Bills
Public Health Amendment (Born Equal - Care and Protection) Bill 2025
Introduction and first reading
Bill introduced, on motion by Hon Maryka Groenewald, and read a first time.
Second reading speech
Hon Maryka Groenewald (10:06 am): I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
I rise today to introduce the Public Health Amendment (Born Equal - Care and Protection) Bill 2025. It is the first of its kind in Western Australia. This bill means a lot to me and the people who have followed this issue with heavy hearts for more than a decade. Many in this place from different sides of politics have laid the groundwork for this bill. It seeks to achieve one thing—basic equality. It asks the questions: Do we as a society believe that all human beings possess equal worth? Do all human beings have the same human rights or just some?
I will start by making clear what this legislation will do. First, it will recognise the legal status of any baby born alive as a human person, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. It will give babies who survive termination the basic recognition of human intrinsic value—a value that is intrinsic to us. Second, it will establish that any baby born alive as a result of a failed termination must receive the same level of care as any other baby would if they were in that same position. This bill is not controversial—at least it should not be. A vulnerable life is a vulnerable life. Third—this is critical—it will abolish an ominous clause regarding reporting and investigation. It will require that the death of any baby born alive after a termination must be reported to the coroner and for the coroner to make the call for further investigation. As many members in this chamber are aware, reporting these deaths to the coroner is no longer required in this state, and this bill aims to rectify that wrong.
Let me be clear, because this matters; it would be a far stretch to try to find any justification for opposing the concept of this bill. There are many in this place who spend hours talking about equal rights and protecting the vulnerable and the voiceless, which is a good thing. I simply ask members this: Do they believe that an innocent human being does not deserve medical care simply because of the circumstance of their birth? If babies who survive termination cannot be saved, can we justify not giving them palliative care? If members do not, we need to look at their definition of "equal rights" and "human rights". Members might angrily respond, "This doesn't happen. That is a myth and misinformation." Unfortunately for anyone in this chamber reinforcing that view, we know for a fact that this has happened and continues to happen in WA. Why? It is because the Labor government told us so. In fact, we have known this for over a decade. It was not a Liberal, National or crossbench member who first brought this to light; rather, it was former Labor MLC Hon Ed Dermer who first exposed this issue.
In February 2011, Mr Dermer asked question on notice 3211, forcing the admission that between 1999 and 2010, 14 babies had been born alive after an abortion procedure. He followed this up in May 2011, asking whether any of these children received medical treatment. The answer was a stark no. Hon Nick Goiran followed that up, revealing through further questioning in 2012 and 2015 that that number had in fact risen to 20. Again, we were told that not one baby had received medical intervention. When we talk about this issue, let us remember it was a Labor member who first blew the whistle on this issue and the fact that Western Australian babies were born alive and left to die without clear care protocols.
Sadly, we know this is not a thing of the past. The government's answers to questions on notice to the Minister for Health have confirmed this time and again. That is why this bill is so important. In response to my question on notice 193, I also learned that 39 cases of terminations resulting in a live birth have been reported to the WA Government. That is 39 babies surviving an attempted abortion and receiving no medical care—39 lives, every single one as important as you and me. We saw this horror before in the Northern Territory in the case of baby Jane—a pseudonym—an Aboriginal baby girl born after an abortion attempt. The coroner found that despite showing clear signs of life, she was left in an empty room for 80 minutes until she passed away, receiving no medical care. His finding was damning. She was born in a fully living state and had an independent existence that demanded a duty of care that we failed to provide.
I was sitting in this gallery during the 2023 debate when the bill was scrutinised and debated. I found a lot of things in that debate deeply troubling. I want to particularly thank the Australian Christian Lobby for its work on this. I saw a video published on its social media that uncovered what I and many others knew to be true. In the video, Hon Sue Ellery was responding to questions during Committee of the Whole House on 19 September 2023. In the clip, the minister is being asked about babies who show signs of life following a termination. The minister was asked a question by former Labor member Hon Martin Pritchard about the cause of death of these babies. The minister provides an answer, begins to sit down and, as she does, the microphone picks up on something that an adviser whispered to the minister, seemingly as an addition. The Australian Christian Lobby caught that exchange when turning up the volume. It appears that the adviser whispered that the baby can survive for up to seven hours. Apparently, babies born alive can survive for up to seven hours before passing away. I want members to look at their watches and phones. If a baby survived a termination now, they could be left without care until question time. I do not want to be grim; that is not my intention. I want to impress upon members the reality and seriousness of our inaction on this issue. If a baby passes away, why not entrust the coroner to decide whether to investigate the circumstances of their short life? It is unacceptable that we are allowing this to happen in our state. I am not the only one who thinks so.
During the most recent state election campaign, another candidate picked up on the issue. When asked whether WA's abortion law should be changed, he said that babies born alive after an abortion should not be left to die. It is a simple statement. I cannot imagine anybody taking issue with that. However, WA's former Minister for Health Amber-Jade Sanderson responded by calling the statement complete misinformation and dangerous. She claimed that such cases are exceptionally rare and occur only when parents make the difficult decision to have their unviable baby born alive to say goodbye. We are clearly not referring to that in this instance. It should trouble every member of this house that the minister was defying the government's own information that she gave to Parliament. I bring members' attention to question on notice 491 asked of the then newly minted Minister for Health Amber-Jade Sanderson on 24 March 2022. I will not read the entire thing, just the relevant parts.
I refer to the cases of babies who show signs of life after an abortion procedure, and I ask:
(a) what is the total number of these cases between 20 May 1998 and 31 December 2021;
The answer was 31. Granted, I am new to this place, so perhaps members can help me out. Did the question ask how many unviable babies were born naturally or did it specifically ask about babies showing signs of life after an abortion? I want to acknowledge that, of course, in some cases, parents choose to say goodbye when the baby is in a condition incompatible with life. I grieve with them. We know how difficult that is, but we cannot conflate these two issues.
Respectfully, this bill is not addressing the cases of babies who will not survive long after birth and whose parents choose to hold them. Frankly, it is unacceptable to use those tragic situations to detract from the core issue that viable babies survive termination attempts in our state. Again, I point to the Committee of the Whole House on 19 September 2023, when it was pointed out that we know of at least three babies who showed signs of life despite not having a condition incompatible with life. In 2012, there was a trisomy 21 case at 21 weeks and in 2002 a case at 34 weeks. In 2010, there was a case of fetal alcohol syndrome at 27 weeks. These were all examples of babies born alive and left to die. It seems the former Minister for Health, with full knowledge of the information she presented to Parliament, called her own data misinformation. She called factual information presented by a member dangerous misinformation. It is politics at its worst and blatant gaslighting calling someone a spreader of misinformation when citing statistics given by the minister. We know the government is aware of this issue. What did it do when confronted with the knowledge that babies find themselves in these situations without medical intervention? Did it pass legislation to address this issue? It absolutely did. It was not to save babies or at least put some clear protocols in place but to hide the fact that it happens—out of sight, out of mind. The government cannot answer or face questions when it is not keeping records.
As of 2024, if a baby survives an abortion, it is left to die and reporting that death to the coroner for investigation is actually no longer required. When a law simultaneously acknowledges an ethically sensitive issue that affects the most vulnerable and removes the reporting mechanism that adds transparency and eliminates independent review, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the reform does more harm than good. Let me be clear that this is not about a lack of reporting; it is about a complete vacuum of clarity in our obligations. I reviewed Western Australia's legal and clinical framework. Firstly, there is not an explicit statutory duty of care in these specific circumstances. Secondly, no clinical guidelines deal with these specific scenarios. Thirdly, the government has admitted as such during estimates. The Minister for Health confirmed that there were no specific protocols—clinicians follow general and neonatal guidelines and exercise clinical judgement. We have removed the coroner's oversight and we have no explicit clinical guidelines and, as of 2024, no statutory reporting requirements. We have created a legal and medical black hole whereby these babies and the data simply disappear.
What does this mean for us in this Parliament? Do we just ignore it? Clearly, other jurisdictions do not. In fact, they have responded very differently to these survival cases. In Canada, federal reports have repeatedly documented babies born alive after procedures, prompting calls for clearer reporting and investigation. In the United Kingdom, its Care Quality Commission requires strict documentation and oversight for any of these babies showing signs of life. In the United States, several states have enacted explicit protections and reporting requirements for infants who survive abortions. WA is seemingly the only jurisdiction to respond by removing reporting. This is absolutely a departure from international norms of transparency and accountability.
All I can do is appeal to members' humanity. We in this place have different views on abortions; that is clear. I am not talking about abortion in relation to this bill at all. Once a baby is outside the womb, the issue is no longer about termination; it moves beyond the realm of choice. Once a baby is born alive, the pregnancy is over, and we must step in with compassion. We are now discussing the rights of a living person. The justification for this bill is simple and based on four principles, which I will conclude with. The first is equality before the law. We may not agree when life begins, but surely we should all agree that by the time someone has been born, they are a living human being and, as such, deserve basic protections. The second is equality when it comes to transparency. Western Australia seems to lag behind the rest of the world and has chosen minimal oversight and reporting, including not giving the coroner the power to investigate. The third is equality when it comes to accountability. Without external reporting to the coroner, there is no independent body to review the cause of death. However, when it comes to this state, it is not just that it is not a requirement to report the issue. When section 3B of the Coroners Act was introduced, it stopped this mechanism altogether.
The fourth is being born equal like any other West Aussie; every newborn in the state is entitled to medical care regardless of the circumstances of their birth. Once born, they legally have personhood. If they cannot be saved, they are entitled to palliative care. If their death is unexpected, they are entitled to coronial oversight. Babies surviving terminations should not be treated differently, yet, sadly, they are.
When this bill is debated, President, members will have the opportunity to choose yes or no. Is every human being created with basic human rights—yes or no? Should every baby born alive be entitled to palliative care—yes or no? Should cases of babies born alive after a termination be reported to the coroner, allowing them the power to investigate?
This bill is about recognising that every human being is born with rights and deserves protection. It is about basic humanity and how we treat our most vulnerable. The fact is that WA lacks explicit neonatal obligations for these babies. I simply ask for this to be addressed and rectified. Every human being, regardless of how long they survive, is worthy of our care, and embedding that level of care in our law is the right thing to do.
I commend this bill to the house.
The President: Honourable member, is there a part on your contribution that starts with "pursuant to standing order"?
Hon Maryka Groenewald: There is; thank you, President.
Pursuant to standing order 126, I advise that the bill is not a uniform legislation bill, as it does not ratify or give effect to any bilateral or multilateral intergovernmental agreements to which the government is a party; nor does it ,by any reason of a subject matter, introduce a uniform scheme or uniform law throughout the Commonwealth.
I table the explanatory memorandum.
(See paper 907.)
Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.
