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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

First, I would like to acknowledge the work of my former Queensland Nationals colleague and Member for Dawson, George Christensen, for all the work he did on a previous version of this Bill. I undertook to carry on that work because this issue is so important.

To protect its most vulnerable, in 1990, Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

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. In preparing this Bill, George asked the Parliamentary Library to do some research. Despite sketchy data, they 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, and what does it say about our nation?

Let me be clear: I am pro-life.

I think abortion is an evil. It results in the 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, who could say that a child born alive is not a child and thus does not have any rights.

The Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 seeks to place 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.

George commissioned a survey by the recognised polling company YouGov before he initially introduced this Bill to the House. The survey found that support for a Bill such as this one is extremely strong across all sectors of the community. More than three times as many people support care for these babies than oppose care. The majority of people expect any baby should be afforded medical care, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. It is a view shared 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?

Others have claimed that this bill perpetuates a myth that children are born alive a result of abortions. The data available 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 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. Specifically, Article 6 of that convention, which states that "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."

Further, Article 24 of that convention, states that "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 "Australia: … shall pursue full implementation of this right and (specifically) 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 occurs in Australia means that the fundamental rights of a child enshrined in this 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 2022, seeks to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

In closing, I'd like to use this quote most often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi—"the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."

The question of whether or not this Bill is supported will be a test of the true measure of not only this chamber, or this parliament, but of our society.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.