George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

'The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.'

This quote is oft-misattributed to Mahatma Ghandi but is directly applicable to the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021 before us today.

To protect its most vulnerable, in 1990, Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which, according to the Australian Child Rights Taskforce, 'means that Australia has a duty to ensure that all children in Australia enjoy these rights'.

Article 6 of the convention commits Australia to recognising that every child has the inherent right to life; and ensuring to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Article 24 of the convention commits Australia to recognising the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. Our nation has signed up to striving to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services. Further, Article 24 says Australia shall take appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality.

In short, Australia has committed to every child having the right to life, every child having access to health care and reducing the deaths of babies.

Yet, in this nation, potentially hundreds of babies are born alive as a result of abortion procedures without any significant subsequent intervention. Our most vulnerable are simply left to die.

The data is sketchy with no information available from most states but a research paper that I asked the Parliamentary Library to undertake found that in a single year, 33 babies aborted after 20 weeks gestation were born alive in Victoria while, in Queensland, 204 babies were born alive as a result of abortions over a 10-year period.

In fact, in Queensland, the problem is systemic with Queensland Health's Clinical Guidelines for Termination of Pregnancy stating: 'If [during an abortion] a live birth occurs… Do not provide life sustaining treatment… Document the time and date of death.'

How is this policy, how are these deaths, in accordance with our international obligation as a nation to every child having the right to life, every child having access to health care and reducing the deaths of babies?

How are we treating our most vulnerable members and what does it say about our nation?

Let me be clear: I am pro-life. I think abortion is an evil and it results in a death of a child and often ongoing mental harm for a parent. I would rather no child be aborted in this country or elsewhere.

But whether you are pro-life or so-called pro-choice, I do not know that anyone but the most cold-blooded sociopath could say that a child born alive is not a child and thus does not have any rights.

So the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021 seeks to use our constitutional external affairs power to address the fact that we have policies and practices across the country that result in us breaching our international obligations and that result in the lives of babies unnecessarily being lost.

It does so by placing a duty of care on medical practitioners to provide exactly the same medical care and treatment to a child born alive as a result of an abortion as they would a child born in any other circumstances.

Under this bill, breaching that duty would incur a penalty and there is a new obligation for medical practitioners to report to the federal department of health on children born alive as a result of abortions.

A survey conducted by the recognised polling company YouGov just last month demonstrated that support for my bill is extremely strong across all sectors of the community.

The findings send a very clear message.

More than three times as many people support care for these babies rather than oppose care.

The majority of people expect any baby should be afforded medical care, regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

The survey shows that view is held by both coalition and Labor voters.

That view is held by people aged 18 to 34 and those aged over 65.

It's a view shared by both men and women, and those living in the inner city and the outer regions.

Some have tried to claim—quite falsely—that this bill would require doctors, under threat of penalty, to keep non-viable babies alive. This is not true.

Section 9 of the bill states that the medical care and treatment to be provided to a baby born alive as a result of an abortion to be commensurate to the circumstances, not including the fact that they were born as a result of a termination, and goes on to state that this could be life-saving treatment or, indeed, palliative care as the case may be.

Some have said this bill would keep babies alive that have congenital deformities. Well, again, only if the baby was viable.

And if the baby was viable but had congenital deformities, which is another way of saying the baby was born with disabilities, what is the problem?

Are people saying that children born with disabilities should be left to die? That is a very dark road indeed that I will never be taking.

Others have claimed that this bill perpetuates a myth that children are born alive a result of abortions.

Well, the available data I garnered via the Parliamentary Library shows that to be a false claim, but even if that claim was correct—which it is not—what harm would this bill actually do?

If no viable child is ever born alive as a result of an abortion then this bill has no effect.

But if one child, just one, was born alive in such circumstances and that child was viable then this bill would not only have an effect but it would be more important than probably most laws on the books because it would save a life that otherwise would have been discarded like it was medical waste.

The fact is there is little to argue against in this bill, unless of course an objector felt that a baby born alive as a result of an abortion should be left to die because it was born as a result of an abortion.

Such a position would be in contravention of our international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

And this goes to the constitutionality of this bill.

Some have said that abortion is a state issue but when it comes to providing medical treatment and care to a child and sustaining the life of a child that is a federal matter by virtue of the external affairs power of section 51(xxix) of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and the fact that the Commonwealth of Australia is signatory to article 6 and article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I note that there has been some speculation that the bill could breach civil medical conscription provisions inherent in section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution.

As such, I have sought expert opinion from constitutional lawyers courtesy of the Human Rights Law Alliance who have concluded:

Our opinion is that there is no Constitutional impediment to the Bill as it does not constitute civil conscription. Specifically:

… We think that, properly considered, the Bill would not be characterised as a law with respect to 'the provision of … medical and dental services' within the meaning of s(ection) 51(xxiiiA), and that the civil conscription provision therefore would not apply to it.

… Even if the civil conscription prohibition did apply to the Bill, we consider that the Bill, if enacted, would not 'authorise any form of civil conscription' due to its conformity with Australia's international human rights obligations, and therefore would not be unconstitutional for breaching the civil conscription prohibition.

The bill is constitutional and could pass this parliament.

What is perhaps not constitutional are the deaths of viable babies occurring as a result of abortions across this country.

I say not constitutional, once again to point out that our external affairs power and our ratification of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child means that, as per article 6 of that convention, Australia recognises:

… that every child has the inherent right to life.

And Australia:

… shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

And as per article 24 of that convention, Australia recognises:

… the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health.

And Australia:

… shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.

And also Australia:

… shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures … to diminish infant and child mortality.

Every death of a viable baby born alive as a result of an abortion that happens here means that these fundamental rights of a child enshrined in a UN convention are absent in this country.

This needs to be remedied.

Lives need to be saved.

This bill, the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021, seeks to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

The question of whether or not it will go forward from here is going to be a test of the true measure of this House, this parliament and our society.

In closing, I want to thank Matthew Sait from the parliamentary council for helping draft this bill. I want to thank my colleague the member for Sterling, who is seconding this bill. I want to thank my colleague at the table the Minister for Regional Health and also the Deputy Prime Minister in supporting this bill. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Vince Connelly (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.