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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2904 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

We must look behind that bland and sanguine explanation of why it is that on this day, in this year, at this stage in the development of this debate, we are again debating abortion. We need to ask ourselves why is it that we have jumped back 30 years. Why are we having this debate that was had 30 years ago? It is not just about the provision of information. When one looks at the Bill it becomes immediately apparent that this is not just about counselling and the provision of information and a cooling-off period.

That becomes incredibly clear as soon as you open the Bill and see the attention which it gives to the Crimes Act. As soon as I saw the reference to the Crimes Act in the preamble the alarm bells for me rang loudly and clearly. Because of the complexity of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of abortion, because of the existence of the provisions within the Crimes Act, it does not take a genius to know that once you start fiddling in this area you raise immediately the spectre of the legislation impacting on the court's interpretations in the Menhennitt and Levine rulings. It cannot be denied or avoided. The potential thereby exists. The uncertainty is created. No-one in this place can give me a guarantee that this Bill, if passed, will not upset forever the basis on which abortions in the ACT are lawful. So the alarm bells ring, and they ring in more ways than just concern about the impact that this Bill has on Menhennitt and Levine.

We have explicit written advice from the ACT Discrimination Commissioner that in her professional view as the ACT Discrimination Commissioner she can give the Attorney-General no guarantee that this Bill is not inconsistent with the Discrimination Act. I am staggered that we are proceeding with this debate when a person as senior and as significant in this community as that advises the Attorney that she cannot give a guarantee that a Bill which he has basically proposed and which we are now debating, if passed, will not breach the Discrimination Act, and yet we proceed with the debate. That staggers me. It staggers me that we are proceeding with a debate on a Bill fostered basically by the Attorney-General when he has been given explicit written advice by the Discrimination Commissioner that if passed it will probably offend the Discrimination Act.

In addition to that we have the advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions that has been referred to. We also have advice - this does cause me enormous concern - from the Community Advocate. All of these senior officers within the Attorney's portfolio, three of the most senior officers in the ACT public sector, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the ACT Discrimination Commissioner and the ACT Community Advocate, feel the need to communicate with all members of this place about their concerns over this legislation.

The Community Advocate, in advice that has not previously been referred to in debate, deals with just one proposal, the proposal relating to the need for a woman under the age of 18 to obtain consent. The Community Advocate has advised us that there are legal authorities which call into question the efficacy of this proposal. The Community Advocate quotes Gillick's case in which it was ruled that a child, somebody who is under 18, who is intelligent and mature enough to fully understand the nature and consequences of a treatment or procedure can give a valid consent.

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