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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2923 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

The argument flows that because for us the status quo is fine people with a different view must not attempt to change the status quo at all even, incidentally, if the change is for the better, even if the change is to protect people who are considering abortions, and to make sure, first of all, that people fully understand the ramifications of what they are doing; secondly, that they have time to think about it a little bit rather than making a decision off the top of the head; and, thirdly, that if they decide to go ahead it is done under controlled conditions by medical professionals in a proper facility. How on earth could any of that be adverse to the interests of a woman who is contemplating an abortion? Yet we are told by people here today that we must not proceed with this Bill. My simple question is: Why not?

Some of us with a different view were challenged to explain all sorts of terms and definitions in the Bill before us. My point of view is that if you have a question about a definition it is up to you to sort out what the definition means. It is not for me to come in here and argue it. I do not see why I should be challenged to do so. More importantly, we were challenged to show, for example, that the existing facility is not providing women with all the information that they need. I do not doubt for a minute that women who go to one of the facilities do get a lot of very useful information. I am not challenging that. I am not arguing about it at all. What this Bill does, though, is say that any medical practitioner has to provide this information. Women do not have to go to one point in order to get the information. They can go to their medical practitioner and that medical practitioner is obliged, under this Bill, to make sure that their patient gets all the information. Again, what is wrong with that? I see nothing wrong with it at all.

The fact is that the pro-choice lobby is not prepared to compromise on a single point but the pro-life group is expected to compromise constantly. It is a very one-sided point of view. I do not accept that one side has rectitude on its side and the other one does not. That applies to both factions. It seems to me that the pro-life group are constantly being asked by the pro-abortion group to put up or shut up. I do not accept that as being a reasonable position at all.

I think it has been an interesting debate. Some interesting aspects have come out of it, many of which have no bearing on the Bill. As is always the case with an issue like this, a lot of red herrings have been drawn across the trail, I presume in the hope that we will get distracted from what we are really about and we will come to a conclusion different from the one we otherwise might have.

I have just a word of comment about the input from the Discrimination Commissioner and the DPP. Mr Speaker, you and I have been in this place a long time and we have passed a lot of legislation. Never before in my experience has either of those people written to us about any legislation that was before this place. No matter how important the legislation was, no matter how trivial it was, neither of them saw it within their purview to write to this place. They are both public officials, and neither of them saw it within their purview to write to members of this place and pretend to direct us how we should or should not vote or to persuade us one way or the other. Indeed, it is not their place to do so.

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