HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Termination of Pregnancy (Restriction on Terminations after 22 Weeks and 6 Days) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 September 2025.)

The PRESIDENT: Before I call the Hon. Mr Maher, I will just make a couple of points. Interjections are always out of order. They are particularly out of order in this debate, and I will not tolerate them. I will not tolerate any noise, grunting or groaning from the visitors' gallery. You are welcome, but you will listen in silence. I will make it quite clear that if I have a casting vote I will be voting in favour of the bill, and that is not negotiable. Of course, the President's gallery will remain clear, unless a member of your staff needs to be in the gallery. The honourable Leader of the Government.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Deputy Premier, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:20): I rise to speak briefly on this legislation that is before us, and it gives me no joy to do so. We have matters of life and death, matters that are traditionally declared conscience issues for the major parties, and the way we conduct ourselves, I think, varies greatly. I remember in the last parliament the debates we had on voluntary assisted dying brought all of us, I think, a level of respect. I had people who came up to me after that debate, seeing how parliament can be at its best.

Twelve months ago, when this bill was before us again, I think it showed parliament and the parliamentary processes at their very worst. It was the most unedifying debate I have ever been a part of in my time, not just as a member of this council but in the years before that, working for people like the Hon. Terry Roberts. The campaign that was associated with the debate that went on in this chamber I think was exceptionally unfortunate for the way we conduct ourselves in a public policy sense.

We had people eventually leave their party as a result of what occurred on that night we debated this last time. We have seen—and I had not seen this before in my time here—people banned from precincts of parliament because of the way the debate was carried on outside of what happened on the floor of this chamber.

I think there are many people who have genuinely held beliefs on this issue who would agree that it brought out the worst in the way that we sometimes campaign in South Australia. I will not put words into his mouth, but I think if the Hon. Ben Hood had his time again he might not have stood next to the sorts of people he stood next to in the way that this was, in hindsight, campaigned for last time.

I do not think anybody will be under any misapprehension about the way I will be voting. I will be voting against this bill, as I have in the past and as I will in the future. South Australia was the first jurisdiction to legislate for the lawful medical termination of pregnancy in 1969. Our laws were then not properly reviewed for 50 years, until reforms introduced by the Attorney-General in the last parliament, the Hon. Vickie Chapman, and I pay tribute to her work in reforming these laws and modernising them.

The laws that are before us do not enjoy the consensus support of medical experts. Quite far from it, they enjoy the condemnation of those who know this field most. For example, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has released a statement in relation to this particular piece of legislation, and I will quote from that:

Ms Game's bill is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of pregnancy terminations after 22 weeks and 6 days. These procedures are extraordinarily rare, representing a tiny fraction of all abortions performed (48, or 1.0% of all abortions performed in South Australia in 2024). When they do occur, they almost always invariably involve circumstances of severe fetal abnormalities incompatible with life, or serious threats to the pregnant woman's health and life.

Of these 48 abortions performed in South Australia in 2024, 34 were to protect the physical or mental health of the pregnant person, 15 due to fetal anomaly, and one to save the life of a pregnant person or another fetus. The College is deeply concerned that Ms Game's bill is premised either on an ignorance of this reality, or a wilful misrepresentation of the facts as they exist in data.

These words are not messing around. These are the words of that college. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists echoed those sentiments, having long held the position that:

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.

It is hard to dispute the views of experts in this area. I can only imagine the pain and anguish that mothers and families must experience when having to make such a difficult decision so late in a pregnancy for a variety of complex and very deeply personal reasons. I will not be supporting this bill that seeks to roll back women's access to abortion care.

When you look not just at the merits of what is before us, but if you look at the political atmosphere in which this bill is before us again, it is deeply disturbing as well. As I have said, it was the most unedifying debate I have ever been involved with, so much so that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hartley, Vincent Tarzia, when asked about this on 18 November last year on radio after that unedifying debate had concluded, said, about the former bill, 'It was a distraction and we won't be revisiting it under my leadership, simple as that, done and dusted. I'm glad it's behind us.' These are not words that are open to much interpretation at all. We saw in this chamber, when this bill was introduced, one of the member for Hartley, Vincent Tarzia's own shadow cabinet team members second the bill—doing something to make sure the bill advanced.

It will be interesting to see, as this bill progresses, which of Vincent Tarzia's shadow cabinet members speak in advancement of this and then vote to keep this going in complete and utter contrast with what Vincent Tarzia as leader has said: 'It's done and dusted. It won't be revisited under my leadership.' Shadow cabinet members involved in this debate voting to progress this bill are in direct defiance of their very own leader. If Vincent Tarzia, member for Hartley, as Leader of the Opposition cannot exercise a tiny little bit of authority and control over some of his shadow cabinet members, how on earth could he possibly govern South Australia?

The fact that we are here again, the fact that this bill is progressing, the fact that it has been seconded by members of his own shadow cabinet, and if any of those members vote for this bill, it demonstrates how utterly unsuitable he would be as leader of South Australia. You have what the experts have said on this and you have the real politics of what this means for the Liberal Party in South Australia.

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (17:27): We do stand in this chamber again today to touch on this issue that was brought to this chamber only 12 months ago, and no-one here would doubt that my beliefs on this topic are firm. Whilst today I will speak briefly on this bill before us, my extended remarks are on the record and available to the public.

This bill seeks to reverse the unintended consequence of the Termination of Pregnancy Act passed in South Australia in 2021. As the Hon. Sarah Game has conveyed, parliament was promised in that legislation when it passed in 2021 that it would not result in healthy babies being aborted after viability if the only factor was the mother's mental health. We were told that, in those circumstances, the safest option was that the baby be delivered alive, yet we do stand here today knowing that viable, healthy babies have been aborted as a direct consequence of the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021.

Last year, when I introduced the bill to reverse the unintended consequences of that act that ended life, and instead offer protection to the most vulnerable among us, 45 healthy babies capable of life outside the womb had been lost to foeticide, and those were 45 individual unrepeatable human lives. Today I am deeply saddened to know that 79 healthy, viable babies have been terminated—babies that were capable of life.

We must ask that question: when does the life of a child begin to matter? It is my firm belief that when a child can survive outside the womb our responsibility extends to protect that life. I would argue that a true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. Still, I do not believe that a majority of the people of South Australia realise that late-term abortions are being carried out in our state, and when the Termination of Pregnancy Act was passed it was not the will of the parliament that late-term abortions be performed. Today we have the opportunity to reverse those unintended consequences and preserve life. These amendments are not an opposition to choice, but a protection of life, humanity and the future of our South Australian children who deserve a chance to live.

While we did debate this issue last year, the council did speak, and I do respect that decision. Whilst I do not anticipate a different outcome today, it is a bill that I do support. The courage demanded to debate such a sensitive topic is not lost on me, and I thank the Hon. Sarah Game for having the fortitude to introduce the bill. I conclude my remarks and commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:29): I would just like to acknowledge SAAAC and the people in orange, and say that I apologise that I was not able to be at the handing over of the petition and I missed the orange memo, so I put my speech notes in an orange folder to recognise that. I am not going to rebut all of the health aspects of the bill. I have raised this with Brigid Coombe AM, who is a wise and very patient person and, as she reminded me, the facts are settled. There is plenty of evidence in medical journals which is supported across all of the resident colleges and professional associations, and I have had plenty, obviously, to say on this bill.

Brigid Coombe is a very patient person. She and Barbara Baird lobbied a number of us for many, many years. She had to wait for an elected brave Liberal government to actually bring some legislation forward, and I acknowledge the Hon. Tammy Franks, who had a version of the bill sometime in 2018. So, indeed, I think the facts are settled and they have been spoken about and I am not going to debate data or any of those things, but just repeat some of the comments that I made on the steps of parliament a couple of weeks ago.

I will be voting against the bill. That is my first point. Secondly, I do not believe this bill will pass today. As a former health professional myself, I think this bill undermines one of the fundamental principles in health decision-making, which is informed consent for the patient. As the Leader of the Government mentioned, in 1969 South Australia was the first jurisdiction to introduce some form of decriminalisation. I can expand on my comments from what I stated in the parliament then, because I have spoken to some of the individuals who were part of that process back then.

The forerunner to that bill was a motion from the Young Liberals a year or two before that because there were Young Liberals who were aware of the complete hypocrisy of what was taking place without access to safe abortions. Indeed, there was a doctor by the name of Dr Bertram Wainer, who was based in Melbourne—born in Scotland, I understand—who had been providing safe abortions. It is an interesting read if anyone wants to Google it because he experienced all sorts of raids from the fraud squad and so forth.

South Australian women and girls were probably catching trains to Melbourne in those days. I underline that because it is in the DNA of the Liberal Party to support individuals who are oppressed by laws that are unfair, and it is not just a Liberal government that did that. It was Dr David Tonkin who introduced the first sex discrimination laws in Australia, in South Australia, which was the forerunner to the Equal Opportunity Act and, as we have recently noted, Murray Hill was the first in Australia to introduce a bill to decriminalise homosexuality, so this stuff is in our DNA and long may it be.

In 2020-21, this legislation was taken out of the criminal code and it provided a range of things including better access for country people. I will add to the comments of what Vincent Tarzia, our leader, the member for Hartley, said. He did not use this language, I do not think, but he said he would effectively sack any member of his cabinet or shadow cabinet who tried to introduce such bills in the future. This is a conscience vote for the Liberal Party, so whether someone seconds it or speaks in favour of it or not is of no consequence. People can speak and vote on their will. We do not kneecap people in the middle of the night like the Labor Party do.

One of the other points that I made on the steps is that the policies of a certain US administration are not contagious, which I think is something that people in the LGBTIQ community are concerned about as well as women who are worried about changes to Australian laws. I do not believe that is so: I think Australians are quite different. I would also refer to the comments of former Prime Minister John Howard, who is not known as a moderate but who stated recently in The Weekend Australian that Liberals should recognise the unique aspects of our Australian political ethos and the flaws in attempting to transpose populist cultural ideas from America and Britain. He said:

Our political culture is very different to that of America…we are a different political culture from the Americans…Americans are more—how shall I put this?—they're more politically gullible than Australians, they're not as sceptical. I've search for a better way of saying this, but there isn't one really.

In my personal view he is correct.

I come to my final point. I would not have chosen to be political about the Labor Party, but the Leader of the Government has provoked me. I would just like to point out that Dr Joanna Howe, as I understand it, is a member of the Australian Labor Party and continues to be a member of the Australian Labor Party in spite of the fact that she has vilified and defamed a number of people, including myself, the Minister for Women the Hon. Katrine Hildyard, Vickie Chapman and the like.

I wonder if that is the standard that Peter Malinauskas walks past in not having her evicted from the Australian Labor Party for clearly engaging in things which I would be shocked if the constitution of the Australian Labor Party supported—the activities. It is not just the activities, people can have whatever beliefs they like, but the way in which we debate, not just in the parliament but in the public sphere, should be held to a certain standard, and if the Labor Party will not sack Joanna Howe from their party then that speaks volumes. With those comments, I indicate I oppose this bill.

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:37): I rise to speak on the Termination of Pregnancy (Restriction on Terminations After 22 Weeks and 6 Days) Amendment Bill. I want to begin by noting that my position on this matter has not changed since supporting the Hon. Ben Hood MLC's bill last year. During that debate I put my views on the record in detail, and I do not propose to repeat them today. My support then was clear and it remains clear now.

I would like to acknowledge that similar amendments were put forward by the Hon. Nicola Centofanti during the 2020 debate. While I was not in parliament at the time, I have reviewed the arguments and principles put forward behind those amendments and I fully support them. They were thoughtful, considered and aimed at balancing the rights of women with protecting the unborn life. This brings me to the important point: babies after 23 weeks are viable. Medical evidence shows that, and in many cases babies born at this stage can survive outside of the womb with appropriate care.

I want to make it clear that I support the amendment bill put forward today by the Hon. Sarah Game. This amendment bill builds on the work of previous bills and seeks to ensure that our laws reflect both compassion and common sense while also providing protection for babies who are capable of surviving outside of the womb. It is crucial that parliament continues to recognise the balance between the rights of women and the protection of a viable life. With that, I note my support for the bill.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:38): I too rise to make a brief contribution to the Termination of Pregnancy (Restriction on Terminations After 22 Weeks and 6 Days) Amendment Bill. This is not a new debate for this council. In fact, when the original Termination of Pregnancy Bill was before us in 2020, as a newly elected member of this parliament I personally drafted and moved this very same amendment. Therefore, this amendment bill is not new to me. I drafted it then and I continue to support it now.

Although the amendment did not succeed at that time, my views on this matter have remained entirely consistent since the outset. I have spoken on this issue previously, both during the 2020 debate and again last year when a similar bill was introduced, and my comments are already firmly on the record. I believe most members of this chamber, and indeed many South Australians, are well aware of my position.

Can I be clear in response to the comments made by the Deputy Premier in his second reading speech: this is a matter of conscience. This is a private bill brought forward by the Hon. Sarah Game, who is not a member of the Liberal Party. It is her right to bring this bill forward. I will not be lectured to by the Deputy Premier for exercising my conscience on this matter—as he has done and has the right to do so.

I fundamentally believe that by supporting this amendment we affirm society's responsibility to create every opportunity for life to flourish, to protect the rights of the voiceless and to ensure that life is given every chance to succeed. For me, this amendment represents a reasonable and compassionate safeguard: a clear restriction on late-term terminations while maintaining the ability to provide appropriate medical care and compassion where circumstances require.

Given that history, my position remains straightforward. I supported this amendment when I first introduced it as a new member, I supported a similar amendment again last year and I continue to support this amendment today.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (17:41): I rise today to speak on the Termination of Pregnancy (Restriction on Terminations after 22 Weeks and 6 Days) Amendment Bill introduced by the Hon. Sarah Game. One year ago we debated a similar bill to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act. Since then, I am grateful that I have had the opportunity for further reflection and valuable conversations with people from across different communities, professions, faiths and cultures.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have reached out to me and my office to share their professional and personal views and for their courage and honesty in having this often very difficult conversation. I have received correspondence from hundreds of constituents opposing this bill and had representations from community members from a wide range of backgrounds asking me to reconsider my position.

The bill before us today seeks to amend the Termination of Pregnancy Act by limiting the circumstances in which termination may be lawfully performed after 23 weeks' gestation, often called a 'late-term abortion'. Under the current law, termination beyond the 23-week threshold is permitted with the approval of two doctors if it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant person or another foetus, if there is a significant risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person, or if there is significant risk of serious foetal anomalies.

The bill before us proposes to remove the provision that allows for termination where there is significant risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother. In doing so, it narrows the scope of lawful terminations and will prevent access to abortion care in cases where continuing the pregnancy poses serious but not immediately life-threatening health risks.

Removing the threshold 'significant risk of injury' and only allowing terminations when it is 'necessary to save the life' will not necessarily reduce the number of terminations performed in South Australia. Instead, this change threatens to disempower doctors and medical teams, preventing them from acting until a 'significant risk of injury' escalates to a definitely life-threating situation. Not only does this put patients at a greater physical risk of complications and long-term health consequences but it could also mean forcing them to ensure further unnecessary pain and suffering that could have otherwise been prevented.

A representation made to me highlighted that 'this bill disregards the expert medical consensus from bodies such as the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and seeks to legislate medical practice without a proper understanding of the severe health conditions, including mental health issues, that necessitate this procedure. Restricting access will force women into unsafe and distressing situations, putting their health and lives at risk.'

I note that a large part of the commentary around this amendment bill has focused on the argument that mental health should not be an acceptable reason for late-term abortions. President-elect of RANZCOG, Dr Nisha Khot, has stated:

One of the many troubling aspects of how this bill has been presented is that the mental health of the pregnant person will no longer be considered relevant rationale for a decision to terminate…This is enormously problematic. Mental health is health, and it is no less important to the overall well-being and ability to safely carry a pregnancy to term, than is physical health.

Indeed, this was a concern echoed by many of those who have contacted my office, with one constituent stating, 'I am also appalled by what seems to be a denial that mental health care is part of health care, which runs completely counter to 21st century understandings of patient-centred care.'

This broader dismissal of mental health as a factor in reproductive healthcare decisions is deeply troubling, and it is not the only concern. I am also alarmed that the amendment proposes to remove clauses that currently require medical practitioners to consider a range of critical factors when determining whether to perform a termination after 23 weeks' gestation. Such considerations include:

factors that may have limited the patient's ability to access specialist services prior to 23 weeks' gestation;

whether the patient has been denied agency due to sexual or physical abuse, rape, incest or sexual slavery;

whether the pregnancy was not diagnosed until late in gestation; and

medical and psychiatric conditions that may have presented, been diagnosed or worsened during the pregnancy and may present a threat to the patient's life or require treatment that is incompatible with an ongoing pregnancy.

Removing these clauses appears to be in direct opposition to expert medical advice from organisations such as the Australian Medical Association and RANZCOG. They have noted the extraordinary circumstances that may compel women to consider late-term abortions, such as late presentation or diagnosis (such as diagnosis of foetal abnormality); reproductive coercion or domestic violence; difficulty accessing abortion services; and serious illness during pregnancy (such as a cancer diagnosis).

From the representations made to me and the many conversations I have had with community members, stakeholders and healthcare professionals, I have come to the belief that the current act contains robust safeguards to ensure that medical professionals are equipped to make appropriate assessments in each unique circumstance.

I do not believe that anyone makes a decision to end a pregnancy lightly. I can only imagine the pain, stress and grief that women and families face in such circumstances. I trust that every effort is made to support the pregnancy and save the life of the foetus, but tragically this is not always safe and possible to do so.

As many other honourable members have cited, the number of late-term abortions performed in South Australia is a small fraction of the total, making up 48, or 1 per cent of all abortions performed in South Australia in 2024. Thirty-four of these were to protect the physical or mental health of the pregnant person, 15 due to foetal anomaly, and one to save the life of the pregnant woman or another foetus. These cases usually involve circumstances of severe foetal abnormalities incompatible with life or unexpected medical developments that are serious threats to the pregnant woman's health and life.

It is very concerning that proponents of this amendment bill use extremely emotive and misleading arguments, claiming that 79 healthy, viable babies have been killed in South Australia since the Termination of Pregnancy Act came into effect in 2022. While this number is indeed taken from the reports of the South Australian Abortion Reporting Committee, Methods and Terminology, these reports clearly state that the reported figures include 'induction of labour without expectation of fetal survival'. It is misleading and deceptive to claim that each of these instances involve healthy babies.

I still firmly believe that life is precious and it begins at conception; however, I also believe that we must value the lives and wellbeing of the women facing these very complex, emotional and deeply personal decisions. This is an incredibly divisive, emotive issue. It challenges each of us to reflect on our deeply held beliefs and values.

I mentioned in my previous speech one year ago that I believe I represent a number of individuals and communities who are often quiet in this debate and do not attend rallies or speak up on social media. I have been approached by some community members who feel very strongly that I should once again speak up for the quiet ones and give a voice to women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who are often left out of these conversations.

As a Buddhist, I have been brought up to believe that life starts at conception and that life should not be destroyed; however, modern interpretations allow for more flexibilities, especially when abortion is necessary to save the mother's life or for significant health reasons. The ethical consequences are heavily influenced by the motivation and intention behind the abortion and saving the mother's life can be seen as an act of compassion.

Similarly, traditional Hindu scriptures strongly oppose abortion, often comparing it to murder and a violation of the principle of non-violence, 'ahimsa', unless a mother's life is at risk or the foetus has a severe life-threatening condition that would cause immense suffering. But for many Hindus, decisions about abortion and other reproductive issues are left to the family's judgement, the context of the situation, and may also be guided by the precept of 'least harm' as it relates to the foetus, parents and society.

In many Islamic traditions, abortion is generally discouraged and there is recognition across various schools of thought that it may be permitted under specific circumstances. Most agree that abortion may be permitted if the mother's life is at risk and some extend this to include cases of severe foetal impairment, rape, incest and significant threats to the mother's physical or mental health.

I wish to acknowledge the Islamic Society of South Australia, which has undertaken extensive and thoughtful consultation with their community members, Muslim and non-Muslim doctors, medical professionals and The Imam Council of South Australia to develop its position on this debate. They state:

While ISSA supports efforts to protect viable life, we are deeply concerned that removing physical and mental-health grounds could endanger women by restricting access to care even when serious health complications arise.

The Islamic Society states that its core position is to 'protect viable life wherever clinically safe. Once a foetus reaches viability, around 23 to 25 weeks, every effort should be made to preserve life through early delivery or neonatal care, rather than ending life in utero, unless doing so would pose a serious and immediate threat to the mother's life or health.' The Islamic Society also states that:

…physical and mental health equal health. Excluding either physical or mental health indications remove critical protections for mothers. Severe psychiatric illness (e.g. acute psychosis, suicidality) and serious physical conditions can both endanger life. Health, in all its dimensions, must remain recognised within the law, subject to independent medical assessment and ethical oversight.

I thank the Islamic Society of South Australia for sharing their thoughtful and respectful position statement with me. They further said:

…this nuanced position honours both the sanctity of unborn life and the wellbeing of the mother, rejecting both absolute prohibition and unrestricted access.

It is important to remember that no faith in the modern world has one standard, homogenous view on such complex ethical issues that are highly sensitive and highly emotional. I have spoken to Christian pastors, Buddhists, Hindus and many others who have diverse views on this topic. The stereotype or misconception that all religions ban abortion is unhelpful and denies each person of faith—whatever that faith may be—the agency to search within themselves, examine their beliefs and come to their own decision.

Ultimately, I do believe that all life is precious and every effort should be made to protect it, but I also believe that women and families facing heartbreaking and unimaginable circumstances must be able to make their own decisions supported by their medical teams according to best medical practice standards and within the existing legal and ethical framework. With those remarks, today I will be voting against this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:56): I rise to speak on the Termination of Pregnancy (Restriction on Terminations after 22 Weeks and 6 Days) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Greens and indicate my strong opposition to the bill. I want to commend the Hon. Jing Lee on her thoughtful contribution, one that was grounded in her faith and also on the medical evidence that she referenced; I commend her on that speech.

Access to abortion is fundamental to the right to health care: this is a fundamental view of the Greens. I must say I speak on this matter with some considerable reluctance. I am really disappointed that this matter has been put back on this parliament's agenda once again. Back when I first became involved in student activism more than 20 years ago, I was a big believer in the idea of autonomous organising. Fundamental to that philosophy was the idea that women should be the people who speak on these matters and make decisions about their own bodies, not men. One of the things that does really trouble me about this debate is that so often we hear men lecturing women about what they should do with their bodies, and I totally disagree with that.

The right to access abortion as part of health care is a fundamental philosophy for the Greens. I recognise that the former Marshall Liberal government moved abortion laws out of the criminal law and grounded them within a health framework, and that was the right thing to do. I want to acknowledge the leadership of my crossbench colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks, who did a huge amount of work to make that happen, and also of course the Hon. Michelle Lensink.

The decision around abortion should be one that a woman is able to take in consultation with her doctor. This should be a matter for GPs, not MPs. I hope that we will finally see an end to this bill being brought before this chamber and all the division that causes. I might also make a few remarks about the tenor of the debate. I have been deeply troubled by some of the tactics that have been adopted by the proponents of this bill and its previous iteration.

Some of the intimidatory tactics that have been adopted on social media have sought to vilify and demean members of parliament and create a space where people feel that they cannot express their views. I think that is a real shame and it brings us into the territory that we have seen in other jurisdictions around the world. I think it is appalling that members of this chamber have been vilified as members of the 'baby killers club', for instance; I think that is appalling.

It is also appalling that just today there have been people offering to play bingo and trivialising our speeches in this chamber—indeed, I think debasing the parliament itself. This sort of thing is not the direction we should be taking in our politics here in South Australia. We should be better than that, and I really urge the proponents of this bill outside of this chamber who are adopting those tactics to move away from that.

The final point I will make is that it is always a source of frustration to me and the Greens that matters of women's reproductive rights, and indeed LGBTI rights, are always matters of conscience for the two major political parties yet they bind on nearly everything else. Why is it that we have a political system where the major parties do not allow a conscience vote on whether or not you send someone to war or whether or not children are locked behind razor wire as part of our immigration detention system, yet women's reproductive rights are seen as a luxury opt-in item, where every member can form an independent view? That is a real shame, and I look forward to the day when these are matters of platform for the two major political parties.

With that, I indicate my strong opposition to this bill. I hope we finally see an end to this matter, and that women can feel secure in the knowledge that their reproductive rights are going to be protected in South Australia.

Sitting suspended from 18:01 to 19:46.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (19:47): Members will not be surprised to hear, and those in the gallery and those watching on video will not be surprised to hear, that I intend to support this bill. I have had a long history of voting for what I might call similar legislation—in fact, one bill that was almost identical some time ago. Given that much has been said about this, I do not intend to speak at length tonight. I will certainly make a contribution, but I do not intend to speak at length.

For those looking to further understand my views on these matters, I refer them to my speeches in this place. There have been many of them, but the ones that stand out to me were on 27 October 2010, 30 October 2019, 12 November 2020, and then on 16 October 2024. Of course, that was the last time that we dealt with what we might call a similar issue, a very similar issue just over a year ago.

One thing I would say that I think has been said a number of times during the debate tonight is that there were some unedifying aspects of that debate that I would like to think we will not see again. I think it is incumbent upon all of us, and those external to the debate, to conduct themselves with respect and in a manner that understands that not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. That is the nature of this sort of thing and these sorts of debates.

In fact, one thing that I was heavily criticised for by a very small minority the last time we debated this back in October last year was for pairing out with one of my colleagues. I think all of us understand that when you take a yes vote off the yes column and a no vote off the no column, you end up with one less on each side, and the result therefore is unchanged. Of course, that is exactly what happened. I could go into so much more detail about that, but I will not. I think that is the bottom line.

That being said, I turn to the bill before us now and there are a number of things I would like to say. The first thing is that we have had some suggestion that medical practitioners are almost completely in support of this bill. I do not deny that there has been some communication, some correspondence, etc., in favour of this bill from medical professionals. That is a fact. But it should also be acknowledged that there has been some communication—certainly to me, I cannot speak for other members, but certainly to me—by medical professionals encouraging us to vote for the bill.

I have had a few, but the one that stood out to me was a group, which I was not familiar with frankly until this debate, called Pro-life Health Professionals Australia and they wrote quite an extensive letter to me. I will not read that letter out because it is several pages, but I will make note of their conclusion at the end of the letter, where they said, and I quote directly:

The Amendment corrects an unintended consequence of the 2021 Act, restores public confidence that our laws advocate for the lives of both mothers and viable infants, and aligns with the fundamental principles of health care. We urge you to support this important Bill.

That was signed by a neonatologist, an obstetrician, a gynaecologist, and a radiation oncologist, as well as making reference to their network of executives who supported them, also health professionals. So it needs to be understood and recognised that it is not all one way in this debate. There are health professionals, including people I have spoken to directly, who would like to see this bill pass. In fact, I spoke to an obstetrician personally who has asked not to be named, so I will not name that person, let's say three weeks ago-ish and had quite a discussion about this.

I asked that particular obstetrician gynaecologist what they would point me to, to inform me on these issues. I do not want to pretend that I was somehow looking to be convinced the other way; I was not. I was looking for material to support my position—I need to be honest about that—and this particular obstetrician gynaecologist pointed me to a number of things. But the one thing that really stood out to me was a particular website they pointed me to, theclevelandclinic.org, and I will talk a bit more about that in a moment and put some of some of those details on the record.

We have also had some debate in this chamber tonight about somehow it being unusual for a bill to be seconded by a member of the Liberal Party in these circumstances. Let's be honest, I seconded the bill and we all know that. I was proud to second the bill and I would do the same again should the opportunity present itself. The truth is that I feel strongly about this issue, and I always have felt strongly about this issue. I know there are strong feelings on both sides of the debate, but what needs to be clearly understood is that this is a conscience issue for Liberal members.

We can vote anyway we like without any party consequences at all and that is a longstanding tradition of the Liberal Party. That is the way it should be, in my view. There has been all sorts of speculation about what might or might not have happened in our party room. I can tell you that I was in that party room and it was declared a conscience vote by our leader and he very clearly indicated that it is a matter for members to make up their own minds. Therefore, in seconding the bill, I did nothing to undermine the leader. In fact, I supported his decision. His decision was that it was a conscience vote. My expression of my conscience was to second the bill. As I say, I would do the same again.

I think we should not get caught up in spurious arguments about these matters being somehow more difficult for the Liberal Party than they are for other parties; they are not. There will be members of my party tonight who support this bill—I think a majority. We will see what happens in the end but my expectation is that a majority will support the bill. There will also be in my expectation—in fact, one of our members has declared their hand—who will oppose the bill, because it is a conscience matter. We are entitled to do that and I think that is the way it should be on these matters.

It is the sort of thing that is so deeply personal to people that if you have a situation that almost forces people to vote against their conscience or encourages them to vote against their conscience, it is untenable, and something I would not be a part of. I stress again that it is something our leader would not be part of. He made it clear that this is a conscience vote and we can vote as we see fit, and that is exactly what each of us are doing.

Returning to the point I was making earlier, I contacted an obstetrician gynaecologist who we have had some dealings with in our family for a number of years, and I asked: what material would you source? What material would you point me to in order to facilitate this debate? What do you think would be significant for me to be exposed to?

That particular gynaecologist pointed me to a whole number of sites, actually, probably more than 30. I went through all of them. It took some considerable time, but it is an important issue. One really stood out to me, and there are many. I could literally go on for hours and hours. I will not, as I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Mr President, as are my colleagues. I intend only to speak for about another 10 minutes or so.

One that really stood out to me was a website run by group called Cleveland Clinic. Their website is clevelandclinic.org for those who want to avail themselves of it and have a look. This is a clinic, an organisation that deals in these sorts of matters: maternity matters, women's health, etc. They operate in several countries, including the US, the UK and Canada, and they are over 100 years old. They are pretty credible, I think, by most standards. They have on their website taken the time to outline what happens to a foetus in the womb over the course of its development. I will not go through all of it because there is so much here, but I do want to make some key points. They say this:

Week 5: The neural tube (brain, spinal cord and other neural tissue of the central nervous system) forms. The…heart…will pulse 110 times a minute by the end of the fifth week.

Week 6: …arms and legs also develop. Blood cells are taking shape, and circulation will begin. Structures that'll become the ears, eyes and mouth take form…

Week 7: Bones begin replacing soft cartilage and genitals begin to form…

Week 8: All of the major organs and body systems are developing…Eyes become visible and ears begin to form. The umbilical cord is fully developed and helps to transport oxygen and blood to the embryo…

Month 3 (weeks 9 through 12)

…It's a period of rapid growth and development. The fetus develops distinct facial features, limbs, organs, bones and muscles. By the end of the 12th week, the fetus has an assigned sex…

Week 9: …teeth and taste buds are forming. Its muscles are forming…Your provider may be able to hear its heartbeat with a Doppler ultrasound.

Week 10: The arms, hands, fingers, feet and toes are fully formed…Fingernails and toenails are beginning to develop and the external ears form. The external genitals also…form…

Week 11: The fetus is starting to explore a bit by doing things like opening and closing its fists and mouth. Its knees, elbows and ankles are working…The bones are hardening…Facial features are more prominent.

Week 12: All the organs, limbs, bones and muscles are present and will continue to develop in order to become fully functional. The circulatory, digestive and urinary systems are also working and the liver produces bile. The fetus is drinking and peeing…

Since the most critical development has taken place, your chance of miscarriage drops considerably after 12 weeks (the end of the first trimester). Most people begin feeling some relief from morning sickness by now, too…

Second trimester

The second trimester of pregnancy is often thought of as the best part of the experience. By this time, any morning sickness is probably gone and the discomfort of early pregnancy has faded. You may also start to feel movement as the fetus flips and turns in your uterus. During this trimester, many people find out about the fetus's assigned sex. This is typically done during an anatomy scan (an ultrasound that checks physical development) at around 20 weeks.

Month 4 (weeks 13 through 16)

…Your pregnancy care provider can hear the fetal heartbeat loud and clear on a Doppler ultrasound. The fetus can even suck its thumb, yawn, stretch and make faces.

Week 13: Vocal chords form…

Week 14: The fetus's skin starts to thicken and fine hair begins to grow. It can start bringing its fingers to its mouth and turn its head. External genitals are fully developed.

Week 15: Some organs, like intestines and ears, are moving to their permanent location…The fetus begins to make more purposeful movements, like sucking its thumb or smiling.

Week 16: The fetus has lips and its ears are developed enough that it can hear you talk. Even though its eyes are closed, the fetus can react to light by turning away from it…

Month 5 (weeks 17 through 20)…

By the end of the fifth month of pregnancy most people begin to feel the foetus moving around. It continues:

Week 17: [The fetus starts to put on fat. The] skin is covered with a whitish coating called vernix.

Week 18: …The fetus may have a sleep-wake cycle, and loud noises may wake the fetus if it's asleep.

Week 19: The fetus is getting stronger and most people begin to feel kicks and punches. The fetus also has its own unique set of fingerprints and can hiccup.

Week 20: The fetus's nails grow….

By the end of the fifth month, the fetus is about 9 to 10 inches long and weighs about 1 pound.

Month 6 (weeks 21 through 24)

And this will be the end of my account of this developmental phase. It continues:

In the sixth month of pregnancy. its eyelids begin to part and you may notice regular, jerky movements. The fetus responds to sounds by moving or increasing its pulse.

Week 21: Limb movements are coordinated and frequent. The fetus has bone marrow that helps it produce blood cells.

Week 22: The fetus's grasp is getting stronger and it can touch its ears and the umbilical cord. It can hear your heartbeat, your stomach rumble and your breathing.

Week 23—

And we are getting to the pointy end, given the timeframe in this bill. It specifically says on this website:

If born prematurely, the fetus may survive after the 23rd week with intensive care. It will begin rapidly adding fat to its body [from this point].

I could go on, but I have chosen to outline those timeframes because they are relevant to this bill; that is, post that stage of gestation is the period which this bill is dealing with.

I have always had strong feelings on this matter. Reading that out reinforces why I feel strongly about it. They are not in dispute, as I understand it: these are landmarked developmental phases of these foetuses or babies that occur in the womb and are now increasingly visible through the incredible technology that we have, like 3D and even 4D scans (I am not sure what a 4D scan is, but presumably somebody knows).

One of the pamphlets or leaflets I picked up from this particular obstetrician shows that there is a company operating in Adelaide right now that can do what they call foetal photos. They do that at the 14-week stage—there are a few of them, I understand—and at that stage they advertise that they will be able to tell what sex your baby is to the prospective parent. That gives some insight into why I feel strongly about this: I always have, I always will, and it is for that reason that I strongly support this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:02): I rise to oppose this bill. I do so because deciding whether to have an abortion after, say, a foetal anomaly is diagnosed can be a really complex and emotionally demanding process. Pregnant individuals, pregnant women, pregnant girls, young girls, often need time to understand detailed medical information, as well as with any pregnancy-related decision, to reflect on their personal values, their family and community beliefs, their life goals, their capacity to raise a child and the support available to them.

People who seek abortions at an advanced gestation typically follow one of two pathways. In some cases, they have received new information or they have experienced significant life changes later in the pregnancy, such as discovering the pregnancy itself or learning of a foetal anomaly or perhaps facing the death of a partner. In other cases, they encounter barriers that prevent access to abortion care at an earlier gestation, such as difficulties finding a local provider, being lied to about their options, needing to arrange travel or delays caused by, say, a mental health crisis or experience, of course, of domestic violence.

This bill before us is a very short bill. It amends section 6 of the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021; it also amends section 9. At section 6(1)(a)(ii) and (b)(ii), it deletes paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b)(ii). 'What is that?', I hear inquiring minds ask. That is a very simple part of the bill, at section 6—Terminations by medical practitioner after 22 weeks and 6 days. At that point, where it is provided that a medical practitioner may perform a termination on a person who is more than 22 weeks and six days pregnant if (a) the medical practitioner considers that, in all the circumstances, the termination is necessary to save the life of the pregnant person or save another foetus, it deletes (ii):

(ii) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve significant risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person;

The second part of that deletion is that the second medical practitioner must also sign off that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve significant risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant person.

Further, section 9, which is part of the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021, provides for mandatory considerations for medical practitioners performing terminations after 22 weeks and six days. There, at section 9(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), it deletes paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). Well, what do (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) say? They say that the mandatory considerations, when you get to this stage and you have had two doctors look at that significant physical and mental risk, include:

(c) whether the patient has had difficulty accessing timely and necessary specialist services before the pregnancy reached 22 weeks and 6 days, including but not limited to patients experiencing significant socio-economic disadvantage, cultural or language barriers and those who reside in remote locations;

(d) whether a patient has been denied agency over the decision to continue a pregnancy or not, including (but not limited to) the abuse of minors and vulnerable adults to sexual and physical violence including rape, incest and sexual slavery;

(e) whether the abuse outlined in paragraph (d) includes circumstances in which such abuse is not apparent, or the pregnancy is not diagnosed until an advanced gestational age;

(f) whether medical or psychiatric conditions may become apparent or deteriorate during the pregnancy to the point where they are a threat to the patient's life;

(g) whether the patient has a deteriorating maternal medical condition, or late diagnosis of a disease requiring treatment incompatible with an ongoing pregnancy (such as malignancies).

That is what this bill seeks to delete. It is not simply removing abortion at a late gestation stage because of mental health issues.

In fact, we have heard time and time again from some of the proponents against what is the current status of our abortion laws in this state that apparently the South Australian law allows abortion up to birth for any reason. If I have heard it once, I have seen it a thousand times online. I have heard it spouted in Rundle Mall or outside of the steps of this place.

If you read the act, you can see there are significant criteria around abortion, and certainly when we get to the 22 weeks and six days process, not only are there the two doctors there are a number of criteria, some of which the member would keep in the bill. I have not gone through those—I could—but she seeks to delete the ones that I have just read out. Those medical practitioners are provided a way to provide lawful abortion in this state through really strict criteria.

There is no way that South Australia has abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever. That is a lie, but we are here today because of lies that are told. In fact, in the Hon. Sarah Game's second reading speech we were told that this was simply a bill about what she calls late-term—what I will call later gestation—abortions, yet on the steps that night, in the video that she did with Joanna Howe, she said that she opposes any abortion from conception.

The proponent of the bill told the truth on the steps: that she opposes abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. This bill is simply a tool to further her beliefs. She is entitled to her beliefs. I disagree with her beliefs, but I think we are entitled to the truth in this debate about what this bill really does. Howe herself, of course, is on record stating that she wants to make abortion unthinkable. I take that not just from her website but from her many statements and TV appearances. In fact, that unthinkable abortion is not just at 23 weeks onwards, it is at any time. Indeed, according to Joanna Howe's own website, she states:

My goal is not to bulldoze you into agreeing with me on the issue of abortion. Far from it. I believe that everyone has the right to their opinion and I don't judge anyone for being pro-choice or for having had an abortion. Some of my closest friends have had abortions.

That is Joanna Howe. It continues:

I hope that by using my experience as a researcher, I can shed light on abortion in Australia and draw attention to the facts and the data.

My goal is to make abortion unthinkable because we know that it kills a human being and it harms her mother. I am fighting for an Australia where we recognise the human rights of babies in-utero and where we give concrete and meaningful support to women during pregnancy and beyond.

Mind you, that text was put up online a few years ago now, so perhaps she might want to reassess in the light of her recent behaviours—whether or not she does not judge anyone for being pro-choice, because if she does not judge anyone for being pro-choice she has an odd way of showing it. She certainly has an odd way of treating people who have had abortions who have spoken on the ABC about their difficult experiences.

Joanna Howe, in viewing that footage, has not had compassion. She has gone on to make hate videos about those people who have been through these experiences: not members of parliament but regular, ordinary, everyday—in this case—mothers. She has, of course, since labelled members of parliament, academics and medical professionals 'evil' members of a so-called 'baby killers club'. That does not seem terribly respectful to me.

So here we are with yet another bill in an Australian parliament at the behest of Professor Joanna Howe. What we know from history is that if you want to make abortion unthinkable and if you want to make abortion criminal, that does not stop abortion—it just makes it unsafe. What we also know from right now, not just history, is that abortion bans are linked to sharp rises in sepsis, infant deaths and pregnancy associated deaths in the US, with very similar legislation to the legislation we debate tonight.

The most recent source I have on this is from the Population Reference Bureau dated 7 August 2025 by authors Rachel Yavinsky and Mark Mather. They have undertaken some research presented at a symposium and, following the overturn of Roe v Wade, they have actually seen abortion bans lead to 478 excess infant deaths and 59 excess pregnancy associated deaths. They were the findings of that 9 June symposium this year on the health impact of abortion bans. That was co-sponsored by the Hopkins Population Center, the State Innovation Exchange, PRB and the William H. Gates Sr. Institute for Population and Reproductive Health, if you would like to fact-check that one.

Researchers, medical providers, legislators and journalists came together in Washington DC to talk about this new research, with understandable concern. The stakes here are life and death. In states with abortion laws that have legal grey areas around medical exceptions and treatments for miscarriages, we see inconsistent care. Patients in similar circumstances can actually receive very different treatment when we make laws that do not support the medical profession and the person who is facing that choice with the best medically guided care and the thing that is best for them.

In many cases, we talk about statistics. Today, uncovering the work that Ms. magazine in the US now does because of the abortion bans in that country, I want to reflect beyond the statistics. I have just shared with you those 59 excess deaths. That is 59 dead women and girls because of abortion bans. In those states, those families are often left heartbroken, and so unnecessarily so, because we have politicised access to abortion for so many years. In South Australia, we have no intention of going back. We know that more than four in five South Australians do not believe in abortion bans and do respect the ethical and expert professions of the medical teams who are involved in this health care.

Tonight, I want to take you beyond those numbers to the real people—people who are no longer with us. Her name is Josseli Barnica. Her date of death was 8 September 2021. Barnica and her daughter, days after she was born, are pictured in Ms. magazine.

Barnica was a young Texas mother who died after a hospital did not intervene in her miscarriage because of the state's 2021 abortion ban…Providers waited 40 hours until they could no longer detect cardiac activity before providing Barnica with basic medical care.

The quote from Barnica's husband is:

They had to wait until there was no heartbeat. It would [have been] a crime to give her an abortion.

Barnica's husband grieves her. Another woman: her name is Yeniifer Alvarez-Estrada Glick. Her date of death was 10 July 2022. 'Yeni'—as she was known by her family—died due to complications related to her high-risk pregnancy. In fact, her sister is on record as saying:

We were scheduled to do her baby shower that weekend. But we weren't having a baby shower. We were having a funeral.

She and Andrew were so young, and if given a choice they probably would have thought to themselves, We'll have so much time together, we can have a child later on.

Yeni is another casualty of abortion bans in America very similar to this legislation that we debate tonight, which prohibits abortions under many circumstances—physical, mental and medically needed—and makes people either wait until they are at imminent risk of death before medical procedures are performed or, in fact, does not allow those abortions to be performed at all. Her name is Porsha Ngumezi. Her date of death was 11 June 2023. Ms. magazine reports that Porsha died:

…after experiencing severe complications from a miscarriage at 11 weeks of pregnancy. She was admitted to the emergency department at Houston Methodist Sugar Land, where she suffered significant blood loss and required two transfusions due to hemorrhaging. Despite the critical situation, she did not receive a dilation and curettage (D&C), a procedure that could have stopped the bleeding by removing remaining tissue from her uterus.

Instead, Porsha was given misoprostol, a medication intended to help her body pass the tissue naturally. This approach was taken in part due to the restrictions imposed by Texas' abortion laws, which have led doctors to avoid procedures like D&Cs even when medically necessary.

Porsha's husband, now a widower, is quoted:

I'm thinking, 'He's the OB, he's probably seen this a thousand times, he probably knows what's right'…Since we were at Methodist, I felt I could trust the doctors.

Her name is Nevaeh Crain. Her date of death was 29 October 2023. Crain was an 18-year-old woman who died after experiencing pregnancy complications. She visited multiple emergency rooms but faced delays in receiving appropriate care. Her mother, hours before she died, said to the medical team, 'Do something,' and they did not. Her name is Amber Nicole Thurman. Her date of death was 19 August 2022. Ms. magazine reports:

Thurman's death was deemed 'preventable' by the state's maternal mortality review committee after she was unable to access legal abortion and timely medical care.

Her last words to her mother were, 'Promise me you'll take care of my son.' How many more dead women do we have to see overseas before we realise the folly of our ways in trying to create laws which, as the Hon. Robert Simms said earlier in the debate, are led by MPs not GPs when it comes to abortion and health care?

We know that this particular debate is not just based on non-factual information in the second reading speech. It is not just based on that, it is based on creating buzz and clicks and popularity for certain proponents who are rising in the social media stakes over this issue. I was horrified to see today on Dr Joanna Howe's website Sarah's Game. The Hon. Rob Simms briefly touched upon this in question time today, but for those who have not seen this website yet this is not an episode of Black Mirror. This is literally something that happened in South Australia today. Dr Joanna Howe, a professor at Adelaide University, posted on her website:

Here's how 'Sarah's Game' works:

During Wednesday's debate, every time a South Australian politician drops a woke buzzword or uses one of the classic pro-abortion cliches…YOU WIN POINTS! Here are the details:

1. Buy as many words and phrases as you like from the list.

Then there is a pointy finger. It continues:

2. Every time a politician uses your chosen words/phrases during the debate, you get points.

3. You can buy the same word as many times as you like to stack your potential points (e.g. if you buy 'MAGA' three times, you'll get three points each time the word is said.

4. Small differences won't count against you (e.g. if you buy 'women's bodies' but the politician says 'woman's body', you still get the point!)

I note it does not say 'girls' bodies' anywhere in this game.

5. Each point earns you an entry into the raffle.

First Prize will automatically go to the player with the most points.

Second and Third Prize will be randomly drawn from the raffle.

Prizes:

First Prize—Dinner with Dr Jo & James Howe

Second Prize—$500 Coles/Myer voucher

Third Prize—$250 Coles/Myer voucher

Then it goes on to conclude here on the first page:

The beautiful irony is the politicians will be inadvertently funding us every time they attack us. Not a bad deal! Happy playing!

She then has a form that people can fill in and pay money to her—unsurprising. She seems to always be on the grift. 'Will you buy words?' Five dollars it will cost you to buy the words 'between a pregnant person and their doctor'. Five dollars will get you 'between a woman and her doctor'. Five dollars for 'bird flip'. Five dollars for 'Christo-fascist', which I must say I had not even heard until today. Five dollars for 'legislating women's bodies'. Five dollars for 'Joanna Howe'. Ten dollars for 'trust women/doctors/experts/pregnant people'. Ten dollars for 'anti-woman'. Ten dollars for 'American-style politics/Americanisation of Australian politics'. Ten dollars for 'Americanisation'.

Ten dollars for 'late-term abortions are rare'. Ten dollars for 'American-style politics'. Ten dollars for 'trust the experts'. Ten dollars for 'culture wars'. Twenty dollars for 'conservative'. Twenty dollars for 'abortion is healthcare'. Twenty dollars for 'the right/far right/right wing/extreme right/radical right-wingers/right-wing extremists'. Twenty dollars for 'Trump/Trumpian'. Twenty dollars for 'exceedingly/extremely rare'. Fifty dollars for 'misinformation and/or disinformation'—I think she knew we were coming. Seventy dollars for 'pregnant person' and $70 for 'abortion care/abortion healthcare/termination care/termination healthcare'.

That is a pretty penny if you have a few people willing to bet on the words that were going to be used in this debate tonight. Words that went in there that I used earlier: rape, incest, sexual slavery, girls, because that is actually what we are talking about here. I think it is extraordinary that we have an academic creating this game and making a game of this debate. It is just extraordinary where we have found ourselves. I would ask people to reflect on that.

I would also note that Joanna Howe has made a name for herself around her advocacy around abortion and sex work—but particularly abortion—and has made a lot of money from it. She has a lot of money to spend. In fact, she has quite a bit, it seems, that she uses to amplify her voice in this debate, so much so that she thinks it is not only a game but a game she can make even more money out of. Her goal, apparently, is not to bulldoze us into agreeing with her. In fact, far from it: some of her closest friends apparently have had abortions.

I note that there is transparency at the moment particularly with Meta records, and anyone who cares to go and look at Meta, which is Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and I think X—but do not quote me on the X; it is the fourth social media platform—can see how much people spend on political ads in this country. When you go to the spend on Meta that is documented for South Australia from 12 August to 9 November 2025, there was a total spend overall in South Australia of $559,523.

The top spenders, however, may surprise you, or perhaps they will not. Perhaps you have been watching Sarah's game for a while now and seen Joanna Howe's game and grift for some months, perhaps years. The top spender is SA Health, $67,525, followed by UNICEF Australia, $48,413, followed by SA government, $29,908, followed by Greenpeace Australia Pacific, $26,229, followed by Low Emission Technology Australia, $18,537, followed by Matt Burnell MP at $15,198 and then Dr Joanna Howe, $14,872 in the months 12 August to 9 November. In fact, she pips to the post Novita, BHP and Amnesty International.

Lest you think that was an aberration, 11 October to 9 November: total spend for South Australia dropped a bit, $213,891. SA Health, UNICEF Australia, SA government, Greenpeace and then pipping Matt Burnell, in fact by two spots, Dr Joanna Howe, $7,406, above the ASU, the Australian Services Union, Matt Burnell again, Doctors Without Borders, BHP and the World Wildlife Fund.

Indeed, when you then look at the contents of these ads, I think this is a truly horrifying game that is being played here. Dr Joanna Howe in a sponsored Meta ad, paid for by Dr Joanna Howe, on which she spent somewhere between $4,500 and $5,000 for 500,000 to 600,000 impressions with a one million estimated audience size between 8 October and 15 October this year, tells the story of Tayla-Jane's baby. In that, she takes Tayla-Jane's incredibly personal story, heartbreaking story—for those of you who have met Tayla-Jane or spoken to her, you know it was not done lightly.

For those of you who have not engaged in this debate so far, this is a woman who had a later gestation abortion in this state who was then vilified through essentially political advertising with a big spend behind it. This is an ordinary woman who chose what was best for her and her child, knowing, as she said, she had to be the best mother for the child that she already had, and that was the difficult choice she made in that case.

There is also an ad here for this particular bill: 79 babies in the last 30 months, Dr Howe claims in an ad that was put up 10 September to 25 September on Facebook and Instagram by the looks of this. Again, the amount spent was somewhere between $1,000 and $1,500 for 70,000 to 80,000 impressions. The ad also has multiple versions. In that, she claims that 79 babies were killed by lethal injection in South Australia in the last 2½ years. It does not actually represent the real statistics.

She has other ads here. Some of them only go up for a day or so. This one was under 1,000, so 900 to 999, but only went up for a day, but still got out to about a million people, a million impressions. That one was specifically around Sarah Game and her video with Sarah Game. On 8 September to 11 September this year on Instagram another estimated smaller audience of about one million impressions. Sorry, one million estimated audience with 90,000 to 100,000 impressions. The amount spent there again was a bit smaller: $1,000 to $1,500.

This one has a go at a journalist from InDaily for her supposed hit piece. In fact, Joanna is often wont to say that she is exposed to hit pieces by journalists who do not agree with her. I mean, her goal is apparently not to bulldoze people into agreeing with her—far from it—yet here she is doing ads about people who do not agree with her, and somebody is paying for this. There are several other ads here. They are all to do with this particular bill and I seek leave to table them.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I do that because I think it is important for the public record to see just how much money has gone into this campaign and into this bill, and for what purpose? So that she could make more money by playing a game? That is not somebody who takes this issue seriously. That is not somebody who is respectful. That is not somebody who listens to the medical evidence or, in fact, gives good advice to those who I would have hoped would listen to the medical evidence.

I am slightly frustrated that we are here debating this bill, but I have no grudge against those who bring a bill before us to be debated. That is the role of this parliament and, in fact, it is the role of private members' business to put these ideas on the agenda. It did seem strange that we held off for an additional two weeks on the debate when I think everyone was ready to go, but perhaps other people who were more important to those who hold a vote in this chamber were not and had more grift to grind in the last two weeks.

I also note that there is a wealth of medical information that has been provided through the SALRI report. It is 560 pages. This issue was well canvassed and well researched, and this particular act that the bill we debate tonight is sound. It has listened to voices right across the spectrum on this issue. It has looked at evidence, and it was supported by two-thirds of the parliament not that long ago.

It is disingenuous to bring in bills that seek to demonise women like Tayla-Jane, and women in general, that silence the voices of girls who were perhaps victims of incest and rape, that disregards their life experience and to claim somehow that you are here for that particular cause when then you and your other supporters of this bill go on the steps and say you want to make abortion unthinkable, you actually want to ban abortion from conception. To come in here and debate this particular change and not come clean about the specific areas that this bill would take out of our current legislation that protects people in the most vulnerable situations and that protects the physical health, not just mental health, of people making a really difficult decision, is something that I find a little hard to accept.

With that, I will be voting against this bill. I welcome any debate anytime, as long as it is actually respectful. Some of my best friends have had abortions. Some of my best friends have not had abortions. I respect their right to their opinion. I am happy to debate this issue in a respectful way. I am not happy to be harassed and made videos of. I find that pretty base and pretty pathetic.

I am interested, however, in getting to the bottom of where the money has come from and where it is all going. I note that we have new laws in this state that kicked in on 1 July this year, which provide all of us with new rules where we cannot take donations in certain circumstances, where we are restricted, certainly when it gets to the election period, on what we can say—and truth in political advertising does actually hold up during an election period in this state—but third parties who spend more than $10,000, who are political players who seek to affect election results, are required to be transparent.

I certainly think the Electoral Commission of South Australia should be taking a look at some of the evidence I have reflected upon tonight. I know they have hired investigators. I hope those investigators are going to be cognisant of this debate. I note also that while we debated this particular legislation in the upper house, Joanna Howe and her supporters were out campaigning in Gibson, in Davenport, in Croydon, in whatever Labor lower house seat they could find, with a bizarre message that it was Labor votes that had to change to get this legislation through.

Those Labor votes that had to change, of course, are not in that house, they are in this house. They are not in Croydon, they are not in Davenport, they are not in Gibson, and the multitude of other local state electorates that pamphlets were put in the letterboxes of, that campaigning has been undergoing now for some period of time, that seems to have well and truly exceeded that $10,000 reportable limit. And at some stage, I must say, there are caps on the expenditure that can be spent by a third party within the state election period, starting 1 July this year. So on that, I look forward to our words in this place, and our research and our connection with our constituents, ruling the day and not clicks, subscribers, followers and grift.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (20:37): I have placed my views on the record on multiple occasions in regard to this topic, so today I will talk briefly on the issue in general and then move to this particular bill. I do not think it will surprise anyone that I am supporting this bill. I have spoken before about whether abortion is actually limiting women's real choices. I have quoted before, but I will do so again, a feminist writer who wrote in regard to abortion:

What women 'won' was the 'right' to undergo invasive procedures in order to terminate unwanted pregnancies…unwanted by their parents, their sexual partners, the governments who would not support mothers, the employers who would not support mothers, the landlords who would not accept tenants with children, and the schools that would not accept students with children...If a child is unwanted, whether by her, her partner or her parents, it will be her duty to undergo an invasive procedure and an emotional trauma and so sort the situation out.

Where other people decide that a woman's baby should not be born, she will be pressured to carry out her supposed duty by undergoing abortion. She is told, 'It is your choice, therefore you are on your own.' The same attitude carries over to the woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy. She finds that she is on her own in that as well.

Feminist Catharine MacKinnon has drawn attention to the unequal conditions under which women become pregnant. Abortion, she argues, was legalised to serve a man's requirement for sexual access to women and to enable him to be free of the inconvenient results of that access, that is, children. Abortion is often easier for everyone around her, around the woman or girl who is pregnant, because then they do not need to address the actual problem, the actual problem being support for women and girls who find themselves pregnant unexpectedly or in difficult circumstances.

Many in the pro-life movement do just that. They support those women and girls. I know personally many individuals who have opened their homes so that pregnant women or girls can stay there in a safe environment, who have provided care to women and to their babies both before and after the birth, who have supported them in babysitting when they need to return to the paid workforce and have a baby when they do not have any other support or that of a partner.

That is the slogan in action: 'Love them both'. Doing that puts 'Love them both' in not just words but actions. Often, the abortion debate talks about abortion as the solution and ignores the terrible grief and the often negative physical and/or emotional experiences that many women go through with abortion. The pressure on women to abort for reasons such as I mentioned earlier is a huge stress, and then they live, often, with that regret forever after.

Does that mean that every woman experiences that? Of course not, but it is a real experience for many women, and their voices are often silenced. They are told, 'You made your choice. What are you complaining about?' Silencing the voices of women and girls is something that we should never be trying to do in this debate. Previous speakers have mentioned women's voices being silenced in opposition to this bill, and yet we rarely hear about those women who are silenced, told that they are perhaps traitors to the feminist cause if they dare to speak about their trauma and their poor experiences.

When it comes to thinking about mental health, particularly in regard to this bill, we need to remember that, prior to the changes of 2021, 95 per cent of abortions were done for mental health purposes—95 per cent. We have heard some very sad outlines today of women with mental health issues, but I do not think anyone seriously considers that 95 per cent of the abortions done prior to the changes of 2021 were because of those sorts of mental health issues, those very extreme mental health issues.

What we heard during that 2021 debate was that mental health was the catch-all. It was the umbrella. The mental health argument in opposition to this bill does not take into account the mental health severe effects of post-abortion grief. Instead, it again puts forward the myth that abortion solves a woman's problems when it does not. It sometimes solves the problems of those around her instead, but leaves her with a life of, often, regret and certainly often pain.

This is not a perfect bill, but nor does it do what some in this debate have alleged. For example, if this bill were to pass what would remain in the act would be terminations by a medical practitioner after 22 weeks and six days if the termination is necessary to save the life of the pregnant person or save another foetus. Also, it would still be the case that where there is a case or significant risk of serious foetal anomalies associated with the pregnancy then an abortion after 22 weeks and six days would continue to be available.

The various items that the Hon. Ms Franks referred to in terms of section 9 are currently there as mandatory considerations. Removing them from that section would not mean that they could not be considered, simply that they were no longer considered mandatory. Frankly, if I had been drafting this bill, I would not necessarily have thought that removing those was the best way to go. However, I was not involved in that. The point remains that the bill is not perfect, but it certainly does not do some of the extreme things that those who are opposed to it have been claiming.

We need to remember what this is: we are talking about 22 weeks and six days. From 23 weeks onwards the foetus is considered viable, which means able to live outside of the womb. If born at 23 weeks, yes, that child will need intensive care, but as each day and week goes on they get stronger in general and their chances of a healthy life increase all the time.

As I have said, I have spoken about this topic before and people are more than welcome to have a look at my full speeches in previous debates. We debated a bill that would have had somewhat similar impacts roughly a year ago—I think it was October last year—regarding abortion after 28 weeks. This bill has a greater impact than last year's bill and that bill failed by one vote.

I must say it is pretty hard to imagine that members who did not support limits on abortion after 28 weeks' gestation, roughly a year ago, would now vote for a bill placing limits from 22 weeks and six days, which does beg the question: why introduce this bill now, just before an election? There are only four more sitting days in this term, so even in what I consider the extremely unlikely event that it was to pass this house, there is virtually no chance of it being debated in the House of Assembly. I will just leave that as a question.

However, I want to absolutely commend those in the pro-life, pro-women movement who have worked to support the bill. I know that their intentions are absolutely committed to pro-life work, to loving them both, and I commend also the women and men who have attended rallies, who care so deeply, as do I, about the lives of both unborn babies and the situations of their mothers. I, as always, implore that our laws reflect the concept that we should love them both. I support the bill.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (20:46): This is the part where I sum up. It is actually a fairly simple bill, a simple half-page bill stating that, after 22 weeks and six days, the baby can only be aborted for two reasons and those are that the mother's life is at risk or there is a foetal anomaly. That can happen at any stage, so there can be an abortion after 22 weeks and six days if the mother's life is at risk or there is a foetal anomaly.

Yet, despite it being a really simple bill that is half a page long, there has been a lot of negative communication about it repeatedly, propagating mistruths and confusion about what happens if there is an anomaly and the family is struggling to cope with that. That does not remove any choice from that family. So if there is a foetal anomaly, the abortion can take place at any stage.

What about the mother's life or the mother's life being at risk? If there is a life at risk, the abortion can take place. After 22 weeks and six days, the abortion can take place if there is a life at risk or a foetal anomaly. My own views, which are not secret, are that I am pro-life from conception, so both those can be true. I can be pro-life from conception and the bill can be about babies 22  weeks and six days and over. They are both true.

What this bill does do is say that a physical injury that is not life threatening and a mental health reason are not grounds to abort an otherwise healthy baby 22 weeks and six days over. Were that to be properly communicated to the South Australian public, I believe there is a lot of support for that sentiment. That is why the confusion around what would happen if there is an anomaly and what would happen if the mother's life is at risk is really unhelpful because, as I have said, after 22 weeks and six days an abortion can take place if there is a foetal anomaly or the mother's life is at risk, even though that is not my personal view, but that is the purpose of the bill.

Again, I think there is this indoctrination of women that abortion is sort of health care and mental health care. I totally object to that. It is certainly cheaper, more convenient and easier for society to say that, if you are struggling mentally or financially or are in a domestic violence situation, it is a lot more convenient for everyone else for the woman to have an abortion, but I certainly do not believe it actually qualifies as health care and certainly not a mental health solution.

The purpose of the bill really is, again, to ensure that babies 22 weeks and six days over, who do not have a foetal anomaly and the mother's life is not at risk, have the right to live. It is not about whether we like Joanna Howe and her social media campaign. I do not think the two concepts should be conflated. The vote on and support of the bill should be about the member's belief on what happens to a healthy, viable baby 22 weeks and six days over, without a foetal anomaly, where the mother's life is not at risk, not their view on Joanna Howe's social media campaign.

Just on that, I think the behaviour that has been criticised is on both sides. Everyone is being exposed for their vote and the way they feel about this topic. I do not personally have a view against that, because I believe that when we make our decisions congruent to our inner belief system, that helps protect us against these types of criticisms, because we can all know we acted with our own values.

There was an unusual crowd outside. I do not mean the people are unusual; I just mean it is unusual to have a crowd. We do a lot of talking in this place, and we are all in here working, talking and doing things that I guess we deem are important, but the reality is a lot of people are not really listening, and they do not turn up to show much care about what we are saying. But every time we have this debate, a lot of people turn up. Hundreds of people turn up to say, 'We really care about what happens to these babies.'

It is really interesting for me—and upsetting but also interesting—to see the way a lot of people in here still want to go with the narrative that this is a niche issue, that we are wasting time again in parliament about something that is not important. It is totally incongruent with what is happening outside. It is a rare occasion where we are talking and people are turning up to listen. That does not happen very often and not to that sort of size of crowds, so it is not a niche issue, and we are not wasting time.

I really enjoyed and obviously support the vast majority of what the Hon. Clare Scriven had to say. I thought it was disappointing, and quite disrespectful actually, to see only one Labor member down to speak on such an important issue. I just want to take point with a few things from the Hon. Kyam Maher, that the medical experts are against this bill. I thank the Hon. Dennis Hood for providing some balance and perspective to that, but certainly medical experts who are against preventing the intentional killing of a baby 22 weeks and six days over, who does not have a foetal anomaly and the mother's life is not at risk, are not advocating for the baby.

They are not on the side of the baby. They are not on the side of the father who maybe wants to raise that child. They are not on the side of the extended family, and they are not thinking ahead to the long-term consequences that are going to happen to that woman who has that termination. As has been said, abortion is convenient for everyone around the person who has the abortion.

The Hon. Kyam Maher also talked about anomalies and lives at risk, but, as I have repeated a few times now, this bill allows abortion for a foetus or a developing baby that has an anomaly or where there is a life at risk. Again, the Hon. Kyam Maher said how rare these late-term abortions are, but, again, I find that confusing. Every life is important. Why would one life be more important than another? So there are a number of healthy babies that are being denied having a chance at life—all those special moments lost with their families. Why would we sort of dismiss that as a rare event and then sit here in this place and talk about individuals and other occasions? Every individual life is worthy.

What particularly upsets me, and certainly a lot of other people, is that this is about the condemnation of women. This is not about condemning women, from my point of view, who have abortions. This is about condemning a society that tells women that is the only way—'That is the only way. If you are not financially stable, if you are in a difficult circumstance, if you are having hardship, don't feel bad, you can have an abortion.' Yes, I do condemn that—a lot of people do—because it results in the death of an innocent life and it is a tragedy that that woman and that family have to live with, ongoing.

This is about condemning that societal norm—the pressure, the lack of support and the story that, frankly, it is just an easy way out. It is just easy: have an abortion. I do not mean easy for the woman, I mean easy for the people around her—'It is health care; it is a mental health solution,' when it is not. I do believe women want to keep their babies, I really do. I do believe that women want to keep their babies. I think they should be supported to keep their babies. I think society needs to move to say, 'How can we support you to keep your baby?' not 'How can we help you have an abortion?'

In response to the contributions from the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Jing Lee, I think we do all agree that children are a gift. I do not agree with much else, but we do agree that children are a gift. I know that from our personal conversations. For me, the tears that should be shed here are for all the children who are being lost, the moments that are being lost with those children and the lifetimes sitting with a tragic decision. I do not relate to the tears over the potential loss of being able to perform foeticide. It is not health care, it is not a mental health solution. It is continued indoctrination of women and what is best for them.

I am thankful for the support that I received from many of the members from the Liberal Party—the Hon. Ben Hood, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Heidi Girolamo and, in particular, the Hon. Dennis Hood—for balancing out the perspective of the medical profession and also for the beautiful description of human life up to 23 weeks. I am also thankful for the President's own sentiments. In response to the contribution from the Hon. Tammy Franks, I would just say again that after 22 weeks and six days, if the mother's life is at risk or there is a foetal anomaly then abortion can still take place.

Tonight we face this question that goes to the heart of who we are as a society, which is whether we are going to continue to allow healthy, viable babies to be killed late in pregnancy or whether we will protect them and provide care to their mothers. When the Termination of Pregnancy Act was introduced in 2021, the South Australian public was assured healthy babies would not be aborted late in pregnancy. Then Attorney-General, Vickie Chapman, told this parliament that a 35-week abortion for a mental health reason could not happen and that the safest outcome would be to deliver the baby. But the evidence now shows otherwise.

In the first 30 months of that law operating, 79 healthy, viable babies—every life counts; it might be rare but it is still 79 lives—all older than 22 weeks and six days were deliberately killed in South Australia, not because the mother's life was at risk and not because of a foetal anomaly but for reasons recorded as 'the physical or mental health of the pregnant person', a broad and non-life-threatening category that now accounts for three-quarters of all late-term abortions in this state. Every one of those 79 babies could have been born alive and cared for.

At 23 weeks, around half—or just over—of premature babies now survive, and with active treatment international studies show survival rates as high as 80 per cent. These babies are not non-viable. They are patients: our smallest, most vulnerable patients. Yet in South Australia, the method used to end their lives is foeticide: a long needle filled with potassium chloride inserted into the baby's heart to stop it beating.

Even leading pro-choice scientists now acknowledge that unborn babies can feel pain far earlier than previously thought. In 2020, researchers Derbyshire and Bockmann published 'Reconsidering fetal pain' in the Journal of Medical Ethics. They concluded that unborn babies may experience pain from as early as 12 to 24 weeks and that pain relief should be offered from 18 weeks onward during abortions. Even researchers who support abortion are urging anaesthetic for the baby because the evidence shows these babies are capable of suffering. If we recognise that a baby at 18 weeks may feel pain, how can we ignore the suffering of a healthy, viable baby at 23 weeks, 30 weeks or 34 weeks?

This bill does not take away care from women in crisis. It does not prevent treatment in medical emergencies. What it does is restore a basic moral line. Once a baby is viable, once that child could live outside the womb, we must not deliberately kill them. A woman facing a severe mental health crisis would still be treated under this bill. A late-term abortion is not a cure for her mental health problems; that will be dealt with under the Mental Health Act and the SA Health guidelines.

I want to thank Professor Joanna Howe, who has led the public campaign to support this bill, and I want to thank the South Australian people who have been involved in rallies and public education on late-term abortion. This bill is about whether we as legislators will continue to turn a blind eye, or whether we will uphold the principle that every healthy, viable baby deserves the chance to live and that every mother deserves better than the false choice between ending her baby's life or being without support. Let us pass this bill and finally give protection to the babies who are ready to live and the mothers who deserve real care.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 8

Noes 11

Majority 3

AYES

Centofanti, N.J. Game, S.L. (teller) Girolamo, H.M.
Hood, B.R. Hood, D.G.E. Ngo, T.T.
Pangallo, F. Scriven, C.M.

NOES

Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. El Dannawi, M.
Franks, T.A. (teller) Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lee, J.S. Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J.
Simms, R.A. Wortley, R.P.

PAIRS

Henderson, L.A. Martin, R.B.

Second reading thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT