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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2935 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

are questions to be raised in relation to the legislation. The DPP has raised questions in relation to the legislation. He has raised further questions in relation to the amendments, which would read - - -

Ms Carnell: We have fixed the last two. There are another two amendments that fix it.

MR BERRY: Mrs Carnell says that they have whipped out the back of the envelope and drawn up another few. "We've fixed it", she says. Do you think we would believe that, given the performance thus far? Heavens above! How many people have to tell you that something is wrong with the process? Why does it take so much effort to get it into your head that something is wrong? It astounds me that, because this is a piece of legislation that will keep Mr Osborne happy, we can break all sorts of conventions about dealing with legislation. Why do we have to do this? We do not have to do this until next March. There is no rush.

If you want good law, you should have a good consultation process and a good understanding of what you are doing when you do it. It is fair to say that none of us have a good understanding of what we are doing. Mr Moore will have an understanding of what he is doing; but that is not good enough for me, because the amendments that he is putting forward I find unacceptable. I do not accept the legislation and I do not accept any of the amendments. I think legislation which contains any of that sort of thing is bad law. Other people have different views, but they do not have a full understanding of the issue.

I have circulated the draft of the Crimes (Amendment) Act which I proposed in 1994. I have no intention of formally introducing that legislation into this chamber, and never have had, I might add; but you cannot consider this legislation now without considering those aspects of the Crimes Act which create the criminal offence of abortion for women and for those that assist them. You just cannot pass this legislation without considering it. If you want to run for cover and hide away from it, you should not be allowed to because, if you are trying to regulate abortion on the one hand, you cannot not think about the criminality of it. In black-letter law, that is how it stands. It would show clear ignorance or arrogance, both perhaps, on your part for you to proceed down this path without looking at those aspects. I am not saying that at the end of the process there would be sufficient numbers to decriminalise abortion. I rather doubt it. But I do not think that you can have a committee of inquiry without looking at the issue. If you did not look at the issue, then you would be, I think, erring in your duty to serve your constituents.

It is important that members consider how we create good law in respect of this. We have had one of the biggest demonstrations outside this Assembly by women, and men, concerned about this issue. Half of our constituency, or thereabouts, is affected by these laws - and people are still drawing them up on the back of an envelope. Last night Mr Moore and his staff drew up a bunch of amendments. I think I got the latest version of them somewhere around the middle of today. Is it called the "Moore Abortion Bill" - the paste-up version? The "Moore abortion amendments" is a fair description, I suppose. We have since received some from Mr Humphries, which have been circulated amidst the mass of amendments which have been provided to this Assembly.

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