Page 2650 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr De Domenico rightly raised the issue of young women in particular, those who have not yet reached the age of majority, and he talked about the legal consequences. If Mr De Domenico looks at the current case law on that he will find that the legal stance is that children have specific rights on this issue. The case history is well documented. I am happy to point Mr De Domenico to some legal cases.
The most important thing, I think, Madam Speaker, is that we are dealing with the health consequences, particularly of young people and of all women. In the case of vulnerable young women in a disastrous situation, a situation that we would not like to see, a situation where something has gone wrong, we have to be as compassionate as we possibly can be. I know that Mr De Domenico agrees with that; all of us agree that we need to be as compassionate as we possibly can be. There is a disagreement as to how we should be compassionate.
Madam Speaker, I oppose this motion and I support this stance by the Government because I believe that it gives the people involved a choice in a situation that is most awkward and most uncomfortable. It is an extension of the same point that Mrs Carnell made when she stood up and said what she supports. If you genuinely support choice you have to support choice not only for those who have access to enough money but also for those who do not.
Mrs Carnell: What about those who believe that it is murder? They have no choice.
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, Mrs Carnell interjects, "What about the people who believe that it is murder?". If we were to make decisions in terms of the beliefs of people who provide revenue and set a precedent in the way Mrs Carnell is suggesting, we would leave ourselves in a very awkward situation in regard to a whole series of legislation. The ramifications of saying that if people do not believe in a piece of legislation we should not use their money to take some action are quite extraordinary, Madam Speaker. I believe that it really is a non-issue. It is irrelevant to the debate and should be ignored.
It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that the other issue brought up by Mr De Domenico was the notion of a cost-benefit analysis, and it was reiterated by Mrs Carnell. Mr De Domenico talked about the profits of private clinics. If it so happens that there is a relationship between a government and a private organisation, and we have lots of them where a service is provided to the benefit of the community, then that is a very positive thing. We have quite a number of examples, not the least of which is Calvary Hospital, a profit making organisation. The Government does not fund it with $100,000 or $200,000; it provides it with quite large sums of money. We have not seen any consistency at all on this issue, but far be it from me to reflect on a vote of the Assembly. If we were going to have some consistency here we would see Mrs Carnell saying to Mr Berry, "Cut funding to Calvary Hospital", and that would be ridiculous.
Madam Speaker, the inconsistencies that come through this debate are interesting. The reality is that the Liberals are trying to recover some of those votes that Mrs Carnell lost when she made a very sensible decision on a previous occasion that I will not reflect on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .