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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2926 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

That is not pro-choice. Last week Mrs Carnell refused to support moves in this Assembly designed to knock out the move for legislation proposed by Mr Osborne. That is not pro-choice.

Mr Stanhope: She did speak at the rally.

MR BERRY: She said at the rally that she was pro-choice, but I say again that you have to do more than say it. You can say black is white as many times as you like, but it will still be black. That is the position that Mrs Carnell has found herself in. She has dug a very deep hole for herself. By saying, "I am pro-choice" till the cows come home will not change her track record. She can never claim to be pro-choice. What she can claim is that her version of pro-choice is choosing what women will be forced to undergo. That is her version of pro-choice. It is a different version of pro-choice to mine.

The empowerment of women which Mrs Carnell went to great lengths to describe is indeed a noble aim, but the empowerment of women is also about letting them make their decisions unencumbered by law. What this Bill sets out to do is to encumber the decision-making process for women in the area of abortion with law that has heavy punishments, law that has been criticised by experts. Wiser people than us have made strong criticisms about the law that we are fiddling with today. This is a ramshackle process. It has been described as a ramshackle process to patch up ramshackle law. It cannot work.

I should also deal with Mrs Carnell's description of why this matter was put on the agenda. She said it was because of a four-year-old Bill of mine that this was put on the agenda. I suppose it may well have been on the agenda before, if somebody had turned the page in the Hansard where it is mentioned. That will never go away. It is etched in stone; it is etched in history. I suppose that on that score it is always on the agenda. That is as feeble an excuse as the one that Mr Osborne first expressed when he decided to do a turnaround on the abortion issue. It is just plain feeble, weak and pathetic.

This is about Mrs Carnell and her Government keeping Mr Osborne in his comfort zone because they need him. There is no question about that. I expressed that view earlier and I will express it over and over again. This new version of pro-choice which has emerged because of the need to keep Mr Osborne in his comfort zone is quite intriguing and remarkable. It is something that will be remarked upon by many for a long time.

I turn to Mr Humphries. Mr Humphries drew curious analogies between the health warnings on cigarette packets and the warnings that, by law, will be given to women if they choose to have an abortion. He said, "Why is it that the Labor Party would support a guilt trip on somebody smoking a cigarette and not support a guilt trip on somebody choosing to have an abortion?". This tells you how far out of step Mr Humphries is. This is an appalling understanding of the issues. This is the point that we have made over and over again about the legislative approach which is embraced by Mr Osborne and the amendments which Mr Moore proposes. It is about creating a guilt trip. That is not acceptable and can never be acceptable to pro-choice. Anti-choice people may wish to inflict their views on others and force them to adopt the narrow line that they have decided upon for themselves, but it is not the approach that ought to be taken in relation to the provision of these services.

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