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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2860 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

grounds; and provisions constituting Canberra's Catholic private hospital in legislation as a gatekeeper in approving how abortions can be accessed. Those are the sorts of things that are tied up in this particular Bill that has been presented.

It seems to me that we need to consider very carefully what we have in front of us. Mr Speaker, I emphasise again that I am strongly pro-choice. If I had the chance to decriminalise abortion completely today, I would do it. If the numbers were in this Assembly, I would not hesitate. We would remove it from the Crimes Act. But I think it is appropriate that we see the legislation in front of us in the context of what has happened in the last three months. Mr Berry earlier put it to a certain extent in its context, and I have done so over the last few minutes.

Mr Speaker, the idea behind the Bill before us is patronising and offensive. For example, the notion of under-18s being required to have parental consent is patronising and offensive. On privacy issues, the public certification process is liable to expose individuals. Clause 11 on medical emergencies is simply outrageous. It is about revealing information on individuals which could only be used to persecute. And do not think there will not be persecution. We have only to look right around the world, at a range of places, to see what happens where there are strict laws on abortion and people are persecuted. Indeed, I am very pleased that it has not happened in our society, but one can look at the extreme situations in the United States, for example, where people are killed because of their private views. Ironically, Mr Speaker, the people who take that action are the same sort of people who insist on having a conscience vote themselves, who insist on their own religious freedom.

This legislation deals with a second doctor and other breaches of best medical relationships. They are simply an insult to the medical profession. The process that we have in this legislation is simply too bureaucratic. It is bureaucratic, I would argue, on purpose. It is deliberate. It is designed to foil an attempt to allow a woman to make her own decisions. Mr Speaker, I think the language of the legislation that we have before us is the thing that actually gives away the character of the people who have put the legislation together and identifies clearly what it is about. The language is offensive. It assumes guilt. It assumes wrongfulness. It imposes strong religious morality. It insults doctors. It assumes that doctors are incompetent and dishonest. Mr Speaker, that is the style of the language that underlies this particular legislation.

This Bill is conceptually wrong. What is being done now is effective - women are being given information and they are being allowed to make their own choice - and it should be left alone. We have an opportunity to reject this Bill out of hand, and that is what we should do.

Mr Speaker, I think it would be remiss of me not to mention that I have circulated amendments to this legislation. Why would I do that? It would be very easy for me to be pure and to stay with what I have just said were my beliefs. Indeed, I hold those beliefs very strongly. Every member is going to have to consider this. To hold those views very strongly but to stand here in this Assembly, vote against it, lose and say, "Yes, I feel good" is just not enough.

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