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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2902 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Another question was: Bearing in mind the Marion case regarding the competence of minors to give consent to medical procedures and the concept of guardianship, is it proposed that consent proceedings be heard before the ACT courts or the Family Court of Australia? Another question was: In relation to the legal concept in Gillick's case about competence of children to consent to medical treatment, how is it proposed that the new requirement to obtain consent of a parent by a minor will overcome that legal presumption? Another very interesting question was: Would this legislation be in breach of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act for discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy? That is a very interesting question. I hope that members who are supporting this Bill or who have amendments to it have fine, well-articulated and thought out answers to those questions.

Basically, we are still waiting to hear any really clear arguments from that side. We are just hearing murmurs. From Mr Smyth we had his position on where life begins. That is fine; that is his personal belief. I do not have a problem with that. But we have had no answers to all the questions that have been raised. He thought that medical practitioners would be liable if they were not providing that information. I think that raises a really interesting question, because that is coming up in the medical profession. If you do not present the information exactly because it is your professional belief that it is not correct, will you be liable?

Then there is the question of the humane and compassionate aspect. This is just about presenting information which we will dictate as politicians to doctors. One doctor, Dr Ann Hosking, actually gave me the example of how she would feel as a doctor when presented with a client who needs to have a termination or has decided to have a termination because she has a grossly abnormal child. Should the doctor sit down with this patient and show her pictures of how a normal foetus looks during development? How would the doctor feel about doing that? How is that in the interests of the psychological health of that patient? How do people in this place think they have the right to impose those kinds of requirements on doctors? How dare they interfere to that degree in the doctor-patient relationship?

In conclusion, I will not go through all the questions I have asked. You have all got copies of them and they are on the record already. I am still waiting for answers. I think these questions are so serious that, by the end of this debate on the Bill in principle, I hope that we will see either an adjournment or a referral to a committee of some kind. If we do not see that, then it will be a scandal. This Assembly will look appalling. It will be mentioned in the national and international media and members will have to take responsibility for their actions today. As a final point, I would like to say to the members of this place who feel this is a conscience vote for them that I ask them to leave that conscious decision with the women, as is their right. My last comment is that a chant this morning that I thought was particularly apt was: "How about getting your rosaries off our ovaries?".

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