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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2895 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Speaker, recently I was at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, where members from various countries and regions talked about parliamentary processes and democracy. As a member of the ACT Assembly, I should have been able to feel proud of how we do it here and I was not. I only hope that the ACT community realises what is going on here and votes accordingly at the next election. I must say that I often think how different it would have been if we had another member of the Greens here instead of Mr Rugendyke.

Since Mr Osborne's original legislation was tabled, there has been a groundswell of support for the right of women to determine their own fertility and to be in control of their bodies. The Bill we are debating today still seeks to limit the circumstances in which abortions can be legally performed in the ACT. It could well force the closure of the current ACT clinic, Canberra Reproductive Health Care Services. This legislation will not stop abortions, and Mr Osborne is living in dreamland if he thinks it will. It will create a two-tiered system that will see women who can afford it travelling to Sydney to get professional and respectful treatment and those who cannot being subjected to the humiliation and injustice of this Bill or even having to access backyard operators. I say this because I genuinely believe that this Bill could abolish virtually all abortions in the ACT, as was the case prior to 1994.

The men responsible for this new Bill have shown no regard for the health and mental wellbeing of women. In fact, this Bill treats them with contempt, not even being allowed to be in control of their bodies. At the same time as Viagara has been pushed through pharmaceutical testing bodies and placed on the market in record time, RU46, a drug that provides an alternative to first trimester surgical abortion, is still not available in Australia. Why? Because of the gender composition of parliaments and peak decision-making bodies in this country. This Assembly is no exception. It is a shameful example of entrenched gender imbalance. That is why there needs to be time to consult the community, health professionals and the legal fraternity to discuss the ramifications of this Bill.

Let us look at women in a very general context: Who are they and what do they represent? What is their role in the family unit? It is more often than not that of a primary care giver, of the one who must restructure her life for her children and partner. It is more often than not the woman who makes sacrifices and is responsible for the continued care of children after separation or divorce. Of course, changes and fantastic contributions have been made by a great many people in different arenas, and I do not intend to quash their work. My point is that two men are responsible for this Bill. They believe that their personal religious beliefs are so supreme that they should be enshrined into legislation and another 13 are being asked to decide.

I am asking you to prove that you are equipped to make that decision. Yes, there is a conscience element to this, but each MLA has a responsibility to understand the full implications of the Bill. This Bill is not the same as Mr Osborne's first attempt and it deserves careful analysis. I challenge each and every one of you in this place to demonstrate that you totally understand the legal and health implications of this Bill, that you have had the required briefings that have allowed you to understand the implications of requiring an unrelated medical officer to provide information to women.

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