Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on a matter of public interest: the issue of child abandonment. In July 2008 the body of a newborn baby boy was found in a green shopping bag at a bus stop in Shepparton, northern Victoria, with his torn umbilical cord still attached. The baby may have been left abandoned for 48 hours in cold, wintry conditions before a local Shepparton farmer discovered the little boy. Just two weeks before that, a baby boy was found wrapped in newspaper on the driveway of a Campbelltown home. He had died of exposure. The boy’s mother, just 18 years old, was charged with manslaughter and criminal neglect.

Baby Catherine was abandoned last year, in 2007, by her mother outside a Dandenong hospital. As many of you may remember, there was much media surrounding the abandonment of Catherine. A Melbourne man generously offered a $300,000 home for Catherine’s mother if she came forward. Others offered donations for her future education. Despite the numerous appeals, her mother has not come forward. Six weeks later, baby Joan was abandoned on the doorstep of a Sydney church. She was found in a cardboard box, suffering from hypothermia. Dr Karen Healy, Associate Professor in the School of Social Work and Applied Human Services, University of Queensland, believes that the manner in which Catherine and Joan were abandoned demonstrates that they were both very much loved by their mothers. They were left in very public places where they could be found quickly. Both had torn umbilical cords, which demonstrated they were probably born without medical assistance. This can be dangerous for both mother and child.

Why would a mother abandon her baby? Take the case of a young Irishwoman who abandoned her baby in a Gold Coast toilet block. Her pregnancy itself was associated with secrecy and shame. The 21-year-old woman left her home in a rural township in Ireland five months before giving birth. Her family were unaware of the pregnancy, and the young woman continued to deny she was pregnant during her stay in Australia. These factors made it impossible for the young woman to make the transition to parenthood. The mother’s own desperate circumstances can provide another reason for abandoning a child.

These heart-wrenching stories keep appearing in the media. It is time we did something about it. In the early 2000s the United States enacted legislation—infant safe haven laws—to provide legal abandonment of newborn babies. Texas was the first state to enact legislation that provided a mechanism by which mothers or fathers could legally abandon their infants under certain conditions. These laws are commonly referred to as safe haven, baby drop-off, baby Moseses or legal abandonment laws. Since the passage of Texan safe haven legislation, virtually every state in the US has passed some form of safe haven law. The main idea behind the legislation is that young women will be discouraged from killing, causing physical harm to or abandoning their babies if offered incentives. Two of the main incentives are anonymity and immunity from prosecution.

The introduction of safe havens means that mothers can leave their babies at the haven without any requirement of providing information about themselves or the baby. These mothers will not be charged with criminal abandonment. Safe havens in the United States are typically fire and police stations, hospitals and community houses. Laws vary from state to state. Each state limits how old the infant may be when relinquished. Seventeen states place the maximum age of an infant that can be relinquished at three days. Fifteen states permit a child to be abandoned up to a month after birth. Other states have extended the time limit to 60 days—such as South Dakota and Texas—and even to 90 days, as is the case in New Mexico.

I held several meetings on my recent visit to the USA wherein I discussed the practical, emotional and political success or otherwise of this legislation. Safe havens secure a baby’s physical wellbeing and offer support to their mother. Babies receive immediate medical care if required and the long-term security of care or adoption is assured. There have been instances in Japan and the US where mothers have used safe havens to relinquish their disabled newborns. This was not intended by policymakers. Although this is very disappointing, at least these babies will receive the medical attention, care and love that they deserve. All children deserve to be protected from harm’s way. If we can save just one child from being abused or left to die, then this legislation is worthwhile.

There is no evidence to support the claim that safe havens result in more abandonments. As a society we should be more understanding as to why a parent would resort to abandoning a baby. Very little is known about parents who abandon their children. These parents may be scared, may have financial concerns or may be suffering from mental illness. Research shows poverty is also a root cause of child abandonment. Political conditions such as difficulty in adoption proceedings may contribute to child abandonment, as can the lack of institutions such as orphanages to take in children whom their parents cannot support. Societies with strong social structures and liberal adoption laws tend to have lower rates of child abandonment. Nevertheless, the reality is that it does happen. The question that needs to be asked is: what can we do to help? What can we do as policymakers?

Whether or not abandoning a baby will constitute a criminal offence in Australia will depend on the particular circumstances of the case and factors such as whether the baby has died or suffered harm as a result of being abandoned. In several jurisdictions in Australia it is a criminal offence to endanger the life of a child by abandonment or exposure. In the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, New South Wales and Queensland it is a criminal offence to unlawfully abandon or expose a child under a certain age where the child’s life is, or is likely to be, endangered, or the child’s health is, or is likely to be, permanently injured. The maximum penalty for these offences throughout Australia ranges from three to seven years.

In my home state of Tasmania it is an offence for any person over the age of 14 years to wilfully ill-treat, neglect, abandon or expose a child under the age of 14 years, or to cause a child to be ill treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause the child unnecessary suffering or injury to their health. The prosecution must prove that the accused had had the means to look after the child. The charge of this offence is the ill-treatment of children. Tasmania’s Criminal Code Act 1924 does not specify the maximum penalty for this offence; the penalty will be determined in accordance with the Sentencing Act 1997.

In South Australia, if a baby dies or suffers serious harm as a result of being abandoned by a parent, guardian or other person who has assumed responsibility for the baby’s care, that person may be guilty of the offence of criminal neglect. The maximum penalty if the baby dies is 15 years imprisonment. If the baby suffers serious harm, the maximum penalty is five years imprisonment. There are no equivalent provisions in Victoria. Other offences may apply in Victoria depending on the circumstances of the case—for example, conduct endangering life under section 22 of the Crimes Act 1958 where a person who abandons her baby can also be found guilty of the offence of failing to provide the necessities of life. In some jurisdictions it is an offence for a person to fail to provide a child with the necessities of life such as food, clothing and lodging where that person has a duty to do so.

In New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, it is also an offence for the parent of a child under 16 years of age to wilfully and without lawful or reasonable cause desert the child and leave it without means of support. The prosecution must show that the parent did have the ability to maintain the child. All these states have imprisonment as punishment for this offence. If as a result of being abandoned the child dies, further charges such as murder or manslaughter may also apply. In some jurisdictions, if the mother is found to have killed the child while suffering mental impairment as a result of giving birth to the child and that child is less than 12 months old, the mother may be found guilty of the offence of infanticide, thereby reducing the charge of murder to manslaughter. The offence of concealment of birth may also apply in some circumstances—for example, where there has been an attempt to hide the body of a baby that has died.

The laws in each state are inconsistent and are often confusing. We need uniformity between the states and we need to act quickly to avoid more tragedies. Any child’s death is a tragedy, but these senseless deaths may have been avoided if safe haven legislation existed in Australia. If safe havens were present in Australia then these children may have had a chance. It seems to be a simple choice, really. Safe havens can help save children’s lives, and that is exactly what we should be considering in the wake of the two recent cases in Victoria and South Australia. If a mother knew that there was a place she could go to safely leave her child and ensure that she would not be prosecuted, I am sure we would not be reading headlines about newborn infants dying through abandonment. Surely, we should be doing all we can to help save these children’s lives.

Baby safe havens or similar frameworks are in operation in Germany, Italy, Pakistan, Hungary and Austria. In South Africa there has been enormous success. The not-for-profit organisation Door of Hope set up a ‘hole in the wall’ in August 2000 at the Mission Church in Johannesburg. By June 2004 about 30 babies had been left there. That is 30 babies who now have a chance in life. In August I wrote to every state Attorney-General and the federal Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert McClelland, regarding baby safe havens. I look forward to their responses.

Why am I calling for the introduction of baby safe havens? Because we need to protect those who cannot look after themselves. We need to consider the best interests of the child as well as looking after the mother, who obviously needs support. It must be a very difficult circumstance in which a mother abandons or gives up her baby. I cannot begin to imagine the pain she would feel or the position she must find herself in if she sees the only option is to abandon or give up her child. Giving up a child that one cannot care for is surely better than abandonment. I believe the federal government has a role in ensuring that this issue is considered and we should be working with the states to bring about uniform legislation based on what I have outlined as a means of protecting those who cannot speak for themselves.

Child abuse and neglect continues to be Australia’s greatest social problem. Approximately 10 babies are abandoned each year in Australia. There is no consistent or reliable method for collecting data across jurisdictions on the number of babies who are abandoned in unsafe places. The best assessment of the problem comes from a search of newspaper articles. They may be significantly underreporting the actual extent of abandonment because they only reflect abandonments that are reported in the media. Some cases may never be publicly reported, whereas others may never be discovered. We need to have public discussion on the issue to ensure that any new laws cover all the questions in response to baby abandonment—questions about who can accept a relinquished baby, what the responsibilities of a safe haven are, whether the safe havens are protected from liability, the rights of the relinquishing parents, the children’s rights and the fathers’ rights.

We need a comprehensive and supportive response that enables parents to address the reasons behind the ‘need’ to abandon. There is evidence to suggest that, once these reasons are addressed, many of these parents will want to retrieve their babies—for example, the young Irish woman I spoke about earlier. She returned to Australia to retrieve her child. Even if the parents decide that they are still unable to care for their child, initial contact with them will help to leave the door open to future contact with the child. This is important, because knowing where we come from and who our biological families are is very important to most people. It is in the interests of both the child and the mother that we seek to understand and support the mother rather than condemn her at a time that is undoubtedly one of great distress for her.

Whilst the predominant response to baby abandonment has been at a state level, I believe we must act at a federal level with a focus on research and funding. We need a comprehensive solution to a complex problem. I see the introduction of safe haven laws as only one component of a much larger reform effort. Safe havens are a short-term solution. Long-term solutions would address the core causes of abandonment. Long-term solutions would promote education, awareness and prevention. However, it is important that we provide the short-term solution of safe havens to prevent harm to children while a deeper understanding is gained and more comprehensive responses are developed. Parents who abandon their babies in unsafe places may have fallen through the cracks in a web of social service systems. Rather than creating another system to try and catch them, it would be useful in the long term to identify those cracks and enhance the ability of current systems to care for these families. Safe haven laws should be used as a stepping stone to long-term solutions. After all, what is a child’s life worth?