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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2899 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

In his tabling speech for the original Bill, Mr Osborne stated that a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia found that 60 per cent of women stated financial concerns as their reason for having a termination and only 5 per cent listed health. His final statement reads:

And above all, Mr Speaker, it sets out to ensure that choice is informed.

I guess we can be confused. It is a very confusing statement that he has made. I am very dismayed that Mr Osborne's Bill, contrary to his statements and parts of his speech, will most likely affect the disadvantaged in our community. He says that his Bill is about information. No, the very essence of this Bill is about control. I state for the record again that 60 per cent of women stated financial concerns as the reason for termination. (Extension of time granted) I repeat that 60 per cent of women stated financial concerns as the reason for termination according to a study published in the Medical Journal of Australia. Has Mr Humphries or Mr Osborne embarked on an assessment of why the terminations were carried out? Do they understand or even care that this community has transformed over the last five years from being stable with good prospects for work, particularly in the public sector, to a place of uncertainty where casual contracts are the flavour of the day and uncertainty and fear are real? Babies and children are not casual and we are not awarded them on temporary contracts.

Do not worry about women and families who simply cannot afford another child: Either condemn the women to backyard abortions or force them to carry unwanted pregnancies and make further heart-rending decisions, placing the women at further risk and, potentially, other children and family members at risk. What a supportive and caring view of the world Mr Osborne, Mr Humphries and their supporters have! Can a family of five children on a low income be considered similarly to a wealthy couple having their first child? I want to make it very clear that I do not want to reduce this to economics. No dollar value can be placed on the love, support and security parents give to their children; but, at the same time, there is no way to increase the hours in a day that a parent may need to provide support for the children. I repeat: It is usually the mother who does this.

A parent's love may be infinite, but the resources behind it, the weekly pay packet, are very finite indeed. They can only buy so much food, pay so much rent and provide so much in warm clothing. So, I challenge Mr Osborne, Mr Humphries and their supporters: If they are really serious about reducing unwanted pregnancies, they will have the support of a great many people - all the agencies and organisations that educate young people on sex education, those that provide support and assistance to low-income and single-parent families and, I dare say, the greater community.

This Bill is not about that, however. It is about personal, ethical and religious beliefs. As I said, Mr Osborne and others are entitled to have these beliefs. They are theirs personally and they have a right to them. But these views and beliefs do not reduce unwanted pregnancies, poverty, violence and substance abuse. If you truly care, you would withdraw this Bill and undertake a real assessment of these issues, rather than condemning women and families to greater emotional and economic grief.

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