The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise as one of two speakers tonight for the Greens to oppose this bill. It will come as no surprise to members of this council or indeed to Greens voters that the Greens have a policy position of the decriminalisation of abortion. We believe abortion care is health care.

This bill does not see abortion care as health care. It seeks to intervene with the practice of health professionals, and I note the Clinical Guideline for Abortion Care of RANZCOG, which is an evidence-based guideline on abortion care in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, some almost 170 pages or so. It is certainly just one document that would guide the clinical care when it comes to abortion, so this is in no way an area that is not governed by appropriate measures.

It is not appropriate, however, for politicians to decide on behalf of a medical team and a pregnant person each and every circumstance that they face in their lives when it comes to the issue of the termination of pregnancy. Indeed, it has been said of this bill that it addresses some unintended consequences that were not considered in the debate that we had some years ago. I note that of course back in 2019, the South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) was asked by the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Vickie Chapman MP, to:

…inquire into and report in relation to the topic of abortion, with the aim of modernising the law in South Australia and adopting best practice reforms. SALRI was requested to undertake proper investigation and provide recommendations for reform based on best clinical practice in this area and taking guidance from other jurisdictions in considering the most suitable way to achieve proper reform of abortion laws in South Australia.

Of course that review, which included over 3,000 online submissions, had extensive, multidisciplinary research and took on expert and community views, including forums that were with legal, health care, faith groups, disability sectors, NGOs in not only our capital cities, but across regional locations.

It used the facilitation of YourSAy to seek community views, including some 2,885 online responses, took submissions from 340 individuals, agencies or interested parties, made 66 recommendations, the majority of which were accepted, and then saw a bill debated in this parliament with some amendments in 2021, passing with 29 votes to 15 in the other place and of course passing in this council, after which the Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021 was assented to and eventually commenced. That hardly seems like thought was not put into that process.

I think we have a piece of legislation in terms of the act that has undertaken all of the things the Hon. Ben Hood says it had not done, and the use of the number 45 in the debate I find not just problematic but concerning, misleading and certainly not something that has been helpful to appropriate debate of this matter. I draw attention to the number of 45 being used time and again, not just by the Hon. Ben Hood but by a person who has been ABC/RMIT fact-checked and found to be a liar, so I would caution members on transposing the use of the 45 into what this bill does.

Of course in the fine print the Hon. Ben Hood does go on to say that less than five cases are in this particular category. Of those less than five, one woman today has gone public with her particular story. I thank her for her time earlier this week, where I was able to have an in-depth conversation with that person, who has now publicly gone on record as having undertaken the decision that she did in very difficult and complex circumstances—which this bill did not know about, would not address—not only for the sake of her own life but for the wellbeing of her eight-year-old child.

That situation could not be understood or accommodated by any piece of legislation such as this, which comes into the parliament one week and is then taken to a vote the very next sitting week, has had little consultation, has certainly had a lot of media, a lot of hype and a lot of drama associated with it, but this is not nuanced legislation that takes on board medical advice and acknowledges that we have done a lot of work in this state already to come to a position where we have an act, informed by that SALRI report, that is something that I as a member of this council strongly support and do not wish to see rolled back.

I do not for a minute suspect that this will be the last piece of legislation that would seek to roll back our current laws if it were to pass tonight. This would simply be the first of many small, ongoing attempts to move to a position where abortion care was not treated as health care. Abortion care is health care, that is Greens' policy and that will be our position in a vote as a party. I know the Hon. Rob Simms will make a contribution also, but whichever Green you get in parliament, that will be our position. When voters vote for us, they know that is our position.

I also reference the number of not just community but quite esteemed organisations that have written to me, the Hon. Michelle Lensink in particular, with serious concerns about this piece of legislation. The piece of correspondence to which I would like to draw members' attention in the first instance is from midwives in South Australian universities. In particular, it has been authored by Associate Professor Elizabeth Newnham of Flinders University and co-signed by over 10 other university midwives. That correspondence, which is dated 11 October and sent to all Legislative Council members notes that:

We are a group of concerned midwives working in South Australian universities. We are writing to express our opposition to the Private Members Bill proposed by Mr Ben Hood that is currently before the Legislative Council.

This Bill, which advocates for forced birth, fundamentally violates human rights principles and contravenes core biomedical ethical principles. These include, beneficence (to do good), non-maleficence (not to harm), justice, and respect for autonomy. The proposal to introduce premature labour and birth, followed by the significant medical care required for preterm infants, culminating in forced adoption, is ethically indefensible.

Midwifery philosophy of care is grounded in the ethical principles of justice, equity, and respect for human dignity. Reproductive autonomy is essential to gender equity and reproductive justice. In countries where women and gender-diverse people are not able to access safe abortion, maternal mortality rates increase significantly.

The International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) Philosophy of Care statement emphasises the critical role of midwives in promoting and protecting women's human, reproductive and sexual health and rights. The ICM Code of Ethics upholds that no woman or girl should be harmed by conception or childbearing.

Importantly, while midwives may decide not to participate in activities for which they hold deep moral opposition, individual conscience must not prevent women from accessing essential health services. Midwives are also ethically obligated to work towards recognising and eliminating harmful health impacts on the health of women and infants. To that extent, the proposed Bill is unworkable in practice; meeting a request for termination of pregnancy with a requirement for forced live birth would not be possible under the terms of informed consent.

In alignment with our professional philosophy, codes of ethics, and National Standards for Practice, we categorically reject the statements made in support of the proposed Bill. Abortion care is essential health care. As healthcare professionals dedicated to the wellbeing of pregnant and birthing people, we oppose this Bill and urge that it does not pass.

In summary, this Bill undermines fundamental human rights and ethical standards that are central to midwifery care. It poses a direct threat to reproductive autonomy, gender equity, and the health and wellbeing of women and gender-diverse individuals. We call on policymakers to uphold the principles of justice, equity, and respect for autonomy by rejecting this Bill and ensuring access to comprehensive, safe reproductive health services for all.

They offer their willingness to discuss further with any members of this council; I am not sure if members of the council had taken up that offer, but I am sure it applied to all of us. I also note the correspondence from Mark Rankin of Flinders University, who is a legal expert in this area—in this area in particular, I will note, as does his correspondence. You can be a legal expert, but you need to be a legal expert in the area that you are talking about for it to be taken seriously.

I also draw members' attention to the Hon. Michelle Lensink's correspondence that she has received from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. There was correspondence from SHINE SA, of course the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition, and so many more.

I thank those medical professionals who work in this area who have corresponded with me and who, in the past, have had to deal with these situations over many, many years and decades. Indeed, I note one doctor who, during the process previously to this—and more recently we have repeated our conversations—had to see his patients off to interstate or, indeed, the US in these situations because South Australia did not provide the medical care that those people needed, sometimes even assisting them himself to access care, because it was unaffordable for those people to travel interstate or overseas.

I note that the SARC one pager is probably the best run-down of why I believe people should not be supporting this bill tonight and I hope that they do not. It states that the Hood bill is an attack on abortion care and its proposals are cruel and unworkable, it seeks to overturn the intention of the current Termination of Pregnancy Act 2021, later abortions are rare but essential, best practice in abortion care is not possible under this bill, patients would be exposed to the risk of birth trauma, premature delivery is dangerous and care standards require that it be avoided whenever possible, patient consent would be coerced—and that is something I have heard time and time again from medical professionals on this.

I do ask the Hon. Ben Hood in his summing up to address how patient consent is not being coerced in this particular model that he puts forward. It would also see a return to forced adoption. SARC raises their concerns that women with crisis pregnancies could be denied needed obstetric care, that children born after a denied abortion would probably face much more difficult circumstances than otherwise, and so many more reasons.

I am sure this debate tonight will not be the end of this debate in this parliament, but if proponents have ideas such as this in the future I do ask that they allow more than one sitting week to have a proper debate and certainly that they consult more widely. I would draw members' attention that in my consultations on this particular bill I have had so many people contact me from Mount Gambier and raise their concerns about the lack of access to terminations in Mount Gambier currently, not only early medical abortion but also surgical abortion. Certainly, there have been grave concerns raised with me about the operations in the Mount Gambier hospital and elsewhere in the South-East.

I hope in the future to turn my attention to those issues, and that will not be the last that you have heard from me on what is going on in Mount Gambier with access to terminations, which is currently not what it should be under our current laws. It is certainly something of concern to the Greens that we will be seeking to address in the near future. With that, we will oppose the bill.