Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]
| At the outset, I wish to acknowledge, firstly, Fiona and Craig, who sit in the gallery on this occasion, this very important occasion for them. I also acknowledge that, as a result of their courage, that there are many across our country who have taken heart in the way that Fiona and Craig have responded to a personal tragedy. This is, until someone steps forward, something that is only whispered about in families. It has been illuminating for me to encounter such courage, but more so to now be a part of conversations, whether I visit family in Western Australia or they come and visit me, or at the markets, or talking to older members of my family - out come stories of loss that have not been able to be resolved adequately. What is particularly surprising is those who are very old who still carry the unresolved issue of a child born prematurely. It is not until we encounter it that we are forced to wonder how we respond to this matter. It has caused me to think, as others too who have had this experience of encountering it, that the legal system becomes an immense and distressing challenge and quite incapable, in many times, to address matters of this nature. Therefore, as someone who had been presented with the challenge, it was my resolve to endeavour to find a legislative solution. At the outset, I have to say that our confidence as a community is largely misplaced when we place it in the legal system as the means of resolving our own personal challenges; that the capacity to resolve difficult issues always remains with the individual concerned, the family that support them and those who think about the matter. Once it falls into the hands of those who look at the rules that have been arrived at to govern our society, it becomes difficult. It is no wonder that it has been described from times past - many, in fact, 1000 years ago - to say that the letter does not produce life; that is, the letter of the law. There is life in it, and we need to find the life in the law, to find the way through it so that we can bring resolution, restoration, and healing. We do not find that easily in the law. The law can easily be used to obstruct, to block and to provide the reasons why we cannot move forward, and then we stand behind it. What I am proposing is by way of an amendment to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 2007, entitled – I called it the Amendment Bill 2007 or the Kaden bill. I deliberately put the name Kaden in there so that a lost life is given reference and recognition, because the memory does not pass away, but the capacity to have it properly resolved is not easily found, not within Australia. In a moment, I will go through the mechanics of the bill. I am sure there are going to be responses in time when government comes to attend to this second reading speech. They will surely find technical and legal difficulties - whilst understanding the heart of it, will find the reasons why we cannot perhaps go down this path. Somewhere there will be this argument that no other jurisdiction - which almost poses the suggestion that it is, therefore, impossible. Nothing is impossible, because other jurisdictions in other countries have found solutions to this. If there is a will there is a way. What is required is a level of leadership, risk taking, challenge, cutting a new path. Why? Because we only have to ask in our own family circles, there are issues like this that have been unresolved. All the care can be provided within a family and all the support can be offered through the hospital system, and I will talk about that in a moment, still there is the unresolved issue. The core of that is that if the legal system that we have determines that at 20 weeks-plus born prematurely from that point on legally and formally recognises a human being; 19 weeks and six days the opposite. Not a human being and therefore described as hospital waste. That is the harsh reality of this measure. Before proceeding along that line, because that is the challenge, how do we resolve that? This is the nature of the legal construct that we have. There are arguments and reasons for that there has to be a cut off time it will be argued, but there could well be a way through this, a way around to create a solution as other jurisdictions, not in this country have found. Before proceeding, when Fiona and Craig came to see me only a short time after the loss of Kaden, the first thing that they needed was someone to hear them. It was unfortunate that that had to be found in my office in one sense. I was privileged to be cast in that role at that time and I continue to honour that, but as we all know some great sadness because of the legislative construction, because of the arbitrary determination of when a life is a life and when it is not, the system, the hospital system, in all its grinding busy-ness and heavy work load made a decision, actions were influenced by that arbitrary cut off point, and so they responded in that manner. The result was, legally and technically you can explain it, but not in matters like this, not the impact that it has on the mother, whom I still believe, as anyone really would, had given birth and has been told by the system: ‘No you have not’. As a result there was no adequate support offered to the mother at that time. It was the most extraordinary case. I thought at that time: ‘Well, I have been a local member for eight years, I have not heard of this before. Perhaps it is a one-off’. What rocked me was that when this was made public, stories came in from around the country, of the same thing, of mothers who had had to endure the indignity of a system that has made an arbitrary judgment as to whether a child is a child or not. The first objective that was set, and I am happy to report has largely been achieved thanks to the tenacity of Fiona and Craig, the first one that we felt was the most achievable objective, was to ensure that no other mother going into our hospital system has the same experience as Fiona and Craig. That led to an approach to the hospital board to register the issue, to register the complaint, explain the story, and to seek for improvements in the policy of the hospital. It was not an easy matter to do so. Organisational change is not an easy thing to achieve, but it has been achieved. I understand that a policy and it was at the concession made by the government under the Minister for Health that there would be this opportunity. I acknowledge the Minister for Health’s assistance in allowing for this discussion to occur. This discussion took some time and I understand that there were nine drafts before there was a satisfactory resolution as to the shape of the policy. I have a letter that comes from the Royal Darwin Hospital Management Board signed by Colin Macdonald, the Chairman. It comes some time after the initial complaint was registered with that board, and it says that after some time that a recommendation will be made to the minister and the Manager of Royal Darwin Hospital under section 23 of the Hospitals Management Act. The board has recommended they note the enclosed draft policy and, if they respectively consider it appropriate, to take such steps to see that the draft policy is implemented. That is an important step, and it was not an easy one to achieve. I acknowledge that important step. It has to be mentioned, though, that it was not really until another mother had a similar experience that was reported before there was final closure on this aspect of our challenge. We only hope that the courage shown by Fiona and Craig and the account of another mother, and others who have spoken, have brought about organisational change. I acknowledge it is very difficult for those who were working in the hospital system, but being difficult is no excuse for this level of hurt being incurred by a mother. I only trust that this step has now advanced to the stage where there will be better systems, there will be appropriate resourcing. I only had to look around at other hospitals to find that there was the capacity of other places to respond in a caring way. So I say good on Fiona and Craig for persevering with this, and I thank the minister and those under the minister for their efforts in bringing this part of this challenge to a close. Of course, we will continue to watch. Now we go to the next challenge, and this one is seriously a challenge. If it was difficult to bring about organisational change within a hospital system and it is indicated in a letter from the chairman of the management board that these policies should be reflected through right across the Northern Territory, and so it should be. If it is difficult to achieve this level of change within an organisation such as a health system, how much more difficult is it to change the way we respond legislatively to these matters? Sitting underneath are a number of moral and ethical issues, and I would ask members to weigh these carefully and calmly in the presence of the issue itself. In the knowledge of human life as it is measured in the current system. The grief that is incurred by a mother who finds that our system says no there is an arbitrary determination. The bottom of this is formal recognition, the closure, the sense that a birth did occur is legislatively backed and in substance and that has many flow on consequences. That is the issue. How can this be provided though. There has to be a cut off period. I know it will be argued and, in many senses, there needs to be. However, can a means be found whereby someone who chooses to have the premature birth properly recognised if they see that it is important to them? That issue of choice - can they do that if they want that, if they have seen the foetus that is fully formed, can they ask for that to be properly recognised as a birth and a death? My family is just going through, as they always seem to be going through, the family tree, it is growing ever larger, branches here and branches there. However, if there has been no birth, there has been no death formally, legally recognised. This family tree and any, any of the countless people across the country who have given birth prematurely will never have any of these children in their family tree legally and formally recognised. Is there a way that that can occur? Well, I propose a solution. I am pleased to report that there are other jurisdictions, other members in other parliaments have heard what has happened in the Territory, have taken courage from Fiona and Craig, have heard the attempt at describing a way forward, and other members in other parliaments are also considering this. I would suggest, to be quite pragmatic, that it is going to be an extended discussion that we need to have within our community and across the country. It rests on the issue of choice. Choice – can we provide that mother, who has given birth prematurely to a child before 20 weeks, can we provide them with the choice? Can we give the Attorney-General the authority to issue a birth certificate and a death certificate? Can we? Can we do that? (inaudible) we are in a Legislative Assembly - we can legislate. If there are problems with this, which, of course, there are challenges that will be posed as there always are, there is nothing cut and dried about a legal argument, then perhaps still we could find a way through it, but if there is a will, a way can be found. No will, you will find a multitude of reasons why it cannot be achieved. I know that is a fact, if you have the will you can find the solution, and here it is. Here is what I propose to be a solution. I am fully mindful of what I have just said, and I am prepared for it, but I will not be leaving this area. I trust, as I offer myself to my community at the next Territory election, I will continue to serve if that community chooses to have me stay in this Chamber. This issue will not go away if it is not responded to in a way that gives some constructive response, opportunities for progress to be made. I will continue with it, among other things. At the moment, there is no ability to make a registration, no ability whatsoever. I will say though, that what has been offered, the second offer that was made, and I will have to acknowledge that it is a response that has some merit, and that being, there was the change, or the process that led to the changes in the policy ought to have been fully implemented and properly resourced. The other one was the offer of a commemorative certificate. I acknowledge the gesture and think that that is fine. However, there still remains the unresolved grief resulting from the non-recognition. A commemorative certificate still does not capture the essence of saying ‘this is a human being that was born just like everyone of us’. One also died, so there is no legal birth certificate or death certificate. I do acknowledge the commemorative certificate, but it does not address the core issue here, that rests on the dignity of human life and the recognition of life. Anyone who has seen the letter that Fiona has sent will find it very difficult to say that that is not a human being. However, our legislation says that. The events with the birth and the death of Kaden have shown how such a line in the sand – 20 weeks being set in concrete – can be inappropriate and quite hurtful to the family involved. This bill provides the opportunity, following the completion of certain paperwork by medical professionals and upon application within 60 days to the minister, for the birth and the death of a sub-20-week foetus to be formally recognised. We need to acknowledge now, honourable members, that I made an attempt to bring this bill forward on urgency some time ago. The reason for that was that would allow me to debate this today, and for us, as a Chamber, to debate it today. Because that was denied, it could not be brought on, on urgency, then this bill, if successful ultimately, will not apply to Fiona and Craig because there of the 60 days. It has been 199 days since Fiona gave birth. That is a result of not permitting urgency at that time that this matter could not be brought to resolution in this Chamber today. This is a second reading speech which means it will sit on the Table for us to discuss at another time. Fiona and Craig know this, as others do. However, the level of support indicates that people want this to continue for others. The bill extends no further than providing the possibility – an important point; it extends no further than providing the possibility. The bill sets two levels of application. If the miscarriage occurs under supervised care in the hospital, then the application by the parent needs to contain paperwork from the hospital certifying the miscarriage. If the miscarriage occurs outside of supervised medical care – let us say at home – then the medical professional will not only have to complete the certification but also will have to provide further documentation supporting the application, as another level that is required if miscarriage occurs at home. In both of these instances, the parents will need to make such an application within 60 days of the miscarriage. It is an important point on the issue of choice; the onus rests on the parent - the choice of the parent. No one is compelling them; it is providing them with the choice, the opportunity to do so. I know that there would be many who would not take up the choice; they want to leave it be. However, what about those who want that choice? We respect the choice of others in these sorts of matters. We acknowledge the choice of others in these matters; those who make a choice concerning a life. However, what about those who have no choice? Can we not give them a choice? That is what this is about: choice. Authority and power determined and arrived at by proper consideration by members of a Legislative Assembly. Completed application’s supporting documentation is to be provided to the Attorney-General. For good reason – the Attorney-General could seek advice from the Chief Medical Officer in respect to the application. The decision. Notice choice and decision. Individual choice and a decision - power resting within the hands of people to make choices and to have decisions made, people who have been elected to represent and to make hard decisions. The decision to register the birth and death then rests with the Attorney-General. I am not uncomfortable with the notion that we, being elected, need to carry a certain burden of responsibility and the capacity to make difficult decisions. These are difficult decisions, and rather than weigh them legislatively, they need to be weighed here. We will not be here forever in this Chamber and we can weigh these decisions, balance them out and make a decision on matters such as this. Ultimately, someone makes a decision, but do we offload the decision to systems and organisations, committees and so on? I think there is more decision-making in here on difficult things. I stated before this process means that parents need to choose whether they wish to seek registration. I say again, I do not believe everyone would. For those who have experienced this, I mean, the world [inaudible] and the minister then chooses whether registration is appropriate and should be granted. This legislation goes no further than this and effects no other entitlements or activities. There are other things that could be drawn in this: yes, but what about this, what about that? A line needs to be drawn in the sand but it rests on this issue: can a mother choose if it is before 20 weeks? I would suggest it is appropriate that it is in the third trimester when the foetus is fully formed. Who is to say that is not a child? A choice that a mother, if this bill is supported, can have supported, that being a decision to have it formally and legally recognised. As this is a private member’s bill, I urge members to support the bill. If you choose not to support this bill, I urge you to seek alternatives, other ways of approaching this. I would find it, probably a spur to continue on if the response is ‘yes, but’. Let us see if we can find alternatives. I think the alternative that has been provided, which is a commemorative certificate, does not address the deeper issue. In closing, I acknowledge, once again, the leadership and courage shown by Fiona and Craig. I also acknowledge those who work in our hospital system, those who have responded to this matter, those who have made the time to see Craig and Fiona, those who have shown that kindness, and those who have shown support. It is a difficult matter, undoubtedly. It would be nice, wouldn’t it, if there were no difficult matters to attend to? Sadly, it is a reality and the lot falls upon us at this time to weigh this and to consider it. I urge honourable members to support the bill. I will say it again, if not, please offer alternatives to amend the process, but at the very least, support the intention of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment (Kaden) Bill 2007 |