Many of us here will have lived experience with fertility issues, others will have partners or loved ones who have had to grapple with these issues and others will have no lived experience, but at the end of the day as legislators we are all here and we will each cast a vote on this very important issue.

People of good intention can arrive at different positions, and I certainly respect my colleagues and their decisions in this place, no matter what they decide to do in this debate. I know we have all spent a great deal of time researching this issue to arrive at our varied positions today and no-one has approached this lightly. We are each influenced by a range of political, policy and personal aspects in considering this bill and the amendments.

For my part, I have extensively consulted with my electorate, examined feedback from stakeholder groups, spoken with people at street corner meetings and tram and train station visits and held personal meetings with each member of my electorate who has requested a personal call or a sit-down meeting with me and, yes, in case anyone wondered, I do personally read every letter that Badcoe constituents send me, even those inbox-clogging mass proforma emails we have all been getting. Even during my election campaign in 2017, people were raising this issue with me—people who were pro life and people who were pro choice.

Sometimes we think our communities are not engaged in what we get up to in this place but this issue surely demonstrates that people are paying attention and will get involved in issues if they feel strongly about them. That is one aspect of this debate that has been encouraging. I have also attended briefings and met with stakeholders on all sides of this debate in an effort to fully inform myself and make this very difficult decision.

Central to this bill is that it removes termination of pregnancy procedures from the criminal code and instead ensures terminations are governed under health regulations. This change would bring South Australia in line with every other jurisdiction in the nation. Although no woman has been charged under this act for very many decades, it is not sufficient to have laws on the books that do not actually reflect what we as a society want and to open the possibility for criminal charges to be laid against women or medical professionals.

In my conversations with my electorate, no-one has expressed to me that they think a woman should be gaoled for seeking a termination; in fact, people from a broad range of perspectives in my local area agree that this rightly fits in health legislation, not the criminal code, and I support this approach. It is, however, worth noting that this bill creates a new offence for unqualified persons who perform, or assist in performing, a termination. This aims to protect against dangerous and unsafe practices which may be carried out by people who are not authorised or qualified to carry out terminations.

On the issue of medicinally induced termination, 'medical abortion' refers to the procedure that uses pharmaceutical drugs to induce an abortion. It is usually utilised in the early stages of pregnancy. Medical terminations are currently permitted in South Australia if two medical practitioners examine a woman and approve the medication being supplied. Treatment must be undertaken in a designated hospital.

This bill provides that a single registered health practitioner can authorise a medical termination and prescribe or administer the drug. It removes the requirement that the treatment needs to take place in a hospital and this bill would permit medical terminations for women who are no further along in gestation than 63 days. Among other things, this would mean that a woman is able to obtain a medical abortion in a general practice setting. The current requirement to visit a hospital on at least two occasions within 48 hours can present difficulties for women who live in rural and remote areas.

As a person who has spent the majority of my life living and working in regional and remote parts of Australia, access to healthcare services, including termination, is a critical issue in my decision-making. To me, allowing easier access to medical termination is a benefit in this particular reform. My perspective growing up in regional and remote communities has informed how I view this bill and how I will consider the amendments before us.

In relation to abortions up to 22 weeks and six days under our current law, any woman seeking a termination of pregnancy needs the approval of two medical practitioners. Under this bill, a pregnant woman whose gestation period does not exceed 22 weeks and six days would only need to consult one medical practitioner. Setting this gestational limit would align South Australia, as I understand it, with current clinical practice in other jurisdictions. This measure of needing only one medical professional assists women in regional and remote areas who may not be able to easily access multiple doctors in their community, especially GPs who are willing to assist them.

In relation to late terminations—arguably the most contentious facet of this bill—I am genuinely interested in the amendments presented and I hope the quality of the debate will assist this parliament in its deliberations, including my deliberations. In relation to conscientious objection, I do believe in the right for medical professionals to conscientiously object to performing or assisting in the termination of pregnancy. I think respecting each other's views in this space is very important and that respect should be extended to medical professionals.

This bill provides that a health practitioner may conscientiously object to performing or assisting with an abortion and it requires a conscientious objector to immediately notify the patient of their objection and refer them to a practitioner who can provide the service. The practitioner's right to conscientiously object does not override their duty of care to the patient. I note there is an amendment in relation to conscientious objection and I will consider it. There is a raft of other amendments that I am looking forward to hearing further explanation and debate on and I will consider my position on those amendments. I thank the members who have taken the time to formulate those amendments so that we may consider them here.

When it comes down to it, fundamentally I do support a women's right to choose. I support a woman's right to choose what is right for her and her body, but I do not think that choice is easy or without consequence. I do think, though, that we are lawmakers with the power to prescribe laws to whatever extent and detail the parliament can reach agreement on, and we need to place some faith in women and their medical professionals. I know for many women that this will be the most difficult decision of their life, and we as a parliament should not make it even harder.

While we should certainly regulate the provision of termination, legislation cannot account for every possible scenario and every possible dynamic that is faced when grappling with the decision to terminate a pregnancy. There needs to be a degree of flexibility among the rigorous controls when it comes to law around termination of pregnancy. Equally, I do not think we as a parliament should seek to encourage abortion with our reforms, including late-term abortion, but rather seek to provide a mechanism to deal with the most rare, necessary and desperate cases in the most compassionate way possible.

As a feminist I believe in choices for women. It is at the core of the reasons I chose to enter politics. It is therefore only logical that I must support the right of women to have choices in health care and the choice to determine their own needs when faced with the harrowing decision of termination. That does not mean those choices are easy, it does not mean that there are not consequences to those choices, and it does not mean that a woman must or will choose one option over another; it simply means that the choice is there.

This has been a gruelling deliberation process, and I would like to thank my electorate. On the whole, my constituents in Badcoe expressed themselves firmly and passionately but not aggressively, and I thank them for the respect they have shown me and my staff while raising these issues with me. I have appreciated hearing from them. I know that my position on this bill certainly will not satisfy everyone in Badcoe. A significant number of people will feel disappointed in me, and I am sorry that I cannot be all things to all people, but I do think the position that I am taking reflects the view expressed by the majority of my electorate that abortion should be safe, legal, accessible and rare.

I would be lying to say that the decision sits entirely comfortably with me. These are not pleasant matters to examine, and there are brutalities about abortion, but it is the decision that I can live with and that my conscience can sustain. Having said that, I want electors in Badcoe who advocate a different position to know that I have carefully considered, researched and wrestled with every point they have made.

My position has not been arrived at lightly, nor without great detailed and lengthy consideration on my part. I hope that, if nothing else, these constituents who may have wanted me to vote differently will acknowledge that they have an MP who opens her mind to all points of view as a starting position on conscience matters and gives people the time of day to express their opinions, an MP who seriously contemplates and works through those diverse views in our community in order to form her own position.

I would like to thank my colleagues, who come from a range of perspectives, for their assistance to me in understanding various amendments and different perspectives. I would also like to acknowledge my sub-branch: grassroots members of the labour movement. I have appreciated hearing the varied views our sub-branch has about this matter. Their contributions have been listened to as constituents and as engaged members of the labour movement.

I would also like to thank my predecessor, who held the seat of Ashford, Steph Key. Steph repeatedly and passionately advanced this matter before this house throughout her 20-year career. All those who came before us who have helped to inform and stimulate public and parliamentary debate on this issue deserve recognition. Steph deserves acknowledgment for her many years of work on this matter, and I trust that she is following this debate intently, so thank you, Steph.

In summary, I have resolved to support this bill, and I do look forward to hearing debate on the proposed amendments and considering my position on each of those proposals.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (21:59): I would just like to say thank you very much to all the speakers; there have been very many. I do not know that we have had a debate for a very long time in this parliament where we have had such a breadth of speakers and such a number.

Can I start by saying that I have listened carefully to those who have made a contribution in debate and the very many views expressed and concerns identified. I have followed a number of debates interstate over the past few years and the comprehensive assessment of interstate issues raised through the SALRI process, which of course the institute undertook to consider its deliberations for the recommendations which it has put to me as Attorney-General and from which I have the base of the bill that is before you today.

From that, I cannot think that there is actually any new issue that has not been canvassed in those issues interstate. That could mean a number of things. If I were to highlight a number of areas that I think have been thematic in the issues of concern raised in respect of the bill as it is presented, even with extra provision, which I would see as a level or threshold of extra protection in a medical model, there are issues as to the interpretation and construction and application and protection or lack thereof of the conscientious objection matters about whether there is adequate prescription or definition and exactly what circumstances should apply or be allowed to apply in respect of an abortion after 22 weeks and six days under this new threshold.

Thirdly, not uncommon has been the aspect of whether abortion is being used as a means of sex selection of children to be born of the union. Less common have been aspects of counselling and how that might assist. The question of how to deal with a circumstance legislatively, in this instance, of providing for resuscitation and intervention to support a child who might be born alive post a termination procedure is not novel. It has been raised in other debates but has not been accepted.

A final area in relation to the transfer of foetal hearts is an aspect which is completely novel, from what I am aware of, in this debate. Obviously, in terms of the transfer of foetal matter, I recall in this parliament we canvassed this question of how we deal with the use of embryo material in research. It is again a very controversial area. In relation to that aspect, that has been raised. The transfer and/or sale of product is uncommon and, I think, novel, for me at least, in all the areas that I have looked at in relation to this new termination bill. These issues have been raised.

Can I say that for all the diversity of views that have been expressed they are very personal, of course, to a number of our members who have had experience in relation to aspects of this type of legislation, that apply to this type of legislation, and I respect that. We have also heard from people such as the member for West Torrens, who shared his very traumatic time with his own children. That is a very sad situation. None of us come to this parliament without some level of experience, exposure, set of values, level of faith, diversity of faith, diversity of interest.

We all come with some experience, and sometimes it is very raw and brutal to have to deal with it in the debates that we have to deal with here when it is either a recent or an extreme experience that someone has had. Dealing with termination of life, whether it is pre-birth, neonate or in a dignity in dying bill, really challenges us.

I do respect that, and I do acknowledge that it is really difficult, especially perhaps for new members who have not had the experience of the enormous interest that these types of pieces of legislation engender in our community and in our electorates. That is sometimes in itself unnerving. Then, as the member for Badcoe says, there is the incapacity to satisfy and accommodate the blessing of all the different views in one's electorate.

Of course it is difficult, and one could say that that is one of the tasks that we have to do here, that is, ultimately to make hard decisions to assist others. This type of area, which has the attraction of a conscience vote, the freedom to have a conscience vote for all of us here in this parliament, is one that is most vexed and sometimes quite distressing. I do acknowledge that, and I thank those who have worked through that to be able both to participate in the debate and to consider the matters.

In all those circumstances, we have been discussing this for the last 10 hours and there have been more and more amendments identified and foreshadowed. Certainly, I think I had 110-1, which I think was Paula's amendment. I have indicated that I would be happy to support those, but there has been a myriad of others now that have come forth. I think there are still some in early form that I have not seen the final drafts of, and of course members have not.

I know the member for Frome raised the fact that there is a very late entry of amendments. I am not responsible for that, nor do I cast any negative aspersion on any others for that. I think with debates such as this it is inevitable, and we do need to remain, as members, nimble to be able to review and consider those matters. Some will want to confer with people whom they have sought advice from on these matters during the debate, and I respect that.

When I ask members to consider the bill for a second time, if that is successful, I would propose that we would go to clause 1 and then adjourn further consideration. I am proposing that this will be after question time tomorrow at the earliest, to enable members to digest what has been presented, not only tonight in the contributions but also in the amendments that we now have, and apparently a few more are coming.

I have heard a number of members indicate that they will support the bill unamended, and others say that they will not support the bill whatever happens in any amendment and therefore will not support the second reading. I would urge members to consider supporting the second reading. A good number of you have indicated that you will do that, because you are interested in developing some discussion and dialogue as to the resolution of in some way advancing 21^st century termination law.

It may not come to pass, but I would urge members to support the second reading to facilitate that, because unfortunately this is one of those situations where it is actually black and white—not the issue, but the reality is that after 51 years we have a bill before us that it seems has universal agreement that it needs to be modernised, decriminalised, however you want to put it. There is a process for a number of things that people are not unhappy with and they see the merit in advancing, but there are aspects of it that could frustrate or undermine their view of being able to support any amendment at all.

So we are either back in 1969, with aspects that are really resulting in South Australian women having to go and seek terminations interstate, to be able to avail themselves of law reform structures that are all around the country but not here; some may be of the view that that might be bad luck or, and I am of this view, it is important for us to deal with this hard issue and to be able to bring us into some kind of 21^st century management of this issue.

I would not have brought the bill through the institute or brought it to this parliament if I did not think it was important that we address it. It is not easy; I totally understand that. Comments have been made tonight about trying to keep debate dignified. It has been unpleasant. I have received a number of descriptions myself, which I have acknowledged. I do not like it myself. I think I am pretty tough in politics, but it is not pleasant. I think someone described in their contribution tonight that they or somebody in their conversation had been described with 'zealotry'. Again, this does not help. Abuse or personal reflection on somebody as to their view on a matter does not assist this resolution.

We do need to be able to consider whether we fundamentally want to bring the structure surrounding the prescription of termination into the 21^st century or whether we are going to leave it in 1969. I would urge members to support the second reading and let us explore some of those pressing issues that have been raised by many of you, which I acknowledge and which I am more than happy to work with you to explore. With that, I commend the bill for that consideration.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I move that the committee report progress.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.