<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2021-02-18" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>54</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="4170" />
  <endPage num="4635" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding>
    <name>Bills</name>
    <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000264">
      <heading>Bills</heading>
    </text>
    <subject>
      <name>Termination of Pregnancy Bill</name>
      <bills>
        <bill id="r4789">
          <name>Termination of Pregnancy Bill</name>
        </bill>
      </bills>
      <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000265">
        <heading>Termination of Pregnancy Bill</heading>
      </text>
      <subproceeding>
        <name>Committee Stage</name>
        <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000266">
          <heading>Committee Stage</heading>
        </text>
        <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000267">Debate resumed.</text>
        <talker role="member" id="5378">
          <name>Mr MURRAY</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000268">
            <by role="member" id="5378">Mr MURRAY:</by>  If it is possible, I have a question for the Attorney and/or her advisers. Can I seek leave—</text>
        </talker>
        <talker kind="speech" role="office">
          <name>The Chair</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000269">
            <by role="office">The CHAIR:</by>  Ask your question, member for Davenport, but we will have to report progress prior to lunch.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5378">
          <name>Mr MURRAY</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000270">
            <by role="member" id="5378">Mr MURRAY:</by>  The New South Wales act has a provision that states:</text>
          <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000271">
            <inserted>(3)&amp;#x9;To avoid doubt, the duty owed by a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of a termination is no different—</inserted>
          </text>
          <text continued="true" id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000272">no different—</text>
          <text continued="true" id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000273">
            <inserted>than the duty owed to provide medical care and treatment to a person born other...</inserted>
          </text>
          <text continued="true" id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000274">My question very simply is: are the philosophical underpinnings of what you are proposing here in South Australia in any way counter to or different from the provision in the New South Wales legislation?</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1804">
          <name>The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000275">
            <by role="member" id="1804">The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN:</by>  No.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="5378">
          <name>Mr MURRAY</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <page num="4190" />
          <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000276">
            <by role="member" id="5378">Mr MURRAY:</by>  As a result, I take it that a similar provision in the South Australian legislation would be acceptable.</text>
        </talker>
        <talker role="member" id="1804">
          <name>The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN</name>
          <house>House of Assembly</house>
          <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000277">
            <by role="member" id="1804">The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN:</by>  No, because you have just read out a paragraph of a whole series of things that have been raised in New South Wales. I have indicated to the mover that, no, I would not be supporting that position, but I make the point that that is a whole confirmation in legislation relating to the opportunity for resuscitation to be available as it is. The amendment before us today is to impose a mandated obligation on medical professionals within the terms that he has identified in his amendment. It is a totally different position.</text>
          <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000278">Progress reported; committee to sit again.</text>
          <text id="20210218f0a756739184447e90000279">
            <event>Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.</event>
          </text>
        </talker>
      </subproceeding>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>