Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 10 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 2828 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I am acting on the advice I am given, and I am very happy to table that advice. In fact, I will table the advice I have received in that matter. Ms McRae testily cries across the chamber, but let me read my advice on this subject. I quote from a female officer in the justice section. I do not know whether her advice is any better than the advice I have heard, but this is the advice I have received about female genital mutilation:

In practice, men are not involved in the performance of FGM. In fact the Family Law Council has stated at para 2.11 of its Report dated June 1994 that "Female genital mutilation is believed to be performed almost entirely by women, generally midwives or elder women". FGM is a deeply rooted cultural practice - it is not a matter of a husband forcing his wife to perform FGM or forcing his wife to remove a child from the jurisdiction for the purpose of having FGM performed.

My attention is also drawn to the Family Law Council's report at paragraph 2.11, where reference is made to that same issue - that it is "performed almost entirely by women, generally midwives or elder women". A further quote indicates that women, who generally perform the operation, are often paid for the service and have a position of respect and authority within the community.

Ms McRae: Of course they are, because the girls cannot be married otherwise.

MR HUMPHRIES: It may well be that men approve of this practice or somehow encourage the practice - - -

Mr Berry: Approve of it? Demand it.

Ms McRae: They cannot marry otherwise, and without a husband they have no property.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Is this a sexist debate or is it a debate on a matter of legislation? I call Mr Humphries.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I think it is most unfortunate that members have chosen to disagree on this issue. It is a matter about which we should be sending a very firm signal to the community. I do not doubt that there is some involvement by men in this practice; but the point I am making, and it is the same point Mr Connolly made, is that it is not appropriate to target men, or at least husbands in this context, in the process of prosecuting, if we ever go down that path, people who perform female genital mutilation.

My advice is that it is a practice that is conducted within the female side of the community, perhaps with the approval of men, but one in which women are mostly involved. It may not be that men have enough involvement in the actual conduct of this practice to be able to specifically target them and say, "Why have you consented in this particular issue of mutilation? Why have you consented to this particular daughter or wife or whatever being involved in the mutilation?". Maybe there are cases where men are

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .