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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2915 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I proposed an amendment to the Crimes Act. Mr Speaker, interestingly, my proposal to interfere in women's rights to make a decision about their own bodies was not opposed by women's groups. Indeed, quite the contrary. It was strongly supported by women's groups in the ACT and received unanimous support from members of this Assembly. My amendment to the Crimes Act was to ban a practice called female genital mutilation, sometimes known as female circumcision. In doing so, there was no doubt whatever that the Assembly directly and - - -

Mr Moore: Always done as children.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, not always done as children.

Mr Moore: Almost always done to children.

MR HUMPHRIES: It applied to adult women as well as to children. In fact, it applied to women 14 years and above, Mr Moore. (Extension of time granted) I thank members. Legislation to ban female genital mutilation was not only not condemned by those who take the view that men should not interfere in women's rights to control their own bodies, it was actually supported by them. Incidentally, the legislation was introduced on 23 November and passed less than three weeks later. Apparently members had no problems on that occasion in dealing with the legislation very quickly. So, Mr Speaker, I think that the argument is a nonsense, and it depends very much on whether the people raising the argument happen to agree with what is being proposed by way of interference or whether they do not.

An argument I have also heard today is that this is an abuse of parliamentary process. In particular, Ms Tucker felt that it was wrong of the Assembly to rush through this legislation and there needed to be more time. I simply note in this debate that just on three years ago Ms Tucker was one of a number of members of this place who wanted to consider legislation less than one week after it was introduced, namely, legislation dealing with the right of citizens to initiate their own referenda. Ms Tucker was very pleased, against the wishes of the movers of that Bill, to bring the Bill forward for consideration immediately. If it is an abuse to do it in one week, Mr Speaker, I wonder what that says about three months.

Another argument has been that doctors are insulted by the requirements to do certain things; that it is suggested that they are incompetent; that this degree of regulation is quite inappropriate; that doctors are perfectly capable of making decisions and giving advice to their patients which lie within ethical considerations; and that there does not need to be any imposition by the legislature in that process. I have considered the Commissioner for Health Complaints' annual report, Mr Speaker. The commissioner's brief includes promotion of the rights of consumers in respect of being informed and educated about health matters that may be relevant to him or her. The other principle of relevance here is that a person should be entitled to reasonable access to information about his or her health.

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