Babies are generally very good news for Australian families, and nationally there is acclaim that our previously declining birth rate has been on a clear rise since 2004 (Box).1 In part, this rise has been a result of welcome government intervention, and several articles and letters in this issue of the Journal relate to reproduction and government subsidy.1-7

Lain and colleagues assessed the effect on New South Wales birth rates of the Howard Government’s cash bonus of $3000 for the birth of a child, introduced on 1 July 2004;1 the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, quipped that a third child could be “for the country”. The Baby Bonus was increased to $5000 on 1 July 2008. Between 1997 and 2006, the proportion of first births in NSW (among a declining total number of births) increased steadily until 2004, after which the proportion of second births, and especially of third and subsequent births, began to rise.1

The timing of the turnaround and the strength of any causal link between the bonus and additional births invites further analysis, using data from the National Perinatal Statistics Unit (Box).8 The $3000 bonus payment to about 272 000 women giving birth nationally during 2005, and 282 000 in 2006, cost about $1.7 billion. We know that in these 2 years over 16 000 of the babies were conceived by in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), and that having an IVF baby most likely indicates reproductive intentions independent of the bonus. If the previous birth-rate trend for non-IVF babies had continued in 2005 and 2006, just over 250 000 babies would have been born in each of these years. This means that about 37 000 of the extra babies born in 2005 and 2006 were attributable to the bonus. The Baby Bonus thus represented a government investment of just over $45 000 for each extra baby. Comparing this figure with the total of $295 million paid out in IVF-related Medicare rebates in the same 2-year period for assisted conception of more than 16 000 IVF babies (an average of less than $20 000 for each baby), it is obvious that, as an ongoing government investment, Medicare funding of IVF is more than twice as productive as the bonus.

The Rudd Government has now restricted the bonus to the more disadvantaged in the community by means-testing families. Acknowledging the need to “start in the womb” if we are to close the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians,2 de Costa and Wenitong compare Australia’s Baby Bonus with a well established endowment scheme for babies in France that operates with some important differences. An extra payment is recommended for women who commence medically supervised antenatal care before 14 weeks’ gestation; and, instead of a lump sum after the birth, payments are made in instalments linked to positive health practices by the new mothers. The authors make a case for changing the way baby bonuses are delivered in Australia to assist all disadvantaged women to have healthy babies with better life prospects.2

IVF practices, meanwhile, have not stood still.3 When Medicare rebates were introduced for IVF services in 1989, a limit of six treatment cycles was set.9 As IVF practices and outcomes improved during the 1990s,10 including better methods for cryostoring excess early embryos for later transfers, the frequency of multiple pregnancies, with their attendant higher medical and social costs, increased disproportionately.3,10 Since 2000, improved pregnancy rates, the withdrawal of the six-cycle limit for Medicare rebates, and the introduction of the Medicare Safety Net (which decreases out-of-pocket expenses) have worked together to facilitate a fast-increasing practice in Australia of transferring just one IVF embryo at a time. This practice, known as elective single embryo transfer, or eSET, is now the benchmark for best practice. Its effect has been a sharp fall in multiple deliveries after IVF, from a peak of over 22% of confinements in 20008 to now single figures, and better pregnancy outcomes, as Wang et al report3.

Improved storage techniques for immature sperm and unfertilised eggs are also pushing the frontiers of what’s possible, biologically and socially. Two such developments are reported in this issue of the Journal.4,5 When a young man is found to be terminally ill or dies suddenly, immature sperm can be collected from a testis before or after death, cryostored, and potentially be available for conceiving a child using IVF — but, if the legal constraint advocated by Middleton and Buist prevails, this will be allowed in Victoria and some other states only if the man has given proven written consent, irrespective of other evidence that this was his wish for his family.4

For women facing sterility from radiotherapy or chemotherapy and who are still to form a permanent relationship, the opportunity to store usable unfertilised eggs has also become technically practicable. Using vitrification, an ultra-rapid freezing method, retrieved mature eggs can be cryostored and, if they survive thawing, can resume a fertilisable physiological state. Given the rise in median maternal age at the birth of a first baby in Australia11 and the increasing physiological sterility of women from their mid 30s,12 this technique can also be used by healthy women to provide what Molloy et al refer to as “reproductive insurance”.5 This is not a development that should disrupt community social order. But governments tend to over-react,13 and can incite indignation. One man has written to the Journal in relation to a statutory limit in Victoria of 10 years for the storage of sperm (in his case his own, for his own use, having survived cancer treatment),6 beyond which each application for continued storage must have the individual approval of Victoria’s Infertility Treatment Authority.7 It seems some parliaments in our country would still subscribe to a 1993 report from Canada’s National Reproductive Technologies Commission, which claimed as paramount the need for “peace, order and good government power”13 and which unintentionally paraphrased Aldous Huxley’s “Community, identity, stability”, the world government’s ruling imperative in Brave new world.14

As Victoria’s statutes stand, a woman seeking “reproductive insurance”5 will likewise need, at a statutorily determined period and presumably regularly thereafter, to justify her decision to store her eggs to an appointed group of people of differing personal views, and she will also need their assent should she wish to take her eggs to another jurisdiction. The power of legislation to destroy individuals’ reproductive futures was demonstrated in the United Kingdom on 1 August 1996.15 Many infertile couples, not able to be contacted over a 3-month period, found out after the event that all UK IVF clinics, to avoid prosecution,16 had been forced by the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to throw out more than 3000 embryos reaching their 5-year statutory storage limit without a properly formulated request for longer storage.

Australia, like most countries, has a long history of government intervention in fertility issues. In 1983, it was the first country to adopt national ethical guidelines for the clinical conduct of IVF. For the safe development of IVF practices, it was considered necessary to do research involving human eggs and sperm (with consent of the providers).17 But (to cut a long story short), a conservative political reaction prevented such research in most states other than NSW until the federal parliament’s passage of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cwlth). This conservative thinking still finds expression today, with the Australian Health Ethics Committee (a principal committee of the otherwise firmly evidence-based National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC]) arguing against research involving human embryos by resting on “an enduring ethical tradition of thought and belief” that has limited community support,18,19 at the expense of outcomes-based ethical principles.13,20

States that legislated to regulate IVF practices in the early 1980s, as Victoria did with its Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984, faced what was then considered radical technology with uncertain social consequences, by applying similar, conservative, non-evidence-based principles. So rapidly were perspectives changing, however, that some parts of this Act were not proclaimed, some parts were later repealed, and, despite a 1996 overhaul of the Act, other parts have come into conflict with Commonwealth legislation.21 The Research Involving Human Embryos Act, which has been mirrored by most state legislatures, legalised embryo research across Australia through special and specific licences administered by the NHMRC. The community clearly recognises and supports the contribution that modern IVF practices make to responsible formation of families in Australia,22 but in Victoria a government authority established under the 1984 Act continues to be responsible for individual, personal decisions affecting all families who have or intend to have their sperm, eggs or embryos exposed in labs.

In December 2008, the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Bill 2008, the second rewrite of the legislation in 24 years, and intended to broaden access to assisted reproductive technologies, was passed by the Victorian parliament. Cabinet has apparently over-ridden the advice of the state’s Law Reform Commission and imposed a fitness-to-parent code — compulsory police and child-protection checks — before infertile or childless people can attempt to form families with technological help. The Act also provides for a Patient Review Panel appointed by the Health Minister, with a “primary role” in determining applications for IVF and medically assisted conception.23

For couples with the disability of infertility who need medical help to have children, “the bedroom” is, alas, now a nostalgic metaphor for lost privacy. Intrusions by politically appointed committees into people’s lives and their personal reproductive decisions in Victoria and some other states are real and set to increase. With governments at the bedroom door determined to be part of the detail, too often it’s still two steps in and just a rare step out.

Annual IVF and non-IVF births in Australia, 1991–2006

IVF = in-vitro fertilisation. Non-IVF births in 2005 and 2006 above the preceding 4 years’ average (dotted line) are potentially attributable to the Baby Bonus. Data source: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit.