Bills

Termination of Pregnancy (Terminations and Live Births) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2024.)

The PRESIDENT: Before I call the Hon. Mr Maher to lead off, I will make it quite clear to members this is a debate that will be full of emotion. I expect every member to be heard in silence. Interjections will be out of order and will not be tolerated. We have a number of people in the gallery who I am sure share very strong views on both sides. Of course, you are welcome to the parliament. You are not welcome to make any comment or noise at any point of the debate and I will not tolerate it. You will be escorted from the building. I have made it quite clear that this is going to be a very respectful debate and I will not tolerate anything otherwise.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (17:17): I rise to speak on this bill introduced by the Hon. Ben Hood, and it will come as no surprise to members that I will not be supporting the bill in its current form or, indeed, any form that winds back abortion care for women in this state. Put simply: this bill poses a real and significant danger not only to the physical health and safety of all women but to women's fundamental right to bodily autonomy.

In my view, the bill before us does this and I appreciate that different people have genuine and deep held views and beliefs that differ on this issue, but the debates we have on issues that are declared conscience votes by both major parties have generally been conducted quite respectfully in this chamber.

I am disturbed at the conduct of this debate and its public campaigning that has been markedly different from others I have been involved with over the last 10 years in this chamber. Issues such as voluntary assisted dying, reform of our state's laws regarding sex work and previous debates in relation to abortion have in my experience generally been conducted with a degree of dignity and respect. In this debate so far the nastiness, vitriol, inflammatory attacks on individuals who do not even get a vote in this chamber I think reduce us to a state of political discourse that does not reflect well on us generally.

I would encourage those who have been involved in this sort of debate to reflect on whether the hyperpolarised US-style of personal politics really reflects well on the South Australian values of tolerance and inclusiveness. I hope those involved will take a bit of time after this debate tonight to reflect and ask themselves: would their family be proud of how they have conducted themselves? Have some of the deep personal attacks on others been worth a few clicks on social media? I genuinely think it is worth a bit of introspection once we finish this debate.

This debate is about winding back SA women's access to abortion care. In 1969, South Australia became the first Australian jurisdiction to legislate for the lawful medical termination of a pregnancy. These laws and regulations have not been properly updated in over 50 years until the monumental and life-saving reforms of the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021, introduced by the then Attorney-General Vickie Chapman.

In this place, these reforms were championed by the Hon. Michelle Lensink and our other colleagues the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and our former colleague the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos. I am proud to now be part of a bipartisan legacy of attorneys-general supporting the decriminalisation of abortion in this state and the recognition of abortion as an issue that is best dealt with by medical practitioners and their patients.

The current act, which commenced on 7 July 2022, preceded a review of abortion law undertaken by the highly regarded South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) that was informed by many legal and health professionals, and the overwhelming majority of its recommendations were ultimately adopted in today's operating legislation. It was a thorough, considered process, which led to the introduction of the Termination of Pregnancy Act in 2021. The same can simply not be said for the legislation that is before us today.

Supported by countless registered medical bodies, such as the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, our state's current abortion laws reflect the best clinical practice and contemporary community attitudes towards abortion being treated as a matter of public health.

The bill before us relates to a termination late in a woman's pregnancy. It is important that we appreciate and understand that these are not easy decisions or ones that are taken lightly. Currently, abortions at this term of pregnancy must be approved by two medical practitioners on the basis of: either the termination is necessary to save the life of the pregnant person or save the foetus, or if the continuation of the pregnancy would involve significant risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person, or there is a case or a significant risk of serious foetal abnormalities associated with the pregnancy. It is those extreme cases of risk to life or health that lead to the very rare decision for a late-term abortion.

Importantly, in this area the parliament relies on expert advice about what we are seeking to regulate. Unlike the broad and expertly informed consultation undertaken by SALRI, which shaped the Termination of Pregnancy Act, the bill before us has apparently been informed by a handful of undisclosed experts. I am always cautious when authority seems to come from a handful of people who are not even prepared to put their name to their views. It flies in the face of the professional judgement of accredited health professionals and expert legal representative bodies, two cohorts of professionals that have infinitely more experience in this area than any member in this place, and certainly more than anonymous so-called experts.

That is reflected in the correspondence members have received from a range of stakeholders in the short weeks leading up to this debate, and I am grateful to the Hon. Michelle Lensink for sharing that correspondence with all of us. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said, and I quote: they 'strongly oppose' this bill. They point out, and I will quote again:

27 weeks plus six days' gestation is sufficiently late in a pregnancy to consider an abortion at this point is usually only in the most complex scenarios. Such scenarios may occur when the life and/or ongoing health of the mother is at risk, or if severe and previously undiagnosed fetal abnormalities are found.

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists writes that it, and I quote:

…believes the proposed legislation is based on an unrealistic view of the real-world experiences of women considering or undergoing [termination of pregnancy] and what the consequences of the proposed Bill's changes would be, including from a mental health perspective.

Late [term pregnancy abortions] at the stage under discussion is very rare and decisions to do so are based on the woman's physical or mental wellbeing or the foetus' physical circumstances. Decisions…should be made by the individual in conjunction with appropriate support from qualified health professionals as defined in the existing Act…

Sexual and reproductive health organisation SHINE SA writes:

…forcing a live birth may also be medically unsafe in these cases, risking the health and life of the pregnant person, and leaving healthcare practitioners who are involved in inducing a live birth open to medico-legal risk and liability.

In a letter from 13 midwives working in South Australian universities, all of whom actually identified themselves, and who have also written in opposition to the bill, states:

…in alignment with our professional philosophy, code of ethics, and National Standards for Practice, we categorically reject the statements made in support of this proposed Bill. Abortion care is essential health care.

The Hon. Ben Hood and other supporters of the bill have been attempting to run a campaign with the number 45. What does that number 45 have to do with the bill before us? Nothing, absolutely nothing, not a single thing. This bill that is before us relates only to terminations after 27 weeks and six days, imposing this arbitrary limit after which a woman would be forced to deliver a live birth. I will say that again: forced to deliver a live birth rather than have access to abortion care.

SA Health data shows that fewer than five abortions were performed after 27 weeks since the bill in South Australia was enacted in 2022, and there were no terminations after nine weeks—not 45, just five. The implication that the Hon. Ben Hood and others have sought to make is that this bill would have stopped 45 terminations since the passage of the act in 2021. That is simply not true.

What they have now conceded, and what this figure actually relates to, is that 45 babies were aborted after 22 weeks and six days over an 18-month period. Again, nothing that has anything to do with the subject matter in this bill. Firstly, I would note that the South Australian Abortion Reporting Committee provided the context that each of these 45 abortions were performed due to a risk to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person: all 45 cases that the honourable member keeps referring to were performed during a term of pregnancy, again, that is not even contemplated by this bill.

This slogan 'Justice for 45'—it seems to me that the slogan completely ignores and almost certainly re-traumatises the 45 women and girls who have been forced to make what I can only imagine is one of the most difficult decisions that they will ever have to make in their lives. For the 45 women and girls who made the decision, I want to acknowledge that they were the best-placed people to make this decision in conjunction with their medical professionals. To the mover of this bill, shame on you for using their experiences for your political purposes. Shame on you for demonising people to use a term like 'Justice for the 45.' I would rather say, compassion, understanding and respect for the 45 women and girls who have made one of the most difficult decisions of their lives, and exercised their right to their personal autonomy.

Using a figure in such a way is a callous style of Trumpian post-truth politics that I think most Australians do not have a lot of time for—an attempt to whip up a culture war when none exists, based on half-truths and extreme rhetoric. I would have thought the Hon. Ben Hood might have taken some advice from some of the hard-right Republican counterparts in the United Sates. Despite the deliberate misinformation that is being spread in the US about late-term abortions, we know from repeated and repeated research that a vast majority of Americans are against the overturning of the Roe v Wade decision to turn back abortion rights in the US.

We are seeing how this conversation is playing out in US politics at the moment where almost on a daily basis the Republican contender for President of the US has to change their position because they know it is such a politically toxic issue to want to wind back women's rights to abortions. In fact, it is often cited as the second most important issue in terms of what is motiving people to vote in the US.

We are seeing this played out in Australia, we are seeing this in the current Queensland state election, where the conservative opposition is regularly being asked about what their position is on winding back abortion rights, and they are constantly saying, 'It is not part of our plan.' That cannot be said in the lead-up to the next South Australian election because we know that for senior Liberals in South Australia winding back women's rights to abortion care is part of their plan.

Whilst I do not doubt the sincerity of the views held by the Hon. Ben Hood, the timing of the bill and how it is being taken through this chamber and brought to a vote is very curious, with a preselection for the Liberal's Legislative Council ticket due soon. It seems to me that this is a clear attempt by the honourable member to further his own political career, and leverage himself favourably on the Liberal Party's preselection ticket in a party that increasingly consists of far-right extremists who make the decisions.

I know that many of the Hon. Ben Hood's colleagues in his own ultra right faction of the Liberal Party were shocked to see this bill introduced on the very same day his own leader was bringing another conscience matter to a vote. In fact, I understand the Hon. Ben Hood even sought to usurp his own leader by seeking to having his introduction of the bill at the most prominent time slot instead of his own leader's voting on sex work reform.

The divisions not only within the Liberal Party but the conservative grouping in this council have been here on full display, and it is the issue and the use of abortion by the Hon. Ben Hood for his own internal purposes that I expect concerns many of his colleagues. You do not just have to walk down the corridors of the red carpet to find colleagues ready to vent their frustrations about the introduction of this bill and the way it has been conducted. You only have to take a few steps over to the green side and you will find any number of colleagues willing to air their grievances about the Hon. Ben Hood and how this bill has progressed at the moment.

The fact that the Hon. Ben Hood, for his own internal preselection purposes, has brought this bill to a vote the very week that we start a by-election campaign for the seat of Black is one of the most talked about issues in this building. We saw the Liberal's own candidate for the seat of Black flounder when asked about her views on this bill in her very first interview on ABC radio. Why the Hon. Ben Hood would be putting something forward that is, as has been demonstrated time and time again, so unpopular with the majority of South Australians at the expense of his own party and his own party's election campaign is something that he will have to answer to his colleagues for.

Ultimately, matters such as these, that have been conscience votes across both major parties for many years, spend weeks, usually months, on the Notice Paper. They are the subject of thorough briefings and correspondence, conversations between members, and deep thought and consideration.

While I do not share the views of the Hon. Nicola Centofanti in her sex work reform proposals, I will acknowledge the efforts she has gone to, and the genuine attempts that she has made, to win over the minds of people in this chamber by thorough briefings, consideration, and the time it has taken to allow debate to occur.

Although I was opposed to most of the views on social issues in this chamber, people who have been effective parliamentarians, such as the Hon. Rob Lucas, I cannot imagine would proceed in the way that this debate has proceeded in this chamber, and I am loath to give advice but, once this is all over, however this goes tonight, the Hon. Ben Hood might benefit from seeking some advice from some of his colleagues who are no longer here who have had such a long career as the Hon. Rob Lucas.

The fact that we have only had one week, one sitting week from this bill being introduced to being voted on, departs from the longstanding experience over 10 years that I have had with conscience votes in this place. If I was a supporter of this bill, I would be asking the Hon. Ben Hood why he was in such a rush to bring it to a vote, and potentially put the reform that he is putting forward in jeopardy.

I do not know how this vote will go today, but what I think you can say is the Hon. Ben Hood's rush to protect his own career in the face of preselection has increased the likelihood of failure of the vote on this issue. I do wonder whether wiser heads, when they think about this in the ultra right faction, would have better stewards who could progress this issue in the future.

I am appalled that many have seen this often difficult circumstance that women find themselves in as something to use for their own political advantage. It is South Australian women and girls who are on the losing end of the Liberal Party's internal wars that see us fighting a cultural war that we do not need to have. This bill is not based on evidence. It is insulting to women and girls and, above all, it is dangerous in how it plays politics with the health and wellbeing of women.

My opposition to this bill is based on the simple principle that all women should have the basic human right of making decisions about what happens to their own bodies. I will oppose this bill at all stages, and I urge honourable members to do the same.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:34): I rise in support of this bill, which I am sure will come as no surprise to my colleagues here this evening. I begin by assuring the Hon. Mr Maher that this has not damaged the standing of the Hon. Ben Hood in our party at all; in fact, it may have even enhanced it in my view. Like any other political party—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley, I gave a clear warning at the start of this debate that I will not have any interjections. If it happens again, I will name you. It will mean you will not get the opportunity to vote. The Hon. Dennis Hood.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Just to complete those remarks, I was making the point that I do not think this has damaged the standing of the Hon. Ben Hood in our party at all; if anything it may have enhanced it. That will be reflected in the fact that all Liberal members here tonight I expect will support this bill. I cannot speak for other members, but I think that speaks for itself—the fact that all Liberal members here tonight are, as I understand it, intending to support the bill. That remains to be seen, of course.

The other thing is the suggestion, that he may have done this—he will speak for himself of course when he gets the opportunity—for political reasons, I utterly reject. I have had numerous discussions with the Hon. Ben Hood on this bill over many weeks now, and I can assure the chamber that any political advantage or disadvantage, which we also need to consider in these matters, was not a driver in making these decisions. I will allow the Hon. Mr Hood to address those matters himself when he gets the opportunity, but I felt it appropriate that I put my view forward, having been involved in a number of those discussions, sometimes one on one, sometimes in other groups.

The fact is—and I think the Hon. Mr Maher acknowledged this in his contribution—that people have very strong feelings on this issue. I respect that the Hon. Mr Maher has very strong feelings that are almost the exact opposite to mine. I expect they will probably never change and that is okay. He is entitled to those views, he is elected by the people of South Australia to hold them, as am I and as is the Hon. Mr Ben Hood.

It will come as no surprise to members of this place that I rise to support this bill, and I do so wholeheartedly. This bill seeks to ensure that every pregnancy that a women chooses to terminate in South Australia from 28 weeks' gestation onwards will result in her baby being born alive. I commend my colleague the Hon. Ben Hood MLC for introducing this legislation, which of course has been done in the wake of the revelation that 45 babies with no reported foetal abnormality have been aborted from 23 weeks' gestation onwards following the most recent changes to our state's abortion laws in 2021. That data comes from the SA Abortion Reporting Committee reports.

I think it was eight that were aborted post 23 weeks in 2022 and 37 I believe in 2023, giving a total of 45. It is not a mystery where the number 45 comes from. I think the confusion, or the debate, not unreasonably has been around why this bill seeks to prevent terminations after 28 weeks—not termination of pregnancy but termination of the baby after 28 weeks—when the data shows that the 45 in question is only recorded post 23 weeks or more. That is the issue, but of course we do not have data, published data anyway.

Some late data has presented itself through the minister, as I understand, suggesting that five babies were terminated at the 27 or 28-week mark, but we do not have published data to verify that, so we are taking the minister's word. I am not suggesting the minister is telling untruths—I make that absolutely clear—I have no reason to think that, but we do not have published data. There is a clear hole in our reporting. It is unsatisfactory to all of us on all sides of this debate and needs to be rectified, but that is a different matter.

Why does this bill deal with terminations post 28 weeks when the data only shows those post 23 weeks? That is a matter that I presume the Hon. Mr Hood will explain in his summing up, as was touched on in his second reading speech. The point is that, if this bill tried to deal with terminations post 23 weeks, then you have a situation where it would encapsulate all those 45 babies and 28 weeks will encapsulate fewer of them, but it will catch some of them—as the minister himself has said, as I understand it, at least five, and for me five is enough to justify this legislative change.

As the Hon. Mr Hood outlined in his second reading speech, this bill is intended to strike a balance, I think very importantly, between respecting a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy whilst protecting the life of a baby that would almost certainly survive outside of the womb. Indeed, as was previously heard, according to the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network annual report of 2022, babies that are born at 28 weeks of gestation have a 96 per cent survival rate. Obviously, 96 per cent is not a guarantee, but it is a 24 out of 25 likelihood that a baby born at this stage of development will live independently outside of its mother's body.

Allow me to state some important facts about what has occurred to a child once it reaches 28 weeks of gestation—and that is the state of development, of course, that this bill deals with specifically. At this point the average baby is over 37 centimetres long. For comparison, the sheets of paper I am holding in my hand right now are exactly 30 centimetres long, and as I said the average baby at this period—at 28 weeks' gestation—is 37 centimetres long. They also weigh approximately 1.3 kilograms on average or about the weight of the average toaster, so I am told, or a large pineapple, as another example—things that have reasonable weight.

He or she has lungs that are capable of breathing air, although some medical help may be required in some instances. The baby can also open and close its eyes, which are now actually developing colour. He or she can suck its thumb and even cry at 28 weeks. The central nervous system can direct breathing movements and control body temperature, the baby's organ systems are fully developed and it has the ability to recognise familiar sounds and voices—all of this at 28 weeks. Further, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a child in the womb feels pain at around 27 weeks' gestation.

I note that the Hon. Ben Hood provided an explanation of the distressing procedure that occurs during an abortion with the baby at 28 weeks during his second reading contribution, when we heard that babies are not given pain relief when they are terminated in the womb prior to mothers being induced and having to give birth to their stillborn child. It was not easy to listen to, but I guess in many ways it should not be. But the reality is that current law allows the deliberate ending of life in the womb up until the gestation period when, according to the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network, almost all of these babies would survive if they were born at this stage of gestation. I have not supported and do not support this aspect of the law and thus reiterate my support for this bill.

The Hon. Mr Hood in his second reading contribution went on to outline a personal account of a midwife being forced to deal with the procedure, known as foeticide, at Flinders hospital and also the burden it placed on the mothers who are delivering stillborn babies. We must be completely cognisant of the fact that mothers-to-be, in particular, who undergo this procedure may well be adversely affected by the experience of having to deliver their deceased child. In fact, I have known mothers—most of us probably have—who have experienced this, and it has clearly taken a significant toll on the ones I have spoken to and known. This is an additional aspect of this debate that cannot be ignored and one that is specifically dealt with by this bill; that is, the mother would not be giving birth to a stillborn child.

Whilst I still believe there are several reasons to support this bill, including those articulated by my colleague and friend, the Hon. Mr Hood, that I have attempted to outline above, in the end I need to be absolutely up-front about this: it is just my view that it is simply not right that a child that is wanted by their parent that is born prematurely at 28 weeks will have access to every medical intervention possible in order to ensure its safe arrival and be given the care required for it to thrive and develop—this is a child that is wanted at 28 weeks—yet at the very same time if it is 'unwanted' it can be terminated despite the fact that it could almost certainly survive outside of the mother—96 per cent, as I said.

So let me be abundantly clear: I simply reject the notion that the value of an individual human life is dependent upon whether it is viewed as being wanted or not. It should not be, in my view. If the child is viable then it has an inalienable right to life. That is my view; it will not change, full stop.

I understand that concerns have been raised about babies that are born at 28 weeks, in that they may have an increased risk of health and developmental problems. But ironically that is actually an argument for women who want to terminate their pregnancy at 28 weeks to in fact instead allow their child to reach full term and then give it up for adoption, as the child then faces no greater developmental risk than any other full-term baby. However, even in the instance where a woman is insistent on terminating her pregnancy beforehand, I do not believe the risk of health or developmental challenges is a reason to abort a baby at such a late stage.

In fact, I have had mothers contact me both over many years and indeed very recently, up until yesterday actually, who have children with autism and ADHD—which are some of the increased risks of premature births—and other medical conditions as well. They have expressed to me that they find it offensive to think that their child would be considered undeserving of life because of their individual special needs. As one has said to me—and I am paraphrasing here—'My baby is precious, medical challenges or not,' and I am compelled to agree.

Whilst I accept that many members may have differing opinions on when life begins in earnest—and of course that is almost another debate, because the truth is that this bill is not concerned with that issue—this bill will not outlaw abortions in South Australia. This bill seeks to protect what are, according to the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network, viable human beings.

Abortion laws will be completely unaffected by this bill for the vast majority of abortions which occur earlier in a pregnancy and prior to the third trimester. It will affect a small minority, as it is intended to, but it will also allow that small minority of babies to live, and that is good enough for me. That is why I am supporting it. It will allow them to be brought up by their birth mother or, if that mother so chooses, by loving adoptive parents, as in fact my wife was, as my aunty was and as my father was. They have been fortunate enough to experience adoption. To be frank, I wonder about their fate if adoption was not an option when they were born.

I would also like to draw members' attention to a matter which appears to me at least to be an inconsistency in the law, which is relevant to this debate, and that passing this bill would go some way at least towards rectifying. That is that from 20 weeks in utero South Australians can report a child at risk to child protection authorities. It happens from time to time. In law, the authorities have an interest in activity that may put a 20-week baby in the womb at risk. So this is already the law in South Australia.

Further, also at 20 weeks in utero, a wanted child who is unfortunately delivered stillborn receives a birth certificate and a death certificate. Again, this is the current law. I support this. Despite this, that same child can be terminated at an even later stage of gestation and their life or death is not formally acknowledged in any way. In both cases the child is over 20 weeks. This is logically inconsistent, in my view. Either at 20 weeks a life existed and a death occurred or it did not. This bill will not completely remedy the situation, but it will for that small number captured by this bill.

This bill will simultaneously uphold the value of human life and enable women to end their pregnancy if they so choose. Then they have a choice to raise the baby themselves or place the child with other parents who will adopt the child as their own. I can assure you that there will be many South Australians who would be eager to adopt a child locally and, as it stands, this is an extremely rare occurrence. In fact, in the reporting period for the year 2002-03, for instance—one fiscal year—there were just four local adoptions in our state in comparison to some 4,905 abortions in 2023.

Some members will be aware that my wife and I sought to adopt a child a number of years ago as we were facing our own fertility challenges at the time, and we were told it was likely that we would not be able to conceive by two doctors. We were very disappointed to learn at the time, as you can imagine most young couples would be, that it was going to be difficult for us, so we sought adoption as an option. However, we were disappointed to learn that adoption was very rare in South Australia, with just a few each year and in fact in some years none at all.

At that stage, like so many couples, we would have done almost anything in our power to adopt a baby if it were possible, but the truth is we were told, 'It's basically impossible.' No doubt there are countless couples who find themselves in this exact same situation, and this bill will provide some help to a small number of them. I think all of us can understand, if any of us have faced fertility challenges along the way, just how devastating that can be for a couple and the challenge it can present for a marriage and all the implications it involves.

Further to this, some members would be aware that, as I indicated earlier, my wife, my father and my aunty, whom I am very close to and see most weeks, were all fortunate enough to be adopted by loving parents many years ago. They have each gone on to live productive, satisfying lives, and they are grateful for them. As such, I am a committed advocate—always have been, always will be—for adoption access and fully understand and appreciate what a wonderful outcome it can be for a child whose mother is unable to keep him or her, for whatever reason. There is no shame in that. In my own case, my wife's mother was just 17 when she gave birth to her. In those times, it was very difficult for a 17-year-old girl to keep her baby, as it is today. Perhaps it was more difficult back then, I do not know. In any case, she was given up for adoption, and thank goodness she was.

Another aspect worth considering is the fact that we have declining fertility rates and an ageing population in our Western world and here in South Australia as well. This is slightly tangential to the core issue of the bill, but it is worthy of consideration in the bigger picture of things. Any way that we can boost the birthrate in South Australia will be at least of some societal benefit. Simply, more babies born will reduce the average age of our population, which has a number of benefits, of course, to the overall society, including easing pressure on our struggling health system, for example.

It is my sincere hope that members in this place recognise the need for this bill to pass, which is a compassionate response to both the mothers and babies in these regrettable scenarios, and I trust it receives the support it deserves. I have outlined my views and some personal experiences which have helped shape my position on this difficult and sensitive matter.

I accept that each member of this place will have their own views and will come to their own position, as they should. For me, the prospect of viable human beings being given opportunities to live at 28 weeks or more, grow and ultimately thrive is compelling and, for that reason, I absolutely support the bill. I also take this opportunity to indicate at this stage it is my intention to support the proposed amendments by the Hon. Ms Game, although of course I will need to consider them more carefully when we get to the committee stage, but I do intend to support them at this stage. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (17:51): I rise to support the Hon. Ben Hood's Termination of Pregnancy (Terminations and Live Births) Amendment Bill, and I extend my heartfelt appreciation to the honourable member for introducing such a significant amendment to the chamber. I do not want to visit many of the well-heard and argued points of the ongoing important debate, but I do want to highlight the fact that our Western society is facing a significant fork in the road, where our fundamental beliefs and values are consistently challenged and changing, and how we respond now in this chamber will continue to shape the future direction of our society.

The Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 was passed by this parliament and commenced on 7 July 2022. It was a significant piece of legislation because, under section 6 of this act, termination could occur any time beyond 22 weeks' gestation. Those who raised concerns about an increase in late terminations were shouted down by claims that terminations beyond 22 weeks were extremely rare, but according to the government's South Australian Abortion Reporting Committee, since the commencement of this bill until December 2023, there have been 47 terminations beyond 22 weeks. Given that the total number of abortions in 2023 was 4,905, you could argue that 47 is not a large percentage of the total. However, the fact that these 47 terminations occurred after 22 weeks cannot be characterised as extremely rare, and this is certainly not insignificant.

It is also reported that 37 of these terminations after 22 weeks were justified under the classified reason of 'physical and mental health of the pregnant person'. The physical and psychological pressure associated with pregnancy can be overwhelming, not to mention the social and financial implications of giving birth and then raising a child. Nevertheless, the decision to terminate can also cause significant trauma, particularly during the latter weeks of pregnancy. If the mental health of the pregnant woman is our paramount concern, then we must also weigh up and consider the psychological, emotional and moral consequences of terminating the life of an unborn child.

This is why I applaud the honourable member for introducing this bill, because it acknowledges that there are consequences to the termination of life, especially when this life is terminated beyond 22 weeks and requires the mother to deliver a stillborn child. How can anyone suggest that delivering a stillborn child is preferable to the delivery of a living, breathing baby?

It can only make sense to a society has lost its moral compass and a medical profession that sees pregnancy as a medical problem to be removed, rather than a moral and ethical dilemma that needs to be thoughtfully and ethically resolved by supporting and assisting a pregnant woman to genuinely and sincerely consider all available options, not just abortion. According to the Abortion Reporting Committee, the Pregnancy Advisory Centre conducted 65.2 per cent of abortions in South Australia in 2023, or 3,197 abortions out of 4,905. In its own brochure, entitled 'Myths and Facts About Abortion', the centre states:

…research shows that for the majority abortion causes no long lasting psychological consequences… Having an abortion is not inherently traumatic; however, every step of the process to accessing abortion services can be made traumatic by judgemental or undermining treatment by others.

Such statements show a fierce denial of the psychological impact and trauma of abortion, as well as the stigmatisation of alternative treatments as 'judgemental' and, ironically, blaming alternative options as causing the trauma rather than the abortion itself.

This forceful and ideologically driven approach is consistent with communications received and confirmed by my office from a South Australian woman who has worked for over 15 years as a pregnancy support worker. This dedicated pregnancy support worker recounted the story of a 39-year-old woman who unexpectedly fell pregnant and contacted the Pregnancy Advisory Centre. She was told to come in that day and on the same day her womb was injected with digoxin. She stayed in a motel for a couple of days and returned to the centre to deliver her dead baby.

At no stage was she shown an ultrasound of her unborn child, counselled or offered alternatives. Many months later, she requested and received an ultrasound of her unborn child, but the image was obscured, and she still had no idea how many weeks pregnant she had been. It was only after she received a $5,000 payment from the federal government entitled 'Bereavement payment of the maternity payment and paid parental leave' that she was informed she had been 23 weeks and five days pregnant at the time of the abortion.

There are many examples of similar stories where pregnant women are railroaded into an abortion, rather than counselled and supported to make the most appropriate decision based on the individual health and circumstances and all of the available information.

In a recent front-page story in The Advertiser, Tara Dawes was only 13 when she became pregnant through sexual abuse. This courageous young woman recounts how she was made to feel like it was her fault and how she was encouraged to terminate her pregnancy but resisted because she understood that she could not endure the trauma of an abortion. Despite feeling abandoned and forgotten, Tara went on to have her baby, finish school and achieve an ATAR of 95. Appropriate support for Tara could have made her journey a lot less stressful by affirming her decision to keep her baby, despite such extremely difficult circumstances.

This is why I commend to this chamber my amendment to the honourable member's bill by inserting section 6A, which ensures support for all women under this proposed law who have terminated their pregnancy at 28 weeks through live birth and are faced with the difficult decision to either keep their baby or give the baby up for adoption.

This amendment includes professional counselling to assist women in making this decision, as well as ongoing and practical support for women who decide they want to keep their baby. This will ensure that women are not left to make these decisions on their own, as well as providing assurance to women who want to raise their child that they will have access to valuable support for the first 24 months of their child's life. I want to acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Laura Henderson in improving and shaping that amendment as well.

In a civilised society that values life, pregnant women should receive the support and assistance they need to birth and raise their child. I will always uphold the sanctity of life and value of motherhood and fatherhood as I believe that this is the bedrock of a decent and caring society where life is considered a gift and abortion is never presented as a first and only option.

Sitting suspended from 17:58 to 19:45.

The PRESIDENT: Before I call the Hon. N.J. Centofanti, I just remind members to date it has been as I would expect: very respectful and members are heard in silence. Interjections will not be tolerated at all. Members of the gallery, of course you are welcome. I do not want to hear any sound. You can watch the debate but you are not to disrupt in any way, shape or form. The Hon. N.J. Centofanti.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (19:46): It will come as no surprise to members that I stand in support of the Hon. Ben Hood's amendment bill today. I want to acknowledge the Hon. Ben Hood for his bravery in bringing this bill to the parliament. Can I echo the earlier words of the Hon. Dennis Hood and simply say that as Leader of the Opposition in this place I am incredibly proud of the courage the Hon. Ben Hood has displayed in bringing this bill forward.

I support this bill knowing that the decisions we make in this place have a profound impact on individuals right across our state. I do so also knowing that the decisions we made in this place in 2021, decisions I could not and did not support at the time and continue to reject, have since affected the lives of 45 babies whose lives were terminated through those decisions.

Under the mask of decriminalisation of abortion, proponents of the Termination of Pregnancy Bill pushed those changes to late-term abortion. I think it is important to state that back in 2021 I was not against the move of the abortion legislation away from the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and into its own standalone health act. I still support that move. But it is my understanding, however, that in the last 50 years no woman has ever been prosecuted for accessing an abortion. Nonetheless, if the relevant sections were simply picked up and moved into the health act, I, and I suggest many others in this place and in the other place, would not have had a problem.

The issue was the additional changes to the bill, namely the removal of the gestational upper-term limits on abortion. I did not support the removal of gestational upper-term limits on abortion that went through this chamber back in 2021. In fact, at the time, I moved amendments in this chamber that then became known as the Speirs amendments in an attempt to restrict this legislation to allow for termination of pregnancy post 22 weeks and six days only in certain specific medical circumstances, and those are to save the life of the mother but also adding in to save the life of another foetus and in the circumstances of serious anomalies associated with a pregnancy that were incompatible with life. Disappointingly, this amendment was defeated in both houses.

Individuals, in opposition to the Hon. Ben Hood's bill, argue that abortion is health care. Abortion is fundamentally different from other forms of health care because it involves another life, in addition to that of the pregnant woman. While people may assign different values to unborn lives, it remains a biological fact that a second life is present.

As the Hon. Clare Scriven cited in her second reading speech in the Termination of Pregnancy Bill back in 2021, the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, dated 2 September 1990, states:

Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.

This convention clearly affirms that babies deserve legal protection both before and after birth. Late-term abortion denies those babies their human rights. With advancements in modern technology, we recognise that a baby is viable at 22 weeks and six days. Yet, currently, a baby capable of living independently of its mother is still denied the protection of human rights. The Hon. Ben Hood's bill seeks to amend this and provides a balance between the rights of a mother to terminate her pregnancy and the rights of the child to live.

During commentary about the 2021 termination of pregnancy legislation, much credit was given to the late Hon. Robin Rhodes Millhouse QC, the then Attorney-General, on his so-called progressive reform of abortion laws in 1969 in South Australia. Again, at the time of the debate, I emphasised that the Hon. Robin Millhouse QC proceeded to have regrets about the unintentional consequences of his reform, such that he went public back in 2014, when he featured in an article written in The Advertiser entitled 'Robin Millhouse's regret'. After 45 years of carrying a growing burden, the Hon. Mr Millhouse QC confided that, and I quote:

I deeply regret that the medical profession—and the lawyers—interpreted the law too widely. It has become abortion on demand. I did not intend it to be that. I have taken the rap for it. It is something I regret.

During my second reading speech on the Termination of Pregnancy Bill, I noted that this interview was pertinent as it was a direct admission of how the intent of legislation is often not the reality, and I said, and I quote, 'I feel this current legislation will face the same problems,' and it has: 45 lives have been terminated or killed due to the physical or mental health of a pregnant person using foeticide, which is the injection of potassium chloride into a baby's heart, as is the recommended procedure for all babies over 22 weeks, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, to ensure there is no risk of a live birth. The baby dies in the womb and is delivered as a stillborn.

Members need to understand that those women who decide to undergo an abortion under these circumstances are still forced to give birth, except they give birth to a dead baby and not a live one. That is the reality. These are babies that, according to SA Health's own data, if born at 24 weeks would have a 68.2 per cent survival rate, and if born at 28 weeks, as per this amendment bill, would have a 96.9 per cent survival rate.

As the Hon. Dennis Hood suggested, the bill we are debating tonight is about those babies, after 28 weeks, who are healthy, who can hear and recognise familiar voices and sounds and who can feel pain. I would like to read something out to the chamber regarding the use of potassium chloride in the veterinary profession, a profession that I was a member of for 15 years prior to entering this place. Under the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition it states that, and I quote:

Although unacceptable when used in conscious vertebrate animals, a solution of potassium chloride…injected IV or intracardially in an animal that is unconscious or under general anesthesia is an acceptable way to induce cardiac arrest and death.

Let us really think about this. It is unethical for veterinarians—it was unethical for me as a veterinarian—to inject potassium chloride into an animal unless that animal was under general anaesthesia and completely unconscious because of the high degree of pain associated with that injection.

What sort of a society are we living in where it is acceptable—and in fact it is practice—to inject a 28-week-old healthy baby, one that has a 96.9 per cent survival rate out of the womb, with potassium chloride, the same substance that is completely unacceptable to inject into an animal without a full anaesthetic? That is not a society I want to be part of, and it is not a practice I condone.

Most of us know someone who has been confronted with the decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. It can be an absolutely incredibly difficult decision, but the decision facing the parliament today is not about access to early terminations, which is currently provided in a safe, medical environment, and should continue to be done as such. It is a decision about the ethical and moral implications of late-term abortion, of foeticide, and it is about supporting a bill that allows the mother to terminate a pregnancy with a live baby instead of allowing a barbaric practice of potassium chloride injection in an otherwise healthy baby that we no longer ethically allow in veterinary practice. Gary Haugen once said:

When our grandchildren ask us where we were when the voiceless and the vulnerable in our era needed leaders of compassion and purpose, I hope we can say that we showed up, and that we showed up on time.

As leaders, we must always remain focused on protecting those who do not have a voice, and it is time for us to show up and to right a wrong in this place.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (19:57): I rise as one of two speakers tonight for the Greens to oppose this bill. It will come as no surprise to members of this council or indeed to Greens voters that the Greens have a policy position of the decriminalisation of abortion. We believe abortion care is health care.

This bill does not see abortion care as health care. It seeks to intervene with the practice of health professionals, and I note the Clinical Guideline for Abortion Care of RANZCOG, which is an evidence-based guideline on abortion care in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, some almost 170 pages or so. It is certainly just one document that would guide the clinical care when it comes to abortion, so this is in no way an area that is not governed by appropriate measures.

It is not appropriate, however, for politicians to decide on behalf of a medical team and a pregnant person each and every circumstance that they face in their lives when it comes to the issue of the termination of pregnancy. Indeed, it has been said of this bill that it addresses some unintended consequences that were not considered in the debate that we had some years ago. I note that of course back in 2019, the South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) was asked by the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Vickie Chapman MP, to:

…inquire into and report in relation to the topic of abortion, with the aim of modernising the law in South Australia and adopting best practice reforms. SALRI was requested to undertake proper investigation and provide recommendations for reform based on best clinical practice in this area and taking guidance from other jurisdictions in considering the most suitable way to achieve proper reform of abortion laws in South Australia.

Of course that review, which included over 3,000 online submissions, had extensive, multidisciplinary research and took on expert and community views, including forums that were with legal, health care, faith groups, disability sectors, NGOs in not only our capital cities, but across regional locations.

It used the facilitation of YourSAy to seek community views, including some 2,885 online responses, took submissions from 340 individuals, agencies or interested parties, made 66  recommendations, the majority of which were accepted, and then saw a bill debated in this parliament with some amendments in 2021, passing with 29 votes to 15 in the other place and of course passing in this council, after which the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 was assented to and eventually commenced. That hardly seems like thought was not put into that process.

I think we have a piece of legislation in terms of the act that has undertaken all of the things the Hon. Ben Hood says it had not done, and the use of the number 45 in the debate I find not just problematic but concerning, misleading and certainly not something that has been helpful to appropriate debate of this matter. I draw attention to the number of 45 being used time and again, not just by the Hon. Ben Hood but by a person who has been ABC/RMIT fact-checked and found to be a liar, so I would caution members on transposing the use of the 45 into what this bill does.

Of course in the fine print the Hon. Ben Hood does go on to say that less than five cases are in this particular category. Of those less than five, one woman today has gone public with her particular story. I thank her for her time earlier this week, where I was able to have an in-depth conversation with that person, who has now publicly gone on record as having undertaken the decision that she did in very difficult and complex circumstances—which this bill did not know about, would not address—not only for the sake of her own life but for the wellbeing of her eight-year-old child.

That situation could not be understood or accommodated by any piece of legislation such as this, which comes into the parliament one week and is then taken to a vote the very next sitting week, has had little consultation, has certainly had a lot of media, a lot of hype and a lot of drama associated with it, but this is not nuanced legislation that takes on board medical advice and acknowledges that we have done a lot of work in this state already to come to a position where we have an act, informed by that SALRI report, that is something that I as a member of this council strongly support and do not wish to see rolled back.

I do not for a minute suspect that this will be the last piece of legislation that would seek to roll back our current laws if it were to pass tonight. This would simply be the first of many small, ongoing attempts to move to a position where abortion care was not treated as health care. Abortion care is health care, that is Greens' policy and that will be our position in a vote as a party. I know the Hon. Rob Simms will make a contribution also, but whichever Green you get in parliament, that will be our position. When voters vote for us, they know that is our position.

I also reference the number of not just community but quite esteemed organisations that have written to me, the Hon. Michelle Lensink in particular, with serious concerns about this piece of legislation. The piece of correspondence to which I would like to draw members' attention in the first instance is from midwives in South Australian universities. In particular, it has been authored by Associate Professor Elizabeth Newnham of Flinders University and co-signed by over 10 other university midwives. That correspondence, which is dated 11 October and sent to all Legislative Council members notes that:

We are a group of concerned midwives working in South Australian universities. We are writing to express our opposition to the Private Members Bill proposed by Mr Ben Hood that is currently before the Legislative Council.

This Bill, which advocates for forced birth, fundamentally violates human rights principles and contravenes core biomedical ethical principles. These include, beneficence (to do good), non-maleficence (not to harm), justice, and respect for autonomy. The proposal to introduce premature labour and birth, followed by the significant medical care required for preterm infants, culminating in forced adoption, is ethically indefensible.

Midwifery philosophy of care is grounded in the ethical principles of justice, equity, and respect for human dignity. Reproductive autonomy is essential to gender equity and reproductive justice. In countries where women and gender-diverse people are not able to access safe abortion, maternal mortality rates increase significantly.

The International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) Philosophy of Care statement emphasises the critical role of midwives in promoting and protecting women's human, reproductive and sexual health and rights. The ICM Code of Ethics upholds that no woman or girl should be harmed by conception or childbearing.

Importantly, while midwives may decide not to participate in activities for which they hold deep moral opposition, individual conscience must not prevent women from accessing essential health services. Midwives are also ethically obligated to work towards recognising and eliminating harmful health impacts on the health of women and infants. To that extent, the proposed Bill is unworkable in practice; meeting a request for termination of pregnancy with a requirement for forced live birth would not be possible under the terms of informed consent.

In alignment with our professional philosophy, codes of ethics, and National Standards for Practice, we categorically reject the statements made in support of the proposed Bill. Abortion care is essential health care. As healthcare professionals dedicated to the wellbeing of pregnant and birthing people, we oppose this Bill and urge that it does not pass.

In summary, this Bill undermines fundamental human rights and ethical standards that are central to midwifery care. It poses a direct threat to reproductive autonomy, gender equity, and the health and wellbeing of women and gender-diverse individuals. We call on policymakers to uphold the principles of justice, equity, and respect for autonomy by rejecting this Bill and ensuring access to comprehensive, safe reproductive health services for all.

They offer their willingness to discuss further with any members of this council; I am not sure if members of the council had taken up that offer, but I am sure it applied to all of us. I also note the correspondence from Mark Rankin of Flinders University, who is a legal expert in this area—in this area in particular, I will note, as does his correspondence. You can be a legal expert, but you need to be a legal expert in the area that you are talking about for it to be taken seriously.

I also draw members' attention to the Hon. Michelle Lensink's correspondence that she has received from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. There was correspondence from SHINE SA, of course the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition, and so many more.

I thank those medical professionals who work in this area who have corresponded with me and who, in the past, have had to deal with these situations over many, many years and decades. Indeed, I note one doctor who, during the process previously to this—and more recently we have repeated our conversations—had to see his patients off to interstate or, indeed, the US in these situations because South Australia did not provide the medical care that those people needed, sometimes even assisting them himself to access care, because it was unaffordable for those people to travel interstate or overseas.

I note that the SARC one pager is probably the best run-down of why I believe people should not be supporting this bill tonight and I hope that they do not. It states that the Hood bill is an attack on abortion care and its proposals are cruel and unworkable, it seeks to overturn the intention of the current Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021, later abortions are rare but essential, best practice in abortion care is not possible under this bill, patients would be exposed to the risk of birth trauma, premature delivery is dangerous and care standards require that it be avoided whenever possible, patient consent would be coerced—and that is something I have heard time and time again from medical professionals on this.

I do ask the Hon. Ben Hood in his summing up to address how patient consent is not being coerced in this particular model that he puts forward. It would also see a return to forced adoption. SARC raises their concerns that women with crisis pregnancies could be denied needed obstetric care, that children born after a denied abortion would probably face much more difficult circumstances than otherwise, and so many more reasons.

I am sure this debate tonight will not be the end of this debate in this parliament, but if proponents have ideas such as this in the future I do ask that they allow more than one sitting week to have a proper debate and certainly that they consult more widely. I would draw members' attention that in my consultations on this particular bill I have had so many people contact me from Mount Gambier and raise their concerns about the lack of access to terminations in Mount Gambier currently, not only early medical abortion but also surgical abortion. Certainly, there have been grave concerns raised with me about the operations in the Mount Gambier hospital and elsewhere in the South-East.

I hope in the future to turn my attention to those issues, and that will not be the last that you have heard from me on what is going on in Mount Gambier with access to terminations, which is currently not what it should be under our current laws. It is certainly something of concern to the Greens that we will be seeking to address in the near future. With that, we will oppose the bill.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (20:12): I rise to make a brief contribution in support of the Termination of Pregnancy (Terminations and Live Births) Amendment Bill. The termination of pregnancy debate is a longstanding and contentious discourse that touches on the moral, legal, medical and religious aspects of induced abortion. I want to first of all thank the Hon. Ben Hood for his courage in bringing the bill to this parliament, and I also acknowledge the many advocacy groups that were involved in developing and drafting this bill.

Whether one is a pro choice supporter or a pro life advocate, members of parliament representing our diverse communities must maintain respectful engagements with each other so that difficult debates and decisions made in this place allow us to listen and to speak thoughtfully for women who are facing immensely challenging and vulnerable situations.

I believe I am the first politician with Buddhist faith who has been elected in the South Australian parliament. The abortion debate has been a sensitive and emotional topic for many of those in my community that calls on us to consider the moral, legal, medical and religious aspects of the issue. I would like to present my views to support this bill, and I believe I represent a number of individuals and communities that feel the same way about this important matter as I do.

They will not be seen at rallies. They will not be seen making comments on social media. They are the quiet ones, but the quiet ones are speaking through me tonight to support this particular bill. As a Buddhist, I have been brought up in a community where we believe that life should not be destroyed. We regard those who are causing death as morally wrong if the death is caused deliberately and by negligence.

Buddhists regard life as starting at conception. Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the awareness and the intention of destroying a life. Buddhists are expected to take full personal responsibility for everything we do and for the consequences that follow. The decision to abort is therefore a highly personal one, and one that requires careful and compassionate exploration of the ethical issues involved and a willingness to carry the burden of whatever happens as a result of that decision.

I understand from the Hon. Ben Hood that this bill is about offering both compassion to the mother and the chance for the child to live. Furthermore, as the mover highlighted in his second reading speech, the medical advancements of the last 10 years make this bill not only morally right but medically sound, taking in scientific evidence provided by the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network that babies born at 28 weeks have a 96 per cent chance of survival. By requiring early delivery, medical professionals are protecting the life of the child and also sparing the mother from the trauma of a prolonged and avoidable medical process.

Let us be very, very clear that this bill does not take away a woman's right to end her pregnancy. We must acknowledge that there are some challenging circumstances whereby continuing a pregnancy is not possible or desired. A woman still has the right to end her pregnancy. This is not about forcing anyone into motherhood, and the bill ensures that the mother's decision to end her pregnancy is respected.

However, it provides an alternative option, which is when a woman is beginning her seventh month of pregnancy, when the baby is clearly formed and viable, if the pregnancy must be ended, then it requires the baby to be delivered alive. The child would receive immediate care in the neonatal intensive care unit, ensuring the best chance and the best possible care for a healthy life. If a mother does not wish to raise the baby, there are many loving families ready and willing to adopt.

I would like to take this moment to speak about my personal story. My late grandparents were pro-life supporters. They told us when we were young that every life brought to this earth is a gift and should be treated as a miracle. They were blessed with a total of 12 children. My late father was the 11^th child. Back then, unless a family was very well off, it was not easy to provide for so many children. My grandparents worked extremely hard in order to give whatever they could to care for such a big family.

During that time, in the village that my grandparents were at, there was a couple who could not have children of their own. This couple were good friends with my grandparents. They were like a family to them, so they adopted my dad. Instead of being the 11^th child that was born in the family, my dad became the first child and the only son for his adopted parents.

My dad did not have to change his surname by birth because his adopted parents had the same surname: Lee. I suppose Lee is a fairly common surname—it is like Smith—so the two families felt that it was meant to be. They stayed close together, and my dad had the support of two sets of parents, and I have been the beneficiary of their love and legacy.

I touch on this personal story because I believe women who are not in the position to care for their babies after birth can provide other loving families with a child to adopt. As this bill before us is about offering both compassion to the mother and the chance for a child to be born, to live and to be cared for, I also indicate that I would like to support the amendments moved by the Hon. Sarah Game, which provide for support to be provided after live birth. That is outlined in her amendment. With those words, I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. L.A. HENDERSON (20:19): I rise today to support the Termination of Pregnancy (Terminations and Live Births) Amendment Bill 2024. In doing so, I acknowledge that this is a conscience matter for the Liberal Party. This bill seeks to balance the interests and the rights of the mother and the child. As the legislation currently stands, should a mother have a termination of pregnancy after 28 weeks the baby's life would also be terminated. The proposed bill would still allow for the pregnancy to be terminated, but instead of the baby being delivered stillborn it would see the baby be born alive.

I have heard some say that this should not be a decision for the parliament, that this is a decision for a doctor and the woman. Respectfully, I absolutely think that it is the place of this parliament to safeguard children. It is the parliament's job to decide how to balance at law the competing interests and human rights of the mother and a baby. It is important to note that this bill still allows for a woman and her doctor to make decisions about her reproductive health, but it also safeguards the life of the child.

Despite some saying that it should not be for the parliament to make these decisions, this will not be the first time that this parliament has legislated on the issue of abortion. Notably, I refer to the Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2021, passed only a few years ago. So, I find it interesting that this argument is being deployed for this bill, as if this place is incapable of or unwilling to debate matters of fundamental importance to so many in our community.

The SA Abortion Reporting Committee Annual Report for 2023 showed that there have been 37 terminations of pregnancy after 22 weeks and six days gestation in South Australia in 2023 for the physical or mental health of the pregnant person, 10 for foetal anomaly and none for the purpose of saving the life of a pregnant person or another foetus. This has jumped significantly from 2022, which showed only eight terminations of pregnancy after 22 weeks and six days gestation for the reason of the physical or mental health of the pregnant person, two for foetal anomaly and none, again, for the reason of saving the life of a pregnant person or another foetus.

The Hon. Ben Hood MLC highlighted in his second reading speech that, according to the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network, babies born at 28 weeks have a 96 per cent chance of survival and that 76 per cent of those children will go on to have normal motor development and 89 per cent will live free of moderate or severe disability.

This bill does not seek to remove a woman's choice to seek an abortion should they choose to have one prior to 27 weeks and six days. Any assertions that this affects a woman's right to an abortion in those early stages would be incorrect. For clarity, that means that the mother would be able to seek an abortion right up until the end of her second trimester.

Having conducted research into a number of sources on pregnancy, I understand that by week 27 the baby would be around the size of a cabbage. A bub would be able to hear muffled sounds in the womb. By this stage of pregnancy, it is likely that mum would also feel her bub kicking around. What we are talking about here are babies who, statistically speaking, according to the report of the Australian and New Zealand Neonatal Network, have around a 96 per cent chance of survival at discharge to home rate or higher depending on when they were born. We are talking about babies who are past the threshold of viability, yet currently under South Australia's abortion laws their lives could be terminated should the pregnancy be terminated.

Instead, the Hon. Ben Hood's bill seeks to allow a medical practitioner to only intervene to end the pregnancy of a woman who is more than 27 weeks and six days pregnant if the intention is to deliver the foetus alive and a premature delivery is necessary to save the life of the pregnant person or another foetus or continuation of the pregnancy would involve significant risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person or there is a case of significant risk of serious foetal abnormalities associated with the pregnancy or premature delivery is medically appropriate.

It is important to note that come week 28 the mother would have had the nuchal translucency scan around the 12-week mark to measure the skin fold at the back of the baby's neck. The results of the nuchal translucency scan combined with a blood test may tell parents if their baby is at an increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities.

Additionally, the morphology scan would be completed around weeks 17 to 22, which is a routine scan to check if the baby is developing normally. This is well and truly in advance of the 28-week mark. This bill does not remove a woman's right to choose or to place them in a medically dangerous position like some have purported. It still allows for a pregnancy to be terminated, but what it does do is protect the right of life for the unborn baby.

I indicate that I will be supporting the amendment in the name of the Hon. Sarah Game. I commend her on bringing this amendment aimed at providing supports for women and their babies should they have given birth to a child as a result of an intervention to end pregnancy under section 6(2a). I agree that these supports should be available should the mother seek to access them and should not be enforced or mandated.

Before I conclude, I would like to acknowledge the work of the Hon. Ben Hood and his wife, Elle. What an incredible team you both make. Ben, you should be incredibly proud of the work that you have put into this bill and the courage that you have had in championing this cause, especially given the vitriol that you have received. I know that at times there have been unnecessary levels of hostility, even threats of violence—frankly, behaviour that is entirely unacceptable in a free and democratic society.

No matter how passionate someone is about an issue, threats and violence are never the answer. But despite this, Ben has risen above those who have sought to play in the mud. I think that this is a true testament to him, to his family and to all of those who have worked together to bring recognition of this important issue to this place.

I would also like to acknowledge the tireless work and dedication of Joanna Howe. Jo's advocacy on this issue has been incredible. She has immense passion and fire and it has been on display throughout this campaign. With that, I support this bill and I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (20:26): I rise to speak against this bill. As noted by my colleague, the Hon. Tammy Franks, this is not simply a matter of conscience for the Greens, it is actually a matter of party policy for us. Our party has a very clear policy position in favour of recognising abortion as fundamental to health care.

I do want to say that it is always been a frustration for me that the two old parties approach issues of women's reproductive rights as conscience votes. It creates the impression that these issues are opt-in luxury items and it seems that whenever we are dealing with issues of gay rights or women's rights these become conscience votes of the old parties. I do find that a very frustrating state of affairs, particularly when they bind on so many other policy issues in this place that have a significant moral dimension.

I want to take a moment to reflect some of the Greens' policy and read that into Hansard. Our policy that we took to the last federal election was very clear:

The Greens will continue to support giving people choices over their bodies by ensuring access to safe and affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare.

We are committed to making access to abortion safe, accessible, legal and affordable across Australia.

As the Hon. Tammy Franks has stated, no matter who represents our party in the parliament, there is a clear commitment that we will defend women's reproductive rights in this place. It is very clear to me that this is going to be an important issue at the next state election, as it is over in Queensland, given the broad support for the radical proposition that the Hon. Mr Hood has put before the parliament from the Liberal side of politics, and so the Greens will be doing everything we can to resist this assault on women's reproductive rights in the days and months ahead.

I also want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague, the Hon. Tammy Franks, over many years in this space. The Hon. Ms Franks has been a strong and tireless voice for the rights of women, in particular defending women's reproductive rights, and I really want to acknowledge her leadership. I know that it is valued by many, many people in the community and, indeed, it is an issue that has been raised with me many, many times when people reflect on the great work that the honourable member has done in this place. She has been a really staunch advocate, so I want to recognise her for her work on that.

I am opposed to this bill not only because it is Greens policy to stand for women's reproductive rights but also because I consider this bill to be morally reprehensible. There are already significant safeguards in place when it comes to women accessing late-term abortions. One of the things that has really upset me about this debate is the highly emotive and I think disrespectful language that has been used in relation to those women who have had to make that incredibly difficult decision, a decision that they are making in consultation with healthcare professionals, not politicians. These decisions should be made by women in consultation with healthcare professionals, not by members of parliament who seek to regulate what people do in their personal lives.

I want to reference some points made here by Professor Warren Jones. Professor Jones has had more than 45 years' experience working in the women's health field. This is a letter that he wrote to The Advertiser when this issue came on the agenda just a few weeks ago. He said:

It is clear that some have no knowledge of the emotional or physical trauma experienced by women with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies…

In Sydney in the early 1960s, I worked in a 24-bed hospital ward dedicated to the acute care of women who were recovering or dying from infection and haemorrhage after illegal abortions.

I then had similar experiences in England and campaigned for abortion law reform leading up to the passage of the enlightened UK Abortion Act in 1967.

Legalised and safe termination of pregnancy is now well established in SA. It is not in the purvey of community bias. It is solely a matter of a woman's rights and her choice.

The currently proposed, and politically motivated, private member's Bill is dangerous to women.

Severe mental illness and critical medical disorders usually do not manifest until pregnancy is well advanced when a late but life-saving decision for termination must be taken by the woman and two doctors.

To make this decision conditional on the baby being adopted out is unethical and medically reprehensible.

I agree with Professor Warren Jones and, indeed, this appears to be the view of the overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals who work in this space and provide advice and support to women in these circumstances.

I also want to reference one of the other elements of this debate that I found really disturbing, and that is this kind of flippant way in which adoption has been talked about as a solution: 'Oh, well, these women should be forced to have the baby and then just put the baby up for adoption.' Again, I think the Liberal speakers who are offering that, and those in this debate outside who have put that solution forward, are being blind to history.

Back in 2012, there was a comprehensive Senate inquiry into forced adoption practices here in our country, looking at the significant effect that this practice had for women. It led to a national apology, recognising the long-term trauma that those practices did to those women. This parliament, here in South Australia, also provided an apology to those women. So, to simply dismiss their experience, and to sort of suggest that this is some kind of easy solution and easy pathway, again, I find demonstrates that the Liberals just do not get it.

This brings me to my next point, and that is what I see as being the far right's takeover of the South Australian Liberal Party, something that I see to be very disturbing here in this parliament. I think it is worth reflecting that this is the second private members' Wednesday, or second week in a row, when we have dealt with these thorny issues where we have seen Liberal speakers presenting world views that I think are wildly out of step with the broader South Australian community.

What we are seeing, I think, is an importation of the far-right politics of Donald Trump in the United States, and it is being brought into a South Australian context. That is really concerning, I think, in terms of what that means for this kind of debate here in South Australia. I know some people might find that shocking, but it is very clear that these tactics are being adopted and deployed here in South Australia, and I urge the Liberal Party not to go down this path because I see it as being very divisive and it is very dangerous.

If you look at what has unfolded over in the United States, where there has been a gradual erosion of women's rights, and in particular their right to access abortion, that is resulting in very dangerous health outcomes for women, and I do not want to see that kind of environment being created here in South Australia.

This is a matter of health care. It should not be a matter for politicians and, indeed, this was resolved some time ago. It is now being reopened in the context of a Liberal Party preselection that is coming down the line, and I think that is really regrettable. I hope that we are not going to see this sort of culture war politics being played out in the months and years ahead by the South Australian Liberal Party. In closing, I oppose this bill, and I urge all members to vote it down and to stand firm in standing up for women's reproductive rights.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (20:36): I rise tonight to indicate my full support for this bill. I commend the Hon. Ben Hood for introducing this important bill, which strikes the right balance between supporting the mother and protecting the life of the baby. Medical science has clearly progressed and demonstrated that at 28 weeks the baby is viable outside the womb. Modern medical advancements have shown that babies born prematurely at this stage have a strong chance of survival of around 97 per cent with proper neonatal care.

These babies can breathe, respond to stimuli and, with assistance, grow into healthy children. To terminate a foetus at this late point is not only ending a potential life but a life that could have otherwise thrived independently. By 28 weeks and beyond, the development of the baby is extensive. By this time the baby has a fully functioning nervous system. It can hear sounds, open its eyes, feel pain and even dream, according to medical evidence.

Abortions performed this late in pregnancy often pose significant risks to the mother's health. This procedure becomes far more complex and invasive as the pregnancy progresses. With greater risks of infection, haemorrhage and other life-threatening complications, a late-term abortion can endanger the mother's life and physical wellbeing, making it a hazardous decision for both her and the foetus.

The impact on the mother's mental health must not be underestimated and must be considered in relation to late-term abortion, given the fact that the woman would be giving birth to a baby that has died. I have grave concerns about the long-term impact an abortion at this late stage would have, especially if the baby is terminated due to an issue with the woman's own mental health rather than termination due to the physical health of the mother or baby.

Allowing late-term abortions due to mental health issues is of grave concern, concerns of regret and potential long-term impact on the woman's mental health by choosing to have this performed on a viable baby. It should be noted that zero out of the 45 terminations were listed in the category to save the life of a woman or another foetus. Alternatives must be considered and made readily available to women facing unwanted pregnancies at this very late stage. Adoption is a practical, humane choice that allows the child to live and the mother to decide, which would potentially likely face less regret than termination of a viable baby.

In cases of unwanted pregnancies at 28 weeks, adoption offers a path that respects both the mother's autonomy and the baby's right to live. With many families unable to have children, adoption by an appropriate family is a good option. I also note that I will support the Hon. Sarah Game's amendment and thank her for putting this forward.

The late-term element of the original Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 I found very concerning. While this was put through before I was in parliament, I believe the late-term abortion amendments that were put forward were very important, and I would have supported them if in the parliament. I believe the current bill before us protects both the mother and the baby and allows for healthy, viable babies to survive.

Most South Australians would not be aware that abortions can happen to viable babies after 28 weeks. I believe not having a clear limit creates uncertainty, and, as the Hon. Ben Hood indicated, grave concerns have been raised by a midwife for the sake of the doctors and nurses who are involved in administering such late-term abortions.

By setting a limit at 28 weeks, we create a boundary that respects both the mother's right and the reality of foetal development and provides the right balance, the right of the woman to make the choice around her body and the right of the unborn child to live when they reach this viable stage. I believe this bill provides steps in protecting both maternal health and the baby's life and also providing for unintended consequences from the 2021 act. With that, I wholeheartedly support the bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (20:41): I recall when the debate on the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 was occurring that I had discussions with some that the bill would allow abortion well past viability—that is, past the time the baby could have a good chance of survival outside the womb—and that it would be able to be done without being due to saving the life of the mother or another foetus nor because of foetal abnormality. The response was: that just would not happen.

I think that view probably reflected the view of many members of parliament and certainly most members of the public. Late-term abortion was assumed to only occur for severe foetal abnormality or to save the life of a woman. In the South Australian Abortion Reporting Committee reports for the periods since the passage of that bill, the reasons for abortion after 22 weeks and six days are provided. There have been 57 after that time. The number for foetal abnormality is 12, which leaves 45. The number done to save the life of a pregnant person or another foetus is zero—zero. That is zero for those reasons past 22 weeks and six days.

I think most South Australians would be extremely surprised by that figure and many would be shocked. But this bill, if passed, will not prevent any of those women from ending their pregnancies. The bill says that from 28 weeks gestation onwards such pregnancies would be ended by an induction of labour. Let us be clear: an abortion at 28 weeks involves the woman delivering a baby. The baby's heart is injected with potassium chloride, causing the baby to die, and this is known as foeticide. Labour then commences and the dead baby is delivered.

This bill would still enable, at 28 weeks, for the pregnancy to be ended. It would simply remove that one step that injects the baby's heart with potassium chloride. Labour would then commence and a live baby would be delivered. We have heard already from other speakers of how far developed a baby is at 28 weeks. We have heard in regard to their ability to react and in terms of their ability to survive outside the womb at that time. I myself have a relative who was born at 28 weeks. He is now in his 50s.

I have heard some remarkable misinformation—misinformation from those opposed to this bill. One of the most extreme was a claim that a woman would be denied cancer treatment if this bill passed. Such a statement indicates an absolute lack of understanding of the bill. Let me reiterate: this bill continues to allow termination of pregnancy in that circumstance—of course it does. Induction of the delivery would occur without first ending the life of the baby. I emphasise again: an abortion at 28 weeks-plus involves the woman delivering a baby regardless. The difference is whether the baby is born alive or dead.

The Hon. Mr Simms alluded to a letter to I think he said The Advertiser from our Emeritus Professor Warren Jones, who was talking about his experience in the 1960s of illegal abortions and of women dying. This bill has no bearing on such experiences. This does not stop the ending of any pregnancies. The statement that was read out by Mr Simms, which I am assuming is correct, was along the lines that termination of pregnancy would be conditional on being adopted out and that would be unethical. Again, this bill does not require that. This bill simply says that the baby will be delivered alive instead of the baby being delivered dead, and then it is the choice of the woman whether to put the baby up for adoption or to raise the baby herself.

I also had contact from Professor Jones, who I understand may have been involved with briefings on this bill. I asked him some questions and I here outline his answers. I asked him: 'How does the onset of labour mentioned above'—in the circumstances I have already talked about—'differ to delivering without foeticide?' He answered:

The foetal injection and death of the foetus sets in train the mechanisms that initiate labour. If it doesn't proceed expeditiously then an intravenous drip is required to help the uterus contract. As in a regular induction.

I repeat: his answer was 'As in a regular induction.' I then asked:

What is the difference in risk to the woman in the two different induction scenarios?

He answered:

If this was a 'regular' induction with a live preterm foetus the complications could be greater for the mother eg foetal distress needing a C section.

So I sought to clarify by asking:

So is the difference in the situations you've mentioned above, that without foeticide, the woman may be more likely to need a C-section?

That is, a caesarean section. He answered:

Yes if there was a complication such as fetal distress which threatened the survival of the newborn baby.

He further commented:

It would be rare to do a Caesar if the fetus was already dead.

That is the end of the quote. This means we are left with a choice: the baby can be delivered alive, which may increase the need for a caesarean section in the event there is foetal distress, or the baby can be delivered dead. In both situations the woman delivers a baby.

That really brings us to what I believe this bill is trying to achieve. This is trying to achieve a balance. There is a strong message from those in the pro-life movement which says: 'Love them both'—love the woman and love the child. This bill moves closer to enabling that to occur.

There have been statements and claims about the alleged motivations of the mover of this bill, and they have been brought up and proposed as a reason to vote against the bill. I make no comment about the motivations, because what is relevant for our vote tonight is the impact of the bill if it were to pass. Is a bill that does not change the current law that allows women to end their pregnancy but does protect the life of a viable baby a law that should be supported? That is the question. It is a simple question.

Whatever the motivations—good, bad or indifferent—may be is of no concern to us when we cast our vote on this bill tonight, because the babies that do not die as a result of this bill, if it were to pass, will not care as they get older about the motivations of the mover of the bill. They will care that they have been given the chance to live.

There have been a number of comments that this is somehow winding back women's access to abortion care, yet this bill does not prevent the termination of pregnancy. There have been comments about these late-term abortions being in the circumstances of extreme cases of threat to life or health but, as we have seen, the abortions that have been mentioned here are not for saving the life of the woman or another foetus and they are not for foetal abnormality, so again that claim is not the case.

References have been made to feedback from bodies such as the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I draw members' attention to some correspondence that Dr Catherine Peterson writes. She is referring to the college and says:

[The college] provided opinions regarding the 2021 abortion law reform. However, their opinions certainly did not represent all of their membership, as they did not poll members' opinions on the legislation. Rather, their recommendations seem to represent the views of each body's executive teams.

There have been claims in speeches tonight that the proponents of this bill—and these are some of the words that have been used—have 'finally admitted' that the 45 babies referred to in their messaging is not what this bill would address, or indeed the fact that that is the situation that was in the 'fine print'. I would refer members to the second reading speech of the mover, the second reading speech when this bill was introduced, where it was clearly stated that the 45 were those aborted after 22 weeks and six days.

That speech referred to the lack of more specific data in the SA Abortion Reporting Committee reports. It says that the 45 did not have a foetal abnormality and the mother's life was not in danger. It has never been presented that this bill would have impacted on all those 45. What has been stated clearly, openly and explicitly is that that is the data that is available. What I think we can gather is that that data is insufficient.

There has been a claim that this bill would result in forced birth. Such a claim ignores the fact that an abortion at 28 weeks or more involves a birth. It involves the delivery of a baby. The baby happens to be dead. On the rationale put forward, that birth following an abortion is a forced birth. A birth occurs either way, so clearly the argument is spurious.

The Hon. Mr Simms referred to forced adoptions and the past impacts of forced adoptions. This does not propose forced adoptions. This proposes delivery of the baby. The baby is alive. The woman can decide whether to keep the baby or put the baby up for adoption. There is no forced adoption as a result of this bill if it were to pass.

The final thing that I will mention is that some have said this bill would be pointless even if passed because it would have an impact on so few. On the information available—I believe it was a statement from the Minister for Health—five babies have had their lives terminated during the period of time past 27 weeks and six days.

I would put to the chamber that if five newborns in an intensive care unit had their lives deliberately ended would we say, 'Never mind, it's only five'? I submit that we would not. I therefore submit that this bill has the potential to protect such lives. This bill does not prevent any woman seeking an abortion past 27 weeks and six days ending their pregnancy. Therefore, this is a bill that should be supported and I commend it to the chamber.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (20:53): I quote:

The bill does not impinge on a woman's right to choose a termination. After 27 weeks and six days, the baby must be delivered alive but the pregnancy is still terminated, the baby is just put up for adoption should the mother choose not to keep it.

They are the words of the mover of this bill in the public domain. I have said publicly with respect to the member that I do not think I have heard more objectionable words used to describe the termination of pregnancy than those, because there is nothing 'just' or simple about the decisions that women in these positions find themselves in and there is certainly nothing simple about making a decision to put a baby up for adoption.

It is that sort of rhetoric, I think, that insults those facing these often heart-wrenching, heartbreaking, no-win situations more than anything else. You do not wake up one day and decide, 'I no longer want to be carrying this baby,' at that late term and expect to turn up at a specialist clinic and say, 'Get this out of me,' and have a specialist say, 'Okay, let's go.' Unfortunately, that is the sort of public message that has been sold in this debate, which has caused great pain not just to everyone in here but to those women who have had to undergo those procedures that none of us who have not been through that experience will ever be able to comprehend—none of us.

I have to say, like I have said in response—and I have kept my public comments very brief about this—sadly, life is not all about rainbows and unicorns, and pregnancies are not always filled with teddies and pink, blue and even yellow balloons. No-one makes this decision easily. It pains me greatly and, I am sure, other people in this place to think what any woman who has found herself in this position has been confronted with over recent weeks. It pains me to think that there have been 45 teddies lined up outside Parliament House without once thinking about the impact that has had on a woman who wanted nothing more in life than to become a mother but had no option other than to access a late-term termination of pregnancy.

These discussions, I am afraid, in my view and I am sure in that of many others, have been full of judgement and devoid of any ounce of compassion for those women, and they have absolutely no place in this space. Unless and until we have walked in the shoes of any woman facing what these women face, we have absolutely no right to cast judgement on any of them. In fact, we have no right to judge any of them, full stop.

I echo the sentiments expressed this evening by the Attorney, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Robert Simms in relation to the motivations in this bill, because, with respect again to the mover, no MP who is serious about law reform in this area would come to this place in the timeframe that we have, making flippant and offensive remarks and selling a story full of misinformation and disinformation—despite what the Hon. Clare Scriven has just said—and spruiking the idea of adoption, which we know it exists today anyway but which, I might add, features nowhere in the legislation before us. We do not know how that part of the scheme is going to work. We are just told, as I made reference to, that we are just going to put up for adoption a child, a baby, a foetus, whatever you want to call it—and it has been called everything this evening—after a forced live birth.

During the first debate that was had on this, I spoke of a case—and I know the Attorney at the time referred to it in the lower house—of a 13-year-old girl with significant mental impairment, who was raped by a family member. Her mental impairment meant that she did not understand the abuse that was being levelled at her. We hear a lot about child rape and abuse in this place from those members opposite. The most difficult part of that case, which is relayed in the 560-odd page report, which we have all had the benefit of but has not featured in this debate at all, is having to explain to that 13-year-old child that, as a result of a rape that she did not understand, she was pregnant. That pregnancy was not discovered until late term, and she wanted that pregnancy gone; she wanted it out of her body.

To think that we would deny a child who has been sexually assaulted and raped that sort of procedure fills me with absolute dread. It also fills me with dread to think of a mother who is carrying multiple pregnancies—so twins—put in the awful predicament of being told that one of her foetuses can survive if the other does not but being forced again in that late term to give live birth to those and hope for the best at the end of the procedure.

I am not going to dwell anymore on the emotive and what I think is objectionable sort of stuff that has surrounded this debate other than to say one thing: I do not appreciate walking out of this place during my dinner break and being told, 'I hope you will not vote in favour of killing innocent children.' That is the sort of messaging that everybody in this place has received because of the campaign that has been run.

I remind the Hon. Laura Henderson about this. I appreciate these members were not here at the time, but that 560-page report was a huge body of work that informed that debate and it took a long time to get to that point. We did not just come in here and vote. We had the benefit of advice, painstaking advice that was commissioned by a Liberal Attorney-General at the time and was independent and devoid of political views. That is the advice we based our vote on in the previous round of this debate.

I understand that when you come here as a new member you will want to revisit these things, but please do not do so in the absence of the sort of advice that is available to you through things like the SALRI 560-odd page report that this chamber debated and considered extensively during that debate.

I will turn now to some of the issues more specifically that I think ought to be placed on the public record and this is really the only reason I chose to speak this evening. I think they are important because most people who are familiar with this debate will know the role that Katina D'Onise played in the previous debate. She is a medical doctor. She is an epidemiologist. She is an expert in this field and she informed much of the debate that we had when this bill was passed.

She has made the point very well about why the current legislation is working and it is working as health care and the existing law is in line with best practice. It is in line with the World Health Organization Abortion care guideline. It is in line with the advice that has been given by the RACGP, RANZCOG, The Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian College of Midwives.

The fact that we have suggested that all someone needs to do is go and get the opinion of two doctors and that is enough to get an abortion, as Katina has said, really undermines the role of our specialists and our medical practitioners in this area. It completely undermines the legislation at a state and national level, as she has said, that governs medical practice—the codes of conduct, the policies, the consent to health care, the training that medicos have to undergo before they even specialise in this area. It is something like 20 years of training that someone will have to undergo before they are even fit to make a decision in relation to the sorts of terminations we are talking about, times two.

The reality is that if anyone finds themselves in this situation, much like any other medical care, it is inevitably going to be a multidisciplinary team, including midwives and others who are actually providing that advice. So while you might need the sign-off of two specialists who are duty bound, legally and ethically, by myriad guidelines and codes of ethics and laws, the reality is that there will be, and most likely are, many other medicos, including midwives, who are working with that woman in relation to a late-term termination.

What Katina has made very clear is that that system is incredibly complicated and it does not even include the additional guidelines and requirements that would kick in at a hospital level. So we are not talking about, as has been put to me, as was put to me just before the dinner break, 'If I go and get my GP to say that I can have a late term abortion and I get another doctor to tick off on that, isn't that enough?' because that is the message that we are sending out publicly through the sort of rhetoric that has been bandied about in this debate, and it is utterly, utterly false.

It also goes against every single principle that a medical specialist, as I said, is bound by. I think the last point that Katina made, which should not be lost on any of us, is that in talking about this we really are saying that we do not trust doctors or specialists, we do not trust that they are going to make the right decision for that woman or for that foetus or baby—and nothing could be further from the truth.

I think the other important point that has not been canvassed quite as well as it should be or should be on the public record is the point surrounding the issue of foeticide—and I note the Hon. Nicola Centofanti's emotional contribution in relation to this—and the advice that has been received in relation to the suggestion of the inhumane way that these procedures are undertaken. The PAC in particular has made it clear that the sedation that is required of a woman prior to the procedure also means that the foetus in question is sedated at the time and that is evidenced by the fact that when drugs are administered there is no movement in that foetus.

These are not points that have been raised during this debate as well, and I refer that particular point, which can be fleshed out further, particularly in response to the contribution by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and the Hon. Clare Scriven. Insofar as Professor Warren Jones's contributions and the commentary that has been provided by the Hon. Clare Scriven, I would say this: there is a lot to be said about promoting maternal deaths, and if we look at the United States situation, 26 states in the US, the mortality rate in those states since their changes to law is 29 per hundred thousand, versus 19 per hundred thousand in the rest of the nation. That is quite telling in terms of the impacts that these rates have had on the lives of women.

I agree with all the sentiments that have been expressed by my colleagues here today, and I do not intend to speak to this at much length, other than to say that I think everyone has the right to be disappointed with the way that this debate has been brought to this place and I mean no disrespect to the mover, but if we are serious about doing this, and no doubt we will be back here again, then please next time allow sufficient time for there to be—

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The PRESIDENT: Order! At the front of the gallery, if you want to speak, go outside.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The door is there.

The PRESIDENT: You have been told. Continue.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Allow sufficient time for there to be appropriate debate. If you want to undermine the work of 560 pages by drafting a bill that has the endorsement of one professor of law at a university, more power to you, but do not come here and expect us to give you our support for that piece of legislation.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (21:09): I was not intending to speak on this bill tonight but I thought it was probably important enough, listening to the debate, that I give reasons and justification for why I will vote the way I will vote. I think most people in the gallery here have very strong views one way or another, and I think I owe it to them to actually put on the record why I am voting the way I am going to vote.

Before I do, I just need to know, just for the record, from the Hon. Mr Hood: who did you consult during the public consultation on this bill, if you could, please?

The PRESIDENT: No, the Hon. Mr Wortley, you can ask questions during your contribution. The Hon. Mr Hood may choose to answer them in his summing up but it is not going to go backwards and forwards like that.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: No, that is the only question.

The PRESIDENT: That was it? You have sat down.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I thought he might have wanted to—

The PRESIDENT: No, this is the second reading speech.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Alright. As members of this parliament we have obligations, and it is a great privilege actually to stand here and be able to vote or introduce private members' bills in this parliament. But with that privilege you also have very great responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities would be that there is wide public consultation, that you consult with the experts in the industry and those people who are interested in this issue, that it is in the interests of the people of South Australia, and it is not going to put lives at risk. They are only a few of the issues which I, as a member of this parliament, have to take into consideration.

I have no idea what public consultation has taken place about this, but I imagine a Ms Joanna Howe, who has been mentioned here by the Hon. Ms Henderson, has had a lot to do with the formulation of the bill that we are debating today. I have read the correspondence from Ms Howe—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Dr Howe.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Dr Howe. A medical doctor?

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Law.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Law, yes, not a medical doctor, thank you. I have read the information that has been given to me and I have noticed a couple of things. There are no sources or references about the position she takes, and it is not supported by her employer, the University of Adelaide. I think that is very important especially when Dr Howe has been used as the public voice of this campaign. I think it is important that we put it in perspective as to what happened.

I also have letters here from a Georgia Davies-Thain who herself has written to me basically debunking a number of the allegations, or some of the information given to us as members of parliament. I will not go through all these letters but Ms Davies-Thain is a qualified criminologist with experience in policy advocacy, human rights and research.

She debunks every single item which has been given to me by Ms Howe, but the one that I will read here today is item 4, 'healthy and viable' babies were 'killed' in 2023:

The basis for the Private Member's Bill from the Hon. Ben Hood MLC is the 0.96 per cent of 1 per cent of terminations (47) to occur in South Australia in 2023 that were carried out after 22 weeks and 6 days. Prof. Howe alleges that 'healthy and viable' foetuses were involved in all 47 of these approved terminations.

This misrepresents the data collected by the South Australian Abortion Reporting Committee for 2023. Table 6 within the 2023 annual report provides the number of terminations approved after 22 weeks and 6 days gestation by the reported grounds of the termination (according to section 6 of the [Termination of Pregnancy] Act 2021) but no data included in the annual report provides any detail of a health or gestational viability assessment conducted in relation to any foetus. Prof. Howe has no basis to claim that any foetus was 'healthy and viable'.

Prof. Howe utilises a single journal article to justify claims that any foetus at 22 weeks and 6 days gestation is considered 'healthy and viable' which is not a sound practice…The size of the study and the specialised healthcare provided mean the results of the article cannot be considered generalisable.

Secondly, members in the gallery and members in this chamber have access to information from a wide variety of professional sources, both medical and legal, so we have to take into consideration when we read this, when we have to make up our minds on how we are going to vote. We should never vote in this chamber based on emotion. It should always be based on advice, professional advice. Not to do so would certainly result in some very bad legislation being passed through this chamber. SHINE has stated:

…Termination of Pregnancy (Terminations and Live Births) Amendment Bill 2024

SHINE SA is South Australia's leading sexual and reproductive health organisation and has been providing services to vulnerable communities in South Australia since our inception as the Family Planning Association of SA in 1970…

The Bill contradicts South Australia's evidence-based termination of pregnancy laws…

South Australia's existing termination of pregnancy laws rightly centre the health and wellbeing of pregnant people and reflect the views of the majority of South Australians who support accessible, safe, and compassionate abortion care. The Bill introduced in the Legislative Council is out of step with Australian and international termination of pregnancy laws and is out of touch with the community's prevailing views on reproductive healthcare.

Abortion, including late-term abortion, is a deeply personal decision that should be made between a pregnant person and their expert medical team. We know that the late term abortions are extremely rare (with less than 5 occurring since the change in laws came into effect in 2022), and that when they do occur, they are often under tragic circumstances, which are highly complex and medically dangerous either to the pregnant person or their fetus. It is false to claim there is an issue of many otherwise viable or healthy pregnancies terminated at this late stage…

The people of South Australia deserve the respect of our legislators to determine with their healthcare providers what is safe and right for them and their health, considering their circumstances.

That was SHINE. Then we have the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists:

There are no Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists…documents that establish a college position relating to this Bill.

[They recognise] that the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are experts in this complex area and we refer you to [them].

From the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists:

RANZCOG is strongly opposed to this bill…The College agrees that the bill is severely flawed…as Dr Waterfall has also very capably explained in the media, the circumstances imagined in the rationale for this bill are so rare as to almost never occur.

…there are serious practical problems with [the bill]…

Sadly, this bill dictates to women what they can and can't do with their bodies without regard for the health care needs of either the mother or the fetus…We would prefer that all elected members of Parliament vote against this bill…

We also have the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, which states:

The RAZNCP supports the existing Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 and does not see any need to modify the existing legislation, which prioritises the care of the mother and their obstetric needs.

[We believe] the proposed legislation is based on an unrealistic view of the real-world experiences of women considering or undergoing [termination of pregnancy] and what the consequences of the Bill's proposed changes would be, including from a mental health perspective.

Late [termination of pregnancy] at the stage under discussion is very rare and decisions to do so are based on the woman's physical or mental wellbeing, or the foetus' physical circumstances. Decisions around [termination of pregnancy] should be made by the individual in conjunction with appropriate support from qualified health professionals as defined in the existing Act, and the person's support network…

[We consider] that women's health, wellbeing, autonomy and welfare should be the central objective of [termination of pregnancy] law reform…

Legislation should not interfere with people being able to exercise their rights to terminate a pregnancy. We are also concerned that this proposed legislation would be discriminatory against women who are from disadvantaged or disempowered backgrounds.

Decades of data collection in SA concerning TOP [termination of pregnancy] show that, while it is a commonly performed and evidently needed service, the overall rate of the procedure itself shows a long-term downward trend. The accepted facts that no method of contraception is 100% effective, and that occasionally individual factors of a given pregnancy can represent a threat to the life and/or mental health of the woman, demonstrate that there will always be a need for [termination of pregnancy] in South Australia.

[We echo] the concerns raised by RANZCOG in relation to the Bill. These proposed changes could have long lasting psychological impacts on the individuals involved.

[We are] the peak body representing psychiatrists in Australia and New Zealand. Its roles include support and enhancement of clinical practice, advocacy for people affected by mental illness and it plays a key advisory role to governments on mental health care. [They represent] 8500 members, including more than 500 psychiatrists and those training to qualify as psychiatrists in South Australia.

The Law Society of South Australia states:

As you will be aware, the Society supports the decriminalisation of abortion in South Australia, noting the initial Termination of Pregnancy Bill 2020 followed a 2019 review of abortion laws by the South Australian Law Reform Institute…The Society had noted a preference for the Bill passing Parliament as introduced and, on several occasions, expressed a view that abortion is a medical issue and should be regulated under health laws and regulations.

The Society did not express a view as to the imposition of a gestational limit, however…recommended against the imposition of a gestational limit generally, or an alternative approach whereby after 24 weeks gestation, an abortion may be performed by a medical practitioner where two medical practitioners agree that the procedure is medically appropriate.

A further letter states:

We are a group of concerned midwives working in South Australian universities. We are writing to express our opposition to the Private Members Bill proposed by Mr Ben Hood that is currently before the Legislative Council.

This Bill, which advocates for forced birth, fundamentally violates human rights principles and contravenes core biomedical ethical principles…The proposal to induce premature labour and birth, followed by the significant medical care required for preterm infants, culminating in forced adoption, is ethically indefensible.

Midwifery philosophy of care is grounded in the ethical principles of justice, equity, and respect for human dignity. Reproductive autonomy is essential to gender equity and reproductive justice. In countries where women and gender diverse people are not able to access safe abortion, maternal mortality rates increase significantly.

I have a letter here from Emeritus Professor Warren Jones AO MD PhD, formerly head of O and G, Flinders Medical Centre. I will not read out the Tiser letter, because Hon. Mr Simms has done that itself. Professor Jones writes:

I attach a Tiser published letter which summarises my position on legalised termination of pregnancy. I spent 45 years of my specialist medical career caring for pregnant women and their newborn babies. During this time I, my colleagues and my students followed an ethical and moral edict determined by the rights of the woman and her baby and which recognised that these rights were immutable in the absence of legal rights of the embryo and unborn foetus. I hope that you are able to accept that Hon Ben Hood's proposed Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Bill, will force seriously ill women in late pregnancy to choose a course of action that could endanger their lives. Avoidable maternal mortality is central to the ethical and moral framework of our society, whose compassionate and responsible members should be appalled at the implications of this Bill. The unethical actions prescribed in the Bill and their impact on the safe, professional and legal practice of obstetric care in this country have been identified and condemned by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. These considerations compel me to ask you to vote against the bill.

The Commissioner for Children and Young People:

I am writing to express my opposition to the abovementioned bill which claws back the amendments made in 2021. The current Act was drafted after extensive consultation with relevant interest groups; including faith groups, the disability sector, medical and legal sectors and NGOs and Expert Forums in regional locations as well as over 2,885 online responses from the YourSAy consultation and clearly represents current expert evidence and community views.

The current Bill introduced, by the Hon BR Hood, appears to have been drafted with no apparent public consultation and without reference to the South Australian Law Reform Institute or consideration of international law and rights conventions, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

So this is the information we have—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley, I know you are about to conclude, but the Hon. Ms Scriven, the Hon. Mr Ngo and the Hon. Ms Bonaros, the three of you, if you are going to have a discussion, go outside. I have tried to keep this as quiet and respectful as possible. I do not want conversations in the chamber. The Hon. Mr Wortley, I am sure you are about to conclude.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have just a few more minutes, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, let's hear it.

An honourable member interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: For those in the gallery who are here today to witness this debate and discussion regarding this bill, you need to understand that when I am going to vote I have all this information from numerous associations representing tens of thousands of medical specialists. I do not agree with the Hon. Ms Scriven in saying that there has been no consultation withing these organisations and the decisions are normally made by the executive. That is not quite true.

In the past some associations have—not on this issue, but there may be associations that have expressed views without consulting with their membership. But I tell you: the medical profession are very strong in their ethical stance on issues, and under no circumstances would any association—any medical association or the law reform society—put out a position, a public submission, in regard to an issue as important as this without consulting their membership.

So I have a decision to make here today. Do I follow all the legal advice, all the medical advice that has been put to me on behalf of tens of thousands of doctors, or do I go on a few pages of notes here from a person who really is doing it as an opinion? It is unpublished. There has been no peer assessment of Ms Howe's position on this—which is quite convenient, I must say, not having it published. But I think it is important that you understand that, naturally, I have to go with the advice and the position of the tens of thousands of medical professionals who, on behalf of their associations, have written to me regarding this.

I have been involved in numerous social conscience issues over time. They are always very emotional. I know that many of us here and many people in this chamber in the past have been brought to tears because they understand how strongly people hold their views and they also know how much of a burden is on their shoulders when they cast their votes. But one thing is important: we have to do it based on proper advice. We have to do it because not to do it would lead to some very bad legislation—legislation which people who support this bill now might not like in the future. So it is one of the responsibilities that we have.

I have spent many years representing people of all natures in my lifetime. I have been 18 years in this parliament and, as I said, I take my job very seriously. It gives me no joy knowing that there are people in the gallery who are very—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley, stop referring to people in the gallery. You know it is out of order.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Mr President, I will refer to you.

The PRESIDENT: Address your remarks to me.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Through you, Mr President, I understand there are many people in the gallery who are very strongly committed to their views. I must say that it is with, well, not sadness—I actually believe in what I am going to do—but I will be voting against this bill. I thought I owed it to everyone to understand why I have done it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (21:31): It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that things are difficult. Abortion is difficult, confronting and controversial. It is divisive, polarising the ideologies of the left and the right. Why is it that some are filled with such odium towards those with an opposing view? I want to pay tribute to the Hon. Ben Hood and to Professor Joanna Howe for being so passionate, brave and courageous in the face of unspeakable intimidation and threats to their wellbeing.

This debate does not have to be driven by detestation or hostility. I want to read a post that has been posted a short time ago by the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, and it is quite a poignant post on his Instagram page. It shows two hands, those of the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, placing his wedding ring around the foot of his first daughter, Tia, who was born 12 weeks premature weighing just over one kilogram. Mr Koutsantonis writes:

She was so tiny my wedding ring could fit around her little foot and we were forced to buy her clothing that was made for children's dolls because baby clothes weren't made small enough for premature babies. Today she is a beautiful young woman with the world before her.

Of course, the word 'abortion' does not appear in that post but, knowing the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, I think that is the message that he is delivering tonight.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I guess he may be posting something to me now. I am disappointed in some of the things I have heard tonight and also in something that just went on a short time ago in front of me, where pressure was being put on another member. It is just unacceptable.

Just going back to Mr Koutsantonis's message. I think what it conveys is the sanctity of life. I believe the bill before us is borne out of compassion and the right to life of the unborn, as well as the mother. I respect every opinion that has been put to this chamber this evening. Bill Clinton put abortion in some balance this way, 'Safe, legal and rare,' and this still applies. I will be supporting the bill and the Hon. Sarah Game's amendment.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD: I wish to thank my colleagues who have contributed to this debate. The Hon. Kyam Maher, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Laura Henderson, the Hon. Robert Simms, the Hon. Heidi Girolamo, the Hon. Clare Scriven, the Hon. Russell Wortley, the Hon. Jing Lee and the Hon. Frank Pangallo.

I appreciate that this will always be a sensitive and emotive issue, but it is not one that we should shy away from. In the editorial in the The Advertiser only a few weeks ago this bill was described as 'radical'. What is radical is that this bill, if enacted, would address the most extreme aspects of the current legislation, which effectively allows the ending of the life of any foetus, at any moment before birth, even in the third trimester of pregnancy. I believe that the editor of The Advertiser acknowledged this because they continue to say that it is clear that the current act needs to be reviewed; that that reform is needed.

This bill explicitly continues to permit abortion on demand up to 28 weeks, giving South Australia one of the most extreme abortion laws in the world, surpassed only by a handful of countries, including China and North Korea. No European countries, where abortion is typically heavily restricted after 12 weeks, have a law as permissible as even the proposed amendment. The UK reduced the abortion limit from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990 because, 34 years ago, medical science had progressed to that point.

This bill seeks to protect vulnerable lives, humanely treat viable unborn children and preserve compassion in our laws. The Termination of Pregnancy (Terminations and Live Births) Amendment Bill 2024 is not about taking away a woman's rights or limiting her autonomy; it is about drawing a clear and humane line once a baby reaches viability at 28 weeks. This bill ensures that after 28 weeks, if a pregnancy is terminated, the baby is delivered alive, given a chance to survive, rather than being deliberately killed through foeticide. This is not an attack on women's rights; rather, it is a step forward on how we balance those rights with the undeniable fact that a child of 28 weeks is capable of living a full life outside the womb?

I have at every point in this debate, as it has played out on social media, in the papers and in this place, remained considered and respectful. I have tried to play a straight bat. I have heard tonight—and, indeed, I have heard on the radio—many questions about my motivation and, as I have said numerous times on the radio, I utterly, utterly deny any suggestion that I would do this as a politically motivated piece of legislation. This is something that is on my heart. This is something that hundreds of people in South Australia have spoken to me about. This is something that I want to do because it is right and it is just.

There have been death threats. There have been a litany of false claims made against me personally, against this bill and against those who would support it. And, for the record, I need to address some of these claims from the media and from others. The claims of forced birth: opponents of this bill have tried to paint a picture of women being forced to carry a pregnancy they no longer want and then forced to deliver that child. But the reality is that once you reach 28 weeks, any termination of pregnancy already involves birth. Whether that is through induced labour or caesarean section, birth is inevitable.

To be clear, a woman in the third trimester has no other option than to birth her baby. It is the only way to remove the baby from her body. The only difference with this bill is that we are stopping the unnecessary and brutal act of foeticide, the killing of a baby before it is delivered. I note that only one of my colleagues who has opposed this bill has even referenced the process of foeticide. So, when it is said that this bill forces birth, this is either a misunderstanding of the process or intentionally misrepresenting it. This bill does not change the fact that a pregnancy must still be ended through birth. The only difference is that the baby will have a chance to live.

Regarding the claim of medical necessity, I have heard time and time again that foeticide is something necessary to protect the health of the mother. Despite these claims, not a single example has been provided where killing a viable baby after 28 weeks is required to save the mother's life. That is because there is no medical condition where foeticide is essential at this stage. In fact, performing foeticide adds unnecessary risk to the mother.

As experts, such as neonatologist Dr Melissa Lai—who has been consulted on this bill, the Hon. Russell Wortley—have pointed out, injecting potassium chloride to stop a baby's heart can lead to complications, such as infection or in rare cases the injection being mistakenly administered to the mother. The safest and the most effective practice in these cases is early delivery, delivering the baby and providing both the mother and the child the care that they need. This is quicker and safer for the woman. This is what obstetrics already do in emergencies, they act swiftly to deliver the baby, not to end its life.

Many have argued about the health impacts of the baby. Yes, born prematurely does carry risks, but let me be clear: babies born after 28 weeks have at least 96 per cent chance of survival with modern medical care. They are not condemned to a life of suffering. Most will grow up healthy and thrive, and we cannot use the possibility of some complications as a justification for ending life. These children are not statistics, they are living, breathing beings who deserve the chance to live.

We also must reject the offensive argument that was made by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that somehow these babies are less valuable because they might face developmental challenges like lower IQ. Are we really prepared to devalue lives based on their potential intellectual abilities? By that logic, are we suggesting that millions of Australians who are born prematurely are somehow inferior?

It has been suggested that premature babies could be at risk of ADHD and that this is somehow a valid reason for termination by foeticide instead of live birth. Well, my son has ADHD and I would not change him for the world. If this legislation can be described as the worst seen then these arguments are quite honestly the worst I have ever heard. It is not only wrong but deeply unethical. Every life has inherent value regardless of the circumstances of birth.

RANZCOG have also stated in communications to MPs that the circumstances for this bill are so rare to almost never occur, yet in the same letter it claims that the neonatal health system resources are nowhere near sufficient to meet the theoretical demand if this bill passes. Well, what is it? This letter also grudgingly acknowledges that some of their members do not share the college's view on this issue.

Opponents have continued to downplay the number of late-term abortions, suggesting that they are rare and that supporters of this bill are making false claims, but the fact is in the last 18 months 45 healthy, viable babies have been killed through foeticide. We do not know the gestational age of these babies, except for the fact that they were past 22 weeks and six days, because the data does not give us that information—and I ask why doesn't it?

Why did it take this bill for the health minister to then present data from SA Health that only—and using his words—only five babies have been killed in utero past 28 weeks but all before 29 weeks. This bill seeks to prevent the unnecessary loss of life. These were not children with severe abnormalities. These were not cases where the mother's life was at risk. These were children who could have lived.

As I have referenced in my second reading speech, midwives from Flinders Medical Centre have confirmed to me that babies as late as 35 weeks have been subjected to foeticide in the past six months. We need to know this data, not yearly, as is the current practice with the SA Abortion Reporting Committee, and then only given numbers past the age of viability, but in detailed numbers. The people of South Australia have the right to know this data and I call on the minister to ensure it is released. It should not take a bill like this to force him to acknowledge what is happening in this state.

I also want to make this point: in the one state that does release late-term abortion data by reason and gestational age, we see the type of impact the bill would have had. Victoria introduced its own version of our Termination of Pregnancy Act in 2008. If after 18 months it had passed law like this live births bill, many distinct individual and unrepeatable lives would have been saved.

In Victoria, between 2010 and 2020, there were 28 healthy, viable babies killed in the third trimester and up to birth. These babies were perfectly healthy. Their mothers were physically healthy. They were killed for a mental health reason. One of those 28 babies who was injected with potassium chloride in utero and delivered stillborn was 37 weeks' gestation. This is full term. This bill allows us to correct a wrong when the Termination of Pregnancy Act was passed in 2021, and it will save lives.

In all of this many have asked me genuine, thoughtful questions, wanting to understand this bill, shocked that late-term abortion happens in SA. Many have asked what happens to these babies if they are delivered early. The answer is simple: they are cared for. They are admitted to neonatal units, receiving the best medical attention available. If the mother does not wish to keep the baby, adoption is a compassionate alternative.

I do acknowledge and regret the language I used in a radio interview that the Hon. Connie Bonaros has pulled me up on. I did not mean to use the word 'just'. It did come out. I acknowledge and regret that language because you do not 'just' adopt a baby, you do not 'just' abort a baby. I want to put that on the record.

South Australia's Adoption Act provides a clear and supportive framework for mothers who wish to place their child for adoption. There are no forced adoptions in this process. Families are wanting these children, families who would love and care for them. There are very few adoptions at present in SA because children are getting aborted instead of adopted. But given one in six couples are infertile and many couples turn to intercountry adoption, we know there are many couples in this state desperate to adopt.

Much has been said about me being a man bringing this bill to parliament, that this bill is anti-woman. The two rallies held on the steps here at parliament were attended predominantly by women. This bill, far from being anti-woman, was drafted with the assistance of eight women, legal and medical experts who know firsthand the challenges women face.

In particular, I want to thank Professor Joanna Howe, who led the legal team, and Senior Neonatologist Dr Melissa Lai, who led the medical team. I want to acknowledge the other people who spent a significant amount of time drafting this bill. They do not want to be named for fear that they will be deregistered, that they will lose their licences or be subjected to the vicious trolling and the death threats that I have received.

I also wish to thank the midwives who reached out to me anonymously at the risk of their jobs, the many people who have expressed their support for this bill, the thousands of people who have stood on the steps of parliament in support, and other legal and medical experts who have written to the members of the council to support this bill, namely medical doctor and Senior Research Fellow, University of Oxford, Dr Calum Miller; Senior Gynaecologist Dr Simon McCaffrey; and GP Dr Catherine Peterson. I also want to thank Jodie and her team from Love Adelaide, ACL, Family First and all the people who have sent messages of support.

This is not about limiting women's choices: it is about giving the choice to deliver a baby alive instead of stillborn and protecting viable life where it exists. This bill represents balance, a balance between a woman's right to make decisions about her body and the viable baby's right to live. It allows women to retain full autonomy over their body. The only intervention of this bill is to prevent her exercising autonomy over a baby's body by intentionally inducing death.

The rationale for preventing death is that after 28 weeks we are no longer talking about a potential life but a real one, one that is capable of surviving outside the womb. The bill does not ask women to carry a pregnancy to term against their will by banning termination past 27 weeks and six days. It does not ask them to raise a child they are not ready to care for. It does not ban termination of pregnancy at any point. It does ask us, though, as legislators to recognise the value of life once it becomes viable. It asks us to love them both. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I note that I will be supporting the amendments from the Hon. Sarah Game. I commend the bill to the house.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

While the division was in progress:

There being a disturbance in the gallery:

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Stop it!

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hunter! The gallery, leave. If you can't be quiet, just leave.

An honourable member interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! I will deal with this. Silence!

Second reading thus negatived.