Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 20 August, from Senator Babet:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to recognise that at least one baby is born alive every 7 days following a failed abortion and left to die, and that Australia's health care system is enabling these inhumane deaths; and for the Senate to condemn this practice, noting that babies born alive as a result of a failed abortion deserve care."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips.

Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to recognise that at least one baby is born alive every 7 days following a failed abortion and left to die, and that Australia's health care system is enabling these inhumane deaths; and for the Senate to condemn this practice, noting that babies born alive as a result of a failed abortion deserve care.

In this country, every single week, at least one baby is born alive after a failed abortion. In some states and territories, there is no legal requirement for that living human being to receive any medical care. The baby is often placed in a metal tray and left to die slowly. I cannot for the life of me understand how we can bang on every single day in this place about the importance of human rights while allowing the most vulnerable human beings to be treated like garbage. Whatever one's view is on the merits or otherwise of abortion, once there has been a birth, medical practitioners are dealing with a living human being, a person, an Australian, who should have the same rights under law as you or me. Senator Antic and Senator Canavan and I have a bill in front of the Senate right now called the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 that, if passed, would ensure care is provided to every child born alive after a failed abortion. This bill is also supported by Senator Roberts.

This should not be a contentious or controversial concept. It is the very minimum of decency, the very least that we should do as people who like to think of ourselves as civilised. Imagine for a moment if the Senate rejected such a proposal. What would it say if you shrugged your shoulders and turned your back on a newborn baby, unmoved by his or her cry and unconvinced by his or her humanity? A society is ultimately judged not by its GDP but by the way it cares for its most vulnerable, and there is none more vulnerable than a newborn baby. A society that refuses to care about the suffering and death of babies is one which is destined to fall. To be unmoved by the plight of a helpless child, especially when it is within your power to render aid and assistance, is to lose your own humanity. It is evidence of a sickness at the very core of one's own being. What kind of darkness has overtaken the heart of people when they can march through city streets chanting for the right to kill a baby in the womb while remaining silent on the rights of babies born alive and left to die? I think abortion should be unthinkable. I want more than a change to the laws in this land; I want a change in the hearts of Australian people, where abortion disappears not because politicians made it illegal but because our consciences were reawakened and we agreed that it was abominable.

Queensland midwife Louise Adsett gave evidence at a parliamentary inquiry in Queensland yesterday where she gave a distressing example of a mother who decided to abort her baby at more than 21 weeks. She said:

The process took all day and the baby was only delivered during the early hours of the night shift … This baby moved vigorously, gasped for breath and had a palpable heart rate. To make it clear, this baby was alive … This baby boy fought for his life for five hours before taking his final breath. This is not an uncommon occurrence.

Fighting back her tears, she added, 'These babies deserve better. They deserve to have the same rights that all of us human beings have'—unwanted, unacknowledged, unloved. To her credit, Louise is one of the few nurses who does whatever she can to provide some kind of dignity and comfort to these vulnerable babies.

It should not be controversial to invite my fellow senators to join with me in affirming that a baby born alive after a failed abortion is at the very minimum given care and comfort. To do anything but less than this is to forsake our own humanity, even as we deny them theirs. I was going to conclude by saying God forgive us if we fail to do this, but I must say this: as much as I believe in God's mercy, I don't think that God himself could forgive us for getting this one wrong. I hope my fellow senators in this place stand with me to decry the practice of abortion, especially late-term abortion, where a baby could survive out of the womb if born. This is a tragic thing. This is a horrible thing. This is an evil thing. This is a disgusting thing, and it is something that I will never be okay with.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the matter of urgency before this chamber. In doing so I'll look at both the issue of urgency and the issue itself, noting that it is my view that this particular urgency motion should not have been put forward in the manner that it has been.

Standing order 75 provides for urgency motions to be put before the Senate as a question about whether a particular matter is urgent, not whether the Senate agrees with a particular position on a matter beyond its urgency. This motion attempts to do both, and, in my view, it can't. The issue with this motion in particular is that, if the premise of the motion is to be accepted, the Senate is also then accepting its urgency. The problem then turns to the acceptance of the premise. As I will go into further, the premise of the urgency motion cannot be taken at face value.

We will now be asked to vote on this matter, which is really a position of the Senate on the substantive point, not the element of urgency. With only a few hours' notice—as opposed to if this were a debate, where it should be an item of general business—it is not right or reasonable to expect senators in this place to do so in a limited debate capped at 30 minutes without the opportunity for context, without the opportunity to question, without the opportunity to scrutinise the information before us.

This matter has been subject to some examination in the Senate and its committees. In particular it was subject to an inquiry by the Community Affairs References Committee, which reported about a year ago. That was in relation to the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill.

What is critically important in relation to this issue—and any other issues, for that matter, that this chamber addresses—is that we keep in mind the language that we use, the accuracy of the information that we share and the transparency for the reasons that we share them. This is not our playground. The things that we do here matter. There are also questions as to the accuracy of the information contained in this motion. This is a matter of great sensitivity. There is no question about that. The motion, as set out, is very black and white. The matters which it deals with are not. And also let me be clear that the Senate is not a forum for a pseudo-debate on the matter of abortion. That doesn't belong in here. In addition to this, our Constitution is very clear—this is not a matter for the Commonwealth; this is a matter for the states. Both my state of New South Wales and the state of South Australia have already dealt with it.

More broadly, the complex issues that arise from the contents of this motion are challenging for most people but particularly for women, and they are deeply personal. They are not decisions that are made either lightly or flippantly and should not be open to judgement by others. In many cases these decisions are informed on the basis of medical necessity, and we should think very, very carefully as to the appropriateness of elected representatives making healthcare decisions for Australian women. That is not why any of us have been elected to serve here.

The underlying nuance of this motion is a matter of conscience. I'm proud to belong to a party that not only recognises the rights of the individual but empowers those rights, not just in everyday life but also in our roles in the chambers of this place and of the other place.

I would like to address the premise and go through some of the evidence that was tendered through the committee process on the corresponding bill to assist the Senate in forming a view on this matter of urgency. In one of the submissions received, evidence was provided that the premise of the corresponding bill relied on an inaccurate and misinformed understanding of the complexities of foetal gestation, survival, healthcare providers, professional roles and women's vulnerabilities.

It is critical that, in discharging our duties, particularly in the Senate, we reflect on our obligations to appropriately scrutinise the matters that come before us, particularly complex matters, which this one is. We have to consider all information, whether we agree with it or not. We should be deeply concerned, when considering such matters, that we are allowing what are personal decisions on issues between an individual and their healthcare practitioners to become politicised and serve agendas that have very little to do with medical care.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I come to you, Senator Waters, I do remind senators that, when there are not many senators in the chamber, in conversations had in this place, unless they're done quietly, certain words are audible.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am appalled that, once again, we're here debating women's choices over their own bodies—choices that are no-one else's to weigh in on. Senator Babet's claims are incorrect. Late-term abortions resulting in a live foetus are extremely rare, and they only occur in situations of lethal foetal abnormalities or where there are serious risks to the pregnant person. Medical practitioners are already subject to ethical responsibilities that manage those complex situations, and, moreover, the vast majority of terminations in Australia occur prior to 16 weeks, at which time a foetus would not survive outside the womb. If you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies, then support the calls by the Greens to make contraception free. But you just want to control women's bodies. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one, but you don't get to tell other women what choices they should have.

With this motion, Senator Babet is, once again, seeking to undermine women's rights and access to reproductive health care—rights that have been hard-won over decades. We know that abortion is finally legal across the country but is still not affordable or accessible to everyone who wants one.

I started a Senate inquiry in 2022 into universal access to reproductive health care, which heard that it's a postcode lottery as to whether you have access to a safe abortion. Many women, particularly in regional Australia, are travelling hundreds of kilometres and paying hundreds of dollars to get a termination, and many can't afford that. We heard about the shortage of surgeons trained to provide abortion services and restrictions preventing GPs from prescribing medical abortion drugs. We heard that regional areas are often served by fly-in doctors rather than locals, meaning they might not be available when they're needed for this time-critical procedure. It should not be this difficult to access basic health care in a nation like ours.

Allowing more medical practitioners and pharmacists to supply the abortion pill MS-2 Step was a welcome step forward following the inquiry recommending this. This decision was particularly important for improving access for women and pregnant people in regional and remote parts of the country, but financial barriers remain, and the Greens believe that abortion is basic health care that should be free and available through the public health system. This used to be Labor's policy too, back in 2019: hospitals receiving federal funding had to provide the full suite of reproductive health care. Unfortunately, that's not their policy anymore. The most I could get the Senate inquiry recommendations to say was that either public hospitals must provide terminations or they must provide a timely and affordable local pathway to an alternative provider, but those pathways have to be fully funded or access is not real.

The Australian community is strongly pro choice and has been for decades. Thanks to the tireless efforts of so many advocates, lots of progress has been made. There's lots more to be done. Abortion is health care. It should be accessible, affordable, safe, legal, compassionate and free. (Time expired)

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I strongly support this motion from Senator Babet in favour of saving the lives of babies born alive. For six years, I've spoken in the Senate while wearing a lapel pin which depicts an infant's feet at 10 weeks of age, just 70 days old. My opposition to abortion comes from my humanity and my role as a father and grandfather.

Sadly, Queensland's Termination of Pregnancy Act 2018 allows for unrestricted access to abortion up to 22 weeks. After that point, two doctors must be convinced the abortion is in the mother's best interest—doctors who make their living signing off on abortions. As Rhodes Scholar and leading researcher Professor Joanna Howe has found, between 2010 and 2020, 4,929 babies were killed between 20 weeks and birth. In Queensland, of these babies, 329 were born alive and left to die. This is an urgent matter.

Last week, I was pleased to attend a protest on the federation lawn out the front of Parliament House that was a memorial to the 5,000 babies born alive when aborted around Australia. The memorial comprised 5,000 pairs of babies' booties in the shape of a cross—babies who were thrown aside and left on a cold stainless steel slab to die alone. Nearly 50 per cent of these babies were perfectly healthy with nothing wrong with them. Why were they induced and delivered stillborn instead of alive and then placed for adoption?

Under the Queensland Criminal Code, the current law is clear: this is a crime. Section 292 provides that a child becomes a human being after being born and proceeds in a living state from the body of its mother, whether or not it has breathed and whether or not it has had independent circulation. Section 302 defines murder as done by someone who intends to cause death—which is the case with these 328 babies—or causes death by an act or omission made with reckless indifference to human life. Currently the penalty for murder in Queensland is life—how ironic! There are protections for medical practitioners who induce the stillbirth of a child. That protection stops when the child is born alive.

Queensland MP Robbie Katter has introduced a bill to ensure the rights of babies born alive. Under the bill, the duty of a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of a termination would be no different from their duty to anybody else. This means babies would be given care, allowing them to survive where possible, while babies unable to survive would instead be given palliative care. In yesterday's hearing into this bill, courageous maternity nurse Louise Adsett described in heartbreaking detail the fate that has awaited so many beautiful young Australians in Queensland maternity wards: babies left to cry themselves to death, alone. Louise described nurses holding babies that have been marked for death until they drew their last breath—a breath surrounded with love, not cold, hard, stainless steel. There's no legal grey area here. Allowing a child born alive to die in Queensland is a crime, and that crime is murder. To the Queensland police I have this simple message: do your bloody job! Failure to prosecute the first murder has led to 327 more human beings losing their lives, and that's on you.

The preamble to the international Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 explicitly recognises the unborn's right to life. This is a matter that can be legislated federally, and, if the states will not police their own laws, then the federal government must intervene. I have yet to hear an abortionist successfully explain at what time in the development of a child it ceases to be a collection of cells and becomes a baby. Until you can show a physiological point before which the child is just a bunch of cells and after which a child is a living human being, I will continue to defend every life and oppose abortion, except abortion when the mother's life is in danger.

If these practitioners were proud of their actions, they would not be changing the name of their trade from 'abortion' to 'reproductive care'. There's no reproduction, and there's no care for the child. At least be honest with yourselves. This is not care. This is designed to dehumanise mothers and fathers, dehumanise society and harden the hearts of our community. Neither can this be described as women's health. The health of the mother is the same, no matter if the baby is put up for adoption or murdered. Women's health does not, apparently, include the health of the one half of these aborted babies who themselves would grow into women.

My office has received over 1,000 emails and calls today from Queenslanders who are horrified at this practice—so much so I feel the need to remind everyone that, while God loves everyone, God punishes those who kill. These human babies deserve better. Babies deserve to have the same rights as have all human beings, and foremost among these is the right to life. (Time expired)

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank Senator Ralph Babet for bringing this important issue to the chamber. It is something that is confronting to tackle and handle, but we should not shy from doing that, because it is by tackling confronting issues that we can improve the livelihoods and experiences of as many Australians as possible. As Senator Babet's motion says, at least one child every week is born alive following a termination procedure. That's based on state government health evidence from Queensland and Victoria. We don't really have evidence from other states. It's at least one a week. It obviously would likely to be more than that if we were to include other states and jurisdictions.

In the opposition to any recognition of the debate, I often hear, 'This doesn't happen.' The data says otherwise. Even more so, the guidelines that do exist in this area say a completely different story. The Queensland government, for example, have guidelines associated with the termination of pregnancies, and they have an entire section of those guidelines devoted to what occurs if a live birth occurs during the process. The question to those saying this doesn't happen has to be: if it doesn't happen, why does the Queensland Department of Health have a whole section of its guidelines devoted to a circumstance where a live birth occurs? If a live birth does occur, that has to be a human being. There's a breathing person that has been born, a very vulnerable person, often in a situation where their life will not be long. All of us will eventually die, and I think all of us would expect to be provided a level of care whenever that event of death comes near. I and others in this chamber have tried to lead a process where we say very clearly that all Australian human beings deserve to have that standard of care, whatever their age and whatever the circumstances that led them to come into this world. It's a very, very simple proposition.

I moved this bill with others, like Senator Babet and Senator Antic. Senator Roberts was involved, as well as lots of others. Senator Fawcett has provided support. In the bill we put forward, we recognise that in these circumstances, tragically, most babies will not be able to survive. They will have experienced shocking injuries that will not make them viable in the sense of a long-term life. What we just want—what we are asking for—is that, surely, in those circumstances, at the very least, palliative care should be provided. That means some level of pain relief, some level of basic humanity to a human being in that circumstance—just as we would with anybody towards the end of their life. Why isn't that provided?

I thank the senators that have worked on this for some time. As I said, it is a confronting issue, but putting a spotlight on it has led to change. We have seen in New South Wales and South Australia protections for babies born alive. We've seen in Queensland that those guidelines I mentioned have been changed since our Senate inquiry. Previously, those guidelines, quite shockingly, told health officials in Queensland to explicitly not provide life-sustaining treatment to a baby born alive. That has been deleted now since our Senate inquiry exposed these issues, and, instead, the guidelines say that care appropriate to the individual clinical circumstances and in accordance with birth practice guidelines should be provided. So that is at least a positive step forward and gives at least the scope and right for health practitioners in Queensland to potentially provide a level of care to babies born alive. Even if they're not directed to do so, at the very least they have the flexibility to do so. As we just saw, and as others have mentioned, in Queensland it's the midwives themselves that are at the front line on this issue. They have to handle—we heard testimony in our inquiry—the heart-wrenching cries of babies at the end of their lives. While they were under these restrictive guidelines previously, they could do nothing in response. That is completely unfair on them and completely anathema to the profession they have chosen, to help human beings in distress—an admirable profession they are in.

I think there is more work to be done here. I'm glad to see Mr Robbie Katter taking it forward in Queensland, doing that. The more we can put the spotlight on this the more we're going to get sensible change in this area. (Time expired)

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this very important matter, and I commend Senator Ralph Babet for bringing this before the Senate today. This ought to be a straightforward matter. It's not intended to create a barrier to abortion; rather it's focusing on the medical care that should be provided to a baby who is born alive. Though rare, it's not impossible for a child to survive an abortion. The numbers may seem small, but each case represents a vulnerable human life that deserves our compassion and care.

Unfortunately, not even in my home state of Western Australia are we immune to this situation. It was reported that between 1999 and 2016 there were at least 27 infants born alive in Western Australia after failed abortion procedures. Some of these babies were surviving anywhere from nine minutes to over two hours according to the Western Australian health minister. Twenty-seven children—that's equivalent to a full classroom of students. Fifteen of these births were at the gestational age between 20 and 25 weeks, six were at 26 weeks or later and one was at 34 weeks. Due to the incredible advancement in medical technology, it's entirely possible for a premature baby, at 21 weeks, to survive and go on to live a viable and healthy life. By that measure, at least 22 of the 27 babies born alive in WA could have been supported by healthcare professionals.

Last year, the Abortion Legislation Reform Bill 2023 was passed in Western Australia. My WA colleague the Hon. Nick Goiran MLC moved an amendment to make clear that babies born alive after an abortion should be entitled to the same standard of care as any other Western Australian baby. Now even if it was possible for a baby to survive, we should provide them with comfort and care to pass away with dignity, instead of leaving them to slowly die on a cold metal kidney dish. In the same way that we care for the terminally ill and the bedridden, we have an obligation to care for the child who has survived an abortion regardless of our views on their chances of survival.

Unfortunately, many in this place will turn a blind eye to this situation. It's not our job in this place to create laws for only some Australians. We have to ensure that our most vulnerable are protected. This week we've heard from senators on both sides of the aisle advocating for the protection of every Australian, including funding certain industries and services like child care, aged care and, indeed, the NDIS. One senator yesterday stated that we should understand the value of life at every stage. Well, I could not agree more. If life at every stage matters then this should be a no-brainer. If a child survives an attempted abortion and is born alive then, like every Australian, that child deserves the medical treatment that is afforded to everybody else. We cannot pick and choose when this applies and who it applies to, because every life is worth protecting.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this matter of urgency because it is a fact that transparency and the awareness of issues drives change. We've heard from a previous speaker, Senator Canavan, how an earlier inquiry here highlighting some of these issues has driven change in Queensland, and we have seen change in other states on this matter.

Some other speakers are correct that the topic of abortion is not a topic for this Senate for the simple reason that constitutionally it is something that falls within the powers of our state and territory governments, and we see them making laws as they see fit as they have been elected by people in that state. But the bill that Senator Canavan referred to before, which has been subject to an inquiry through the Senate, sought to use the external affairs power under the Constitution to hold state governments and the actions of medical practitioners to account because of the international treaties that Australia has signed up to recognising the right to life for people and the rights of the child.

So while I'm aware there are many people, many of whom who have emailed my office today, who are hopeful that a successful vote here today will immediately bring about change, that is not the case. That is not the wording of this motion. This motion just draws attention to a practice, as we saw from the inquiry in Queensland yesterday, in evidence which has been reported both in print media and on the radio, and highlights that despite the assurances of many—'This is very rare' and 'It doesn't happen in certain hospitals'—practitioners on the ground have said it does happen. And as Senator Canavan outlined, the consequence for the children, and I will call them that, the babies that are born is that they deserve care.

I will just highlight that the change being sought is not something that is out of the ordinary. My home state of South Australia has the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021. I personally have problems with this act and spoke to the then premier to express my concerns about it. But what they have included in that act is that in part 2, division 1, section 7 it specifically talks about the care of a person born after termination. It says that nothing in the act prevents a medical practitioner to actually provide care to that person. It says:

To avoid doubt, the duty owed by a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of a termination is no different than the duty owed to provide medical care and treatment to a person born other than as a result of a termination.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Babet be agreed to.