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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2896 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Do you understand that this will, in effect, count out medical practitioners that have expertise in family planning practice? How is this in the interests of good health practice? Do you genuinely believe that these practitioners want to deal with unwanted pregnancies and that a woman wants to face making such a traumatic decision? Do you actually understand the relationship of this Bill to the Crimes Act, the implications of deregistration for practitioners and the invitation it makes for a very costly and undesirable court challenge to give the ACT the precedent it does not currently have? What about the very issue of regulating an act that is illegal? Do you understand what has happened in Western Australia and that abortion was decriminalised and then regulated? Do you think that the people of the ACT deserve this Assembly to at least understand what happened there and how it is working now? Do you understand how the definition "approved facility" was the very tool used to stop virtually all abortions in the ACT until 1994 - yes, that is right, 1994? I am obviously asking these questions to empty chairs, but they will be on the record. I also want it on the record that no-one here listening is currently supporting this Bill. Do you believe that this definition - - -

Mr Humphries: I beg your pardon, Ms Tucker.

MS TUCKER: I beg your pardon; Mr Humphries is sitting here, as is Mr Smyth. I apologise to Mr Smyth and Mr Humphries. Mr Humphries was in the back. I did not think he was listening; but, if he tells me he was, I am glad that he can talk and listen at the same time. If you believe there are problems, do you have proof or are you happy to rely on Mr Osborne's and Mr Humphries' religious opposition to abortion as a means of deciding women's fate? Are you aware that the approval of information in pamphlets will be determined by a panel consisting of two representatives from Calvary Hospital? Do you know that, regardless of their particular view, practitioners associated with Calvary are required to abide by the practices of the Little Company of Mary? They are Catholic nuns and one would probably understand that they have a fixed position on this matter. If you look at the mission statement of Calvary Hospital you will see that it says:

The doctors and staff of Calvary Hospital dedicate ourselves to continuing the healing ministry of Jesus.

The action plan reads:

To initiate a process whereby we critically analyse, appraise and develop an action plan for the ongoing integration of the mission and values of the Little Company of Mary into our everyday life and work.

I think we might need to consider the appropriateness of this if two of the people who are going to be putting together so-called objective information wear the hat of the Calvary Hospital.

Do you believe that you can make a decision that contradicts the expert advice of medical practitioners and peak bodies, including the Public Health Association, the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance, the ACT Division of General Practice, which reported that they surveyed their ACT GP members and 90 per cent of 120 GPs were opposed to the

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