Page 1099 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 23 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Chief Minister said earlier today that she took exception to ALP consultation processes being described as a con. Let me ask her what better word describes a process where an issue which is patently of tremendous sensitivity goes unmentioned during an election campaign, suddenly surfaces a few days after polling day and then gets fast-tracked into the statute books? I can think of only one word to describe that. Madam Speaker, in fact the Chief Minister had the good grace to be embarrassed about the matter when the issue surfaced a few weeks after the campaign ended. She admitted that yes, actually, new abortion laws were in her party's platform - a document not published during the campaign - but they had not been highlighted during the campaign because, and I think I quote her here, they were not a priority. Apparently no-one told the Minister for Health, Mr Berry, in whose portfolio this matter actually falls, because a few days later he announced that new abortion laws were in fact on the Government's legislative program for the coming session of the Assembly, and here they are in black and white.
Of course, they were listed in this document, Madam Speaker, as third priority, no doubt justifying the Chief Minister's assurance to alarmed citizens that indeed this was not a priority for the Assembly or the Government. But was it, in fact, a third priority piece of legislation? More particularly, I think we have to ask ourselves: Where is the legislation promised in the first and second categories that was supposed to come before this piece of third priority in importance legislation? The third priority Bill, in fact, appeared in this Assembly before any of the Bills appearing in the first or second category of legislation. Is it not reasonable to assume, Madam Speaker, that calling this Bill third priority was, in fact, a public relations stunt designed to get the Chief Minister off the hook?
Madam Speaker, no wonder people feel cheated. No wonder people feel that self-government has not done much for them when the processes that were set up to allow Canberrans to reject these sorts of degrading options for our city are deliberately sidestepped. Every politician should be concerned when this happens, because all our jobs are that much harder when our constituents become cynical and lose faith in the political process. Let me cite just one illustration of the sort of disillusionment that behaviour like this produces. I quote from a letter which one constituent sent to the Chief Minister after the sudden elevation of this issue to political prominence. I want to read from that letter. I quote:
On the political level, I wish to express my utter contempt for those elements in your party who so carefully concealed from the public, in the lead-up to the recent elections, their intention of bringing forward this proposal. They then showed their complete disregard for voters by announcing it post-haste after the elections. Nor is it any defence to claim, "it is in the platform"; there are many things in the platform and the gullible public is not to know which of them is suddenly to be sprung on it, unless they are openly canvassed during an election campaign.
Mr Berry: Who is that?
MR HUMPHRIES: You know who it was, Mr Berry. You got the same letter as I did.
Mr Berry: Just tell us who it was.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .