BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION (REGISTRATION OF STILL-BIRTHS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:13): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1996. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Last Wednesday of sitting I spoke in the matters of interest debate about a bill I intended to table which at that stage I had been unable to formally do. I have now introduced that bill that is known in the public arena as Jayden's law but, due to naming restrictions and convention in this place, it is called the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration (Registration of Still-Births) Amendment Bill 2012.

This is an important bill that I am proud to be presenting before the parliament. This bill is not about politics at all; this is about assisting families, and particularly mothers, in difficult circumstances which I will highlight in my second reading speech. I want to again congratulate Tarlia Bartsch of Port Lincoln for her advocacy and honour her for putting the name of her late son, Jayden Bartsch, to the bill campaign. Tarlia is a dynamic, resilient and very lovely person.

The bill itself is self-explanatory. The whole concept of the bill is to give optional (and I reinforce 'optional') registration of birth of certain stillborn children between 12 and 19 weeks gestation. The reasons for it will become quite obvious to colleagues as I read some testimonies. I have just a few shortened versions of selected testimonies we actually received from a number of mothers who have given us approval to put them on the public record. The shortened version of testimony 1 states:

After being diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome and trying for a few years to have a baby, we were finally pregnant. We were so excited planning and imagining our life with our beautiful baby that we had even started to set up the nursery. We had bought a cot, change table, highchair, bouncer and toys. Our family were so excited also and had bought some baby clothes and nappies. Everyone—family friends and work colleagues—were all so happy that, after for trying for so long, we were finally going to be a family.

However, on Sunday 21 September 2008 our world came crashing down around us. The doctors could not give us any answers for it, but at 17 weeks gestation my membranes ruptured and all the fluid from around the baby was lost. After four days I was admitted to the labour ward and on 25 September 2006 I was induced and after a painful labour that lasted a few hours our first son was born. He was so small and weighed only 175 grams, but he was perfect. When I looked at him all I could see was how much he looked like his father—even at 17 weeks his features were perfectly formed.

It was heartbreaking going through labour knowing that my son would not be alive when he was born. It was devastating giving the final push and not hearing him cry. There was just deafening silence. All our dreams were shattered. We would never see him crawl, smile, walk or hear his voice. After spending the night with my son by my side, the time came when I was to be discharged from hospital and we had to say goodbye. Leaving the hospital without my son and with empty arms was the hardest thing I had ever done.

Sadly, this same mother explained how in 2010 she lost another child in similar circumstances. She hopes for a birth certificate for both of her sons. Testimony 2 is a tragic tale is an illustration of why the Jayden's law campaign has asked for a relating back period to 2002. It states:

In 2003 I was pregnant with twins. Everything was going well until my antenatal appointment on 16 July. I was told that there was no heartbeat. I didn't believe the doctor and asked for an ultrasound and was told that there were twins and it looks like one died about eight weeks and the other at 16 weeks. I asked the doctor, 'Why did my second twin die at 16 weeks?' He had said, 'Because of blood poisoning from my first twin.' I got booked in for the next day to give birth to both of them. I had to go through the labour, the pain and the loss of my babies. I was heartbroken. Nothing can replace the loss of my babies. I gave birth on 17 July 2003.

This mother also seeks a birth certificate for the babies she lost. Testimony 3 relates to the birth of a lost child that occurred on a couple's fifth wedding anniversary. It states:

I was 13 weeks when I lost my baby. My husband and I had been trying for a baby for about three months and I finally got pregnant. We were incredibly happy, waiting a few weeks to start telling all of our family and friends. On 12 August I started bleeding. I went to the hospital distraught the morning of the 14th with my husband and asked the midwife on duty to let me listen to the baby's heartbeat on a Doppler, but she declined to help me and sent me to the local surgery. The doctor on duty, who I am very grateful to, let me listen to the baby's heart on a Doppler and told me that the baby was weak but alive. So we went home knowing that there was small chance that we would lose the baby but we were relieved. That night everything went ok until I was cooking dinner and I thought I had spilt water on myself—

But when she looked down she realised that there were other problems. She continued:

We made arrangements for our son and went to the hospital, they had me come straight in and called the doctor. He was very understanding and told us to prepare for the worst even though he also said the baby was fine.

When we went to pick up our son, I felt the need to go to the[bathroom] and when I went I found that I had lost the baby, I screamed out for someone to help me and my mum came into the [bathroom and assisted me] and ran a bath for me. When my mum rang the hospital to see what we should do, whether I needed to go back or what, they said that I should be fine and when Mum asked them what she should do with the baby [they had no answer].

The final testimony I want to put on the public record—as I said, with the approval of these constituents, and this constituent has given approval to actually name her—is from Tarlia; and I share Tarlia's story. Tarlia has written a letter to the members of the council, and with members' indulgence I will read the letter in full.

On 18 December 2011 our world came crashing down in a way we didn't expect, our whole world changed based on the very still image on the screen and lack of a tiny heartbeat I had listened to and smiled over so many times in the last 19 weeks. Everything we had dreamed of sharing with our second baby was no longer going to happen, there would be no first smile, no first giggle, no first words, we would never video him crawling or taking his first steps and the most housebreaking thing to realise...I would never hear his little voice say 'I love you mummy, I love you daddy'. In those thoughts my world froze and my heart broke! Why? Why would this happen to us? What did I do wrong? I felt like a failure as it was my job to grow our baby and protect him...and I had failed!

On 19 December I was admitted to hospital and labour was induced. After nearly 8 hours of labour our beautiful little boy was born. He was 19 weeks gestation and looked exactly like our little Marco, he had the same little button nose and rosebud lips. He was so beautiful and so perfect. And so all the questions came again!

The thing I found the hardest was that during labour with Marco, I worked so hard, endured so much and looked forward to hearing that beautiful heart stopping cry at the end of it...stillbirth is so different, you endure all the pain, do all the work, knowing that at the end you get nothing, you will go home empty handed...empty armed. I would never feel that heaviness in my pelvis, never feel his kicks and tumbles and stand in amazement whilst feeling the acrobatics happening inside me, I would never see him on the screen again wriggling around and sucking his thumb or hear his beautiful little heartbeat, it was a heartbreaking realisation.

The term 'aching arms' is something I now comprehend on such an indepth level, my arms literally ached to hold my little boy and tears poured from my face as I watched the nurse leave with our little boy after saying our final goodbyes...I knew I would never see him again and it hurt so bad! Walking from the hospital with empty arms was daunting and heartbreaking and I cuddled our little 4 year old boy Marco and sobbed all the way to the car. All of this hurt me to my core, but the biggest blow was finding out that my beautiful child, my little boy who I had planned so much of my future around...our family's future around, would never be validated as ever being born, he was never here, it broke my heart into a million pieces.

How could someone tell me my child never existed?? He did exist...for nearly five months he lived under my heart! He may have meant nothing to anyone else but he meant the world to us!! To have received a birth certificate after physically giving birth would have made a big difference! It would not have taken away my pain, nor brought back my little boy, but it wouldn't have added to the pain of the loss of someone who we considered a member of our family, our child...our son.

This is not just a piece of paper to these families, it is validation of a member of their family, a show of respect for their individual family beliefs and acknowledgement that they gave birth. It will bring closure and healing for those families who want that birth certificate to legally recognise the name they have given to their lost child. It will never bring our babies back, or completely heal that scar we carry on our heart, but don't underestimate the healing power of this for those who want it!

In conclusion, I wish to add just a few comments. The testimonies of those mothers—and there are many others—demonstrate why they want this reform. The 20-week threshold has been in existence for 46 years. At that time, it had been brought in from 28 weeks to 20 weeks, so there is already a pattern of bringing this back.

Medical technology has significantly improved since then. Babies can be born and survive inside the legislated definition of stillbirth weight when the weeks of gestation are unclear. Twenty weeks is not so far away from viable birth age as it was 46 years ago, and babies are now being born and surviving from around 23 weeks onwards. In fact, in South Australia, I think we hold one of the world records for our medical professionals ensuring the survival a baby at one of the lowest weights.

This bill creates an option, not a requirement, and I think it is important to point that out to colleagues. Parliament has previously decided to require registration after 20 weeks' gestation. This bill does not do that for babies lost inside 20 weeks; it is a right for closure, not a mandated requirement. This bill changes nothing concerning how stillbirths at over 20 weeks' gestation are treated.

A registration fee will apply; that is our expectation. Families will have to pay a fee to offset the administrative requirements, and the Jayden's Law campaign accepts that. There is no benefit for the baby bonus arising from this bill. The federal law regarding that entitlement is clear and does not apply; the Jayden's Law campaign is not seeking to change that. This is not a campaign about money, it is about closure and recognition for mums and dads and siblings, but particularly for mothers who carry, lose and grieve for their children.

On termination of pregnancy, the wording is copied from the registration requirement from after 20 weeks currently in the act. We are only mirroring that wording. To include termination cases in the Jayden's Law campaign would have required us, in a balanced approach, to also include them in the post 20-week scenarios. We do not want to change termination of pregnancy laws one bit in the Jayden's Law campaign, and those laws are not changed at all.

I again acknowledge Tarlia Bartsch and the many mums and others supporting the Jayden's Law campaign—not only in South Australia, as this is now receiving nationwide attention. I have very much appreciated the comments from my colleagues thus far because they see that there is no politics in this; this is purely, as I have indicated, a way of assisting a healing situation for those mothers and their families.

Mums want this law passed through here to help them also get it in other states. If South Australia can lead the way on this legislation, from what I have been briefed and told I believe that other states will copy it. So, we can lead the nation in what I would describe as compassion. There are over 2,300 supporters on the Facebook group for Jayden's Law since it was started only a few weeks ago. Over 2,400 petitions have now been tabled in this place supporting Jayden's Law.

I acknowledge the efforts of Tarlia—who is someone I am immensely proud of and who is a very strong woman—and the campaign volunteers who have circulated petitions among friends and businesses, particularly in Port Lincoln and the West Coast, to get the recognition families deserve for their lost child via a birth certificate. I also acknowledge the genuine interest of many journalists right across South Australia who have talked to me about this bill.

I acknowledge the support of Dr Samantha Mead for and on behalf of SIDS and Kids in backing this campaign. It is our hope that Jayden's Law sees them and other organisations support bereavement services to families who lose their babies inside 20 weeks' gestation. I also acknowledge and thank for her support the patron of the Stillbirth Foundation Australia, a lady who would be very well known to government members on my left—the former premier of New South Wales, Kristina Keneally MP.

I pose the question to the major parties as to whether this is a conscience vote or not. I hope their caucus can discuss this matter soon, as I foreshadow that we would like to put this bill to a vote.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes. They know what I mean; don't be offended. I hope their caucus and party rooms can discuss this matter soon, as I foreshadow that we would like to call a vote on this bill on 16 May. I will send a briefing paper to all honourable members, but I can assure you that my two speeches on the matter have outlined to a large extent what this bill is about. It falls now to honourable members to bring up any concerns or questions they have and decide their positions as a party or as private members on what I hope will be a conscience vote on 16 May. I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.