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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2914 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I think that issues like this deserve to be taken seriously on their face value, not on the basis of what people might impute to be the real reasons, so called, behind such moves. We should consider this as we would consider other measures to do with the health and safety of citizens of this Territory who might undertake particular procedures or operations, or have their rights in some way affected by particular activities in the Territory.

Cigarette packets today carry health warnings which these days include specific warnings of the risk to pregnant women of smoking or being subjected to side-stream smoke. Governments around Australia are now investing some money in informing people, educating people, about the risks of side-stream smoke as well as smoking itself. It does seem strange to me that we as a community should insist on full warnings being brought to the attention of every person who might choose to light a cigarette by the words that appear on the packet as they open it and yet baulk at the concept of providing information about consequences which can be at least as severe, if not much more severe, when they apply in respect of a woman having an abortion.

Mr Quinlan spoke in the debate about the guilt trip we impose on women who might be considering an abortion by requiring that medically accurate information pursuant to the Bill is put before them before they make that decision. Why is he not troubled by the guilt trip each smoker experiences when they light a cigarette from the packet that says "Smoking may kill you" but is perfectly relaxed at the concept that it is okay for information not to be provided for in legislation of the same kind? I think there is little difference between those concepts. If a person is entitled to be warned about risks, the question of the guilt trip you suffer by having that risk brought to your attention is a minor consideration in the question of putting that information before people.

Mr Berry: Why should there be a guilt trip? You are saying that there should be a guilt trip.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I would ask Mr Berry for some courtesy in this debate, please. Mr Speaker, let me address some of the myths which have been perpetrated in this debate. One of the ones I am most intrigued about is the argument that goes: "How dare men interfere in decisions women make about the use of their own bodies?". That goes to the question, of course, of the unfortunate reality that there are only two women in this Assembly who will be taking part in the debate on this Bill.

Mr Speaker, let me answer that in two ways. First of all, it is true that abortion is not simply a question of a woman's decision vis-a-vis her own body. If it were, as a small-l liberal, I would not hesitate to assert that the decision should be hers and hers alone. But I believe that the decision involves two people - the person seeking the abortion and the person within that person, the unborn child.

The second response to the argument, "How dare men interfere in women's decisions about their own bodies?", is that those who espouse it are not being particularly consistent. I have to confess that in this respect I am a serial offender. I introduced a Bill into this place in 1995, in fact, almost three years ago to the day, which did provide for interference in women's capacity to make decisions about their own bodies. It was a very direct and very intimate interference in, you might say, women's reproductive processes.

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