Page 1104 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 23 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have heard the arguments for and against abortion on demand and other catchphrases in great detail and over many years. I was a member, Madam Speaker, of the first ACT Legislative Assembly, along with Greg Cornwell, when these issues were debated in 1977 and 1978 and the outcome of which was this legislation which the Government seeks to repeal tonight. The arguments were put forcefully then, and in my view they have not changed since. At that time abortion on demand, freestanding abortion clinics, and everything that is going to flow from the repeal of this Act, were rejected at the conclusion of the debate. That was an interesting debate because the disposition of people around the chamber, in terms of numbers - Labor, Liberal and the like - was not so different from what it is now.
Madam Speaker, I see little point for me in debating the arguments for and against abortion. Those arguments have been conducted around the world for decades. People in this chamber tonight have made up their mind, one way or another, before now, as to what their attitude to abortion is. That ought not be what we are debating here. You are either pro-life or pro-choice, and I think most of us have made up our mind. Because there is no likelihood of any reconciliation of the two extreme opinions on this issue, as I say, I see nothing to be gained in attempting to seek such a reconciliation here tonight. We, sitting around this chamber, will not agree, no matter how long we stay here and debate it, on whether abortion is acceptable or not acceptable. It has not been resolved anywhere else in the world, and it will not be resolved here tonight.
I would prefer, that being the case, to deal with some fundamental issues that could be resolved here tonight, that just might achieve some agreement between people on the floor of the house. I would like to dispel, along the way, some of the red herrings that have been drawn across the trail here over the last few weeks leading up to this debate. For example, there have been some suggestions that the debate is aimed at making abortion legal in the ACT. That is a fiction. Abortion in the ACT is already legal. When people go out and say, "This debate tonight is about making abortion legal", they are perpetuating a fiction. That is not what the debate is about at all. It has been argued, and Mr Connolly threw it up tonight, that, because of some alleged failing in our law, a large number of women are forced to travel to Sydney to have their abortions. That is a fiction.
Mr Connolly: What is he on about?
Mr Berry: They could have them if they wanted to.
MR KAINE: Listen to what I am going to say; you might be surprised. All, or almost all, of those women who go to Sydney for their abortions could have them legally in Canberra today. They could, under the law. The thing that is missing is not the law that enables them to do so; what is missing is the resources that make it possible to have those abortions. Mr Berry says that only 150 women a year have abortions in Canberra. That is because our public hospital system has resources to deal with only that number. The solution lies not in repealing the law - it is a good law - but in providing resources to enable those women who are entitled under the law to have abortions to have them.
Mr Connolly talks about getting our law in kilter with the rest of Australia. It just might be that our law is the best law. Why then should we follow New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, or anywhere else? The argument has not yet been put forward that our law is unacceptable. I see a great deal of hypocrisy. I see
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .