Page 1101 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 23 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
At the point in gestation where abortion commonly occurs a uniquely human heartbeat is already discernible. The assertion that the foetus is mere tissue, as easily disposed of as an appendix or a fingernail, is a premise tailor-made to reach the desired conclusion that there is no difference in men's and women's biological responsibilities in the gestation of children. Freely available abortion is, in my view, Madam Speaker, the product of a society hooked on instant gratification, ensconced in selfishness, endlessly defining new and various rights. I am prepared to tolerate such attitudes, except where they come at the expense of human life.
Let me address, in advance, Madam Speaker, an issue which already has been raised in interjections across the chamber and which I am sure will be raised again. It will be pointed out that abortions occurred in our public hospitals while I was Minister for Health. That is perfectly true; they did. Madam Speaker, even the present law which I, as Minister for Health, operated under, and which I assume the present Minister operates under, allows abortions to be carried out in limited circumstances, and that, in my view, is unsatisfactory. If I had had the remotest chance of further restricting the availability of abortion during the life of the First Assembly by changing the law under which all Ministers have to operate, I would have done so. Unlike others in this place, I am not fond of flogging dead horses.
Madam Speaker, the duplicitous way that this issue has come into the political agenda proves that the local proponents of abortion reform are out on a limb. If the Government really thought that Canberrans wanted new abortion laws it would have promised at the last election to deliver them. Mr Berry's claim, "We forgot to mention it; it slipped our mind during the election campaign; if we had thought of it we would have said it, but we did not think of it", is just too pathetic for words. This Assembly, Madam Speaker, has no mandate to devalue human life. I believe that the citizens of Canberra have higher ambitions than the creation of slaughterhouses in this community. I believe that most are fostering a community which champions the sanctity of all human life. In short, I see us still as a society with values, values which are not to be legislated away and which we, as legislators, must fight to keep. That is what I, certainly, Madam Speaker, hope to be doing tonight.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (8.16): Madam Speaker, I am happy to enter the debate. There is probably no more fundamental and difficult issue to debate in an Australian parliament than the issue of abortion. It is certainly an issue that causes, and has caused me, some real concern. It is an issue which all parties, all major parties, respect as a difficult issue by guaranteeing their members a conscience vote. On the issue before the Assembly tonight, which is the repeal of the Termination of Pregnancy Act, I have no difficulty in exercising my conscience vote in favour of the Bill before us. I should point out that this is not a debate about publicly funded abortion clinics. This is not a debate about freestanding abortion clinics. If we were to have such a debate, my conscience vote could well be cast in an opposite direction because I do not favour such developments; but that is not what this debate is about.
I know that there are many members of my party, whom I respect and work with, who take a different view on this issue. I know that one member of this Assembly may take a different view on this issue from our party, and I can respect that. But I must say that I have great difficulty in respecting the remarks
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .