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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2905 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The High Court, in Marion's case, endorsed the Gillick decision and agreed that the power or role of parents to consent to medical treatment on behalf of a child diminished gradually as the child's capacity and maturity grew. The Community Advocate expresses concern that we are proceeding with legislation which in its provisions upsets a High Court decision on the capacity of an adolescent to be regarded as a mature person and entitled to make her own decisions and entitled to give her own consents. The law has already dealt with this issue. We now have a Bill which potentially upsets the Menhennitt ruling, the Levine ruling and the Gillick rule, and we do this blindly. We do this without the advantage of any thorough investigation of what we are debating. We do this in an Assembly apparently not prepared to allow appropriate community discussion of this issue.

This Assembly, very shortly I think, will be tested on the question of whether or not it is prepared even to allow a committee of this place to investigate these issues. I share, entirely and precisely, the sentiments expressed by Ms Tucker if this Assembly is not prepared to allow a committee of this place to thoroughly investigate all of these issues, their implications and their impact. I share the sentiment expressed by Ms Tucker that it is an absolute travesty of the rhetoric in here about our determination, willingness and obligation to consult with this community. It is just a parody and, as expressed by Ms Tucker, a joke.

There are a couple of other matters in relation to the Bill that should be mentioned at this in-principle stage. If we get through the in-principle stage - as I have said, I hope we do not - these matters will be debated later today in much more detail. There is a whole raft of concerns and they have been expressed to each of us in communications that each of us has received. I think it is relevant that we have some regard to the representations that we have received and the range of issues that have been addressed to us by other speakers who are opposed to this Bill. This legislation is an insult to women. This legislation, in the view of a number of commentators, offends United Nations and international conventions that we, as a nation and as a community, have committed ourselves to.

It staggers me that a jurisdiction such as this would contemplate passing into law legislation that some of the most senior commentators in this community believe potentially breaches international conventions that Australia has signed. How is it that we, as a legislature, are here today debating a Bill that it is seriously suggested to us by commentators and by senior public officials for whom we must have regard offends United Nations and international covenants? The Discrimination Commissioner has concerns to that effect.

The scrutiny of Bills committee, chaired by Mr Osborne, brought down a report yesterday raising the need for a discussion on the implications of this Bill for some of our United Nations and international obligations. Yet, here we are, rushing headlong, lemming-like, into debate and potentially the passage of legislation that tomorrow will stand in opposition to international obligations which Australia as a nation has accepted.

A whole range of issues that need to be addressed in detail can only be addressed appropriately through a committee or a public consulting process. There is the issue that I have mentioned about the impact on the criminal law. There is the issue I have just raised about the impact on privacy legislation and our international obligations.

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