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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2859 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

A doctor is already legally obliged to inform about potential risks. One problem with the Bill before us today, Mr Speaker, is that it requires information to be presented, regardless of whether the content of that information and the way in which it is presented are suited to a woman's particular needs, concerns and circumstances. It would seem that this is designed to coerce or to persuade women not to proceed with the abortion. As I said earlier, Mr Speaker, it is entirely inappropriate for us as an Assembly to in any way coerce women in this decision-making process. The original so-called cooling-off period of 72 hours showed a lack of respect for the ability and the right of women to make their own decisions about abortion, in their own time and in their own way. It also, by its structure, interfered with the privacy of women in being able to make that decision.

The Bill also seeks to change the law in the Territory so that an abortion can no longer be performed on a legally competent patient aged under 18 without the consent of a parent or legal guardian. Currently, a doctor can treat someone under 18 if he or she thinks they are mature enough and believes they have sufficient intelligence to understand fully what having an abortion means. The legislation would again override and interfere with that doctor-patient relationship. In cases where a young woman is pregnant because of incest and is wanting an abortion, then seeking consent from the potential perpetrator would not be in her best interests.

Mr Speaker, the trend in other Western countries is towards liberalising abortion laws. It is a human rights issue for women. This year is the fiftieth anniversary of the International Declaration of Human Rights. Mr Speaker, there are members of this Assembly who would mark this occasion by effectively denying women in Canberra and the region a basic human right, and that is to decide for themselves about their own bodies. At issue here is the democratic process. Repeatedly, the evidence is that a large majority of all citizens in our community support a woman's right to safe, legal abortion and that it should be her decision, in consultation with her doctor.

This entire Bill shows a lack of trust and respect for women and characterises them as unable to make their own decisions about whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy, as unable to seek and get assistance with that decision when they need to, and as unable to live with the consequences of that decision. Women can be trusted to make their own decisions, and high-quality information and counselling are already available in the ACT.

This Bill, Mr Speaker, or even the original Bill, would not stop abortions in the ACT. At best, it would stop them being done safely and legally. That is "at best" from your perspective; from any ordinary person's perspective, I have to say it would be "at worst". When the new Bill was introduced, Mr Speaker, should we have said, "Hooray! We have got a fantastic change."? Or should we have looked at what the new Bill was really about? The new Bill still contains criminal penalties regarding which facilities abortions can be performed in; complex requirements about second doctors, which may present impossible difficulties to some women; certification requirements, backed by criminal penalties, which interfere in doctor-patient relationships and privacy; requirements which force doctors to provide advice against their will and their expertise, including what can only be described as anti-abortion propaganda; certification requirements which will deter and humiliate women and risk the privacy of their medical affairs; provisions subjecting doctors to potential deregistration without appeal on political, not medical,

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