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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2942 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

I do not think any member in this place can stand up and say, "That is not the case with this piece of legislation", because so clearly it is. Mr Speaker, on those grounds alone, we have a very good case for this select committee. Unlike Mr Moore, who is not here to listen to the remainder of this debate - I hope that he is listening to it in his office - I reject the accusation that members who are pursuing this line of dealing with this Bill are putting their heads in the sand. I reject that absolutely. Far from putting my head in the sand, I have confidence that through an open and public process - not a process that rams this Bill through at goodness knows what hour this evening - the absurd propositions in this Bill and the reasons why this Bill cannot be supported will be brought into the light of day through an appropriate select committee examination.

It may be the case that some members on that committee will not agree with that. It may even be - and I do not rule it out - that a majority of members will disagree with that evidence. But it will be there, Mr Speaker. It will be there, it will have been put publicly, it will have been put openly and it will have been put in the best traditions of this place in allowing the community to have their say. As my colleague Mr Hargreaves says, "It will be there side by side with the contrary point of view on whatever the issue is". That is the way we should deal with proposed legislation of such a contentious nature.

Mr Speaker, I am pleased also to see from Mr Berry's motion that the select committee would be appointed to examine not only the detail of the Bill that is currently before us, the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Bill, but also Mr Berry's exposure draft of the Crimes (Amendment) Bill. I think this is a very sensible course of action. It is sensible, because we have heard Mr Moore argue that his amendments will do what is now being done in Western Australia. But what Mr Moore failed to say, and what other members in this place failed to say when they used that argument, was that in Western Australia abortion is decriminalised. What we are attempting to do here is put in place regulations to regulate an act which the Crimes Act still says is illegal. Is it any wonder that some people, including a reader in law at the ANU, say, "This is ramshackle legislation."?

So I would like a select committee to consider what is the best way of producing a good law in the Territory. I have a view that, if we are going to pursue the course Mr Moore is proposing in relation to the regulations he is proposing as part of these amendments, we can do that only if abortion itself is decriminalised. I do not believe that we can examine one without the other. That is why it is important that it be placed in the terms of reference for this proposed select committee. We have not heard those people on the other side of the house argue about decriminalisation. We have not heard them say, "If we are going to go down the Western Australian path, let us do it properly". Instead, we have got this ramshackle approach which is being rammed through this Assembly tonight.

Mr Speaker, that brings me to my final point. That comes back to the point that I will continue to make in this debate. Members who are opposed to my views may get tired of hearing it, but I will continue to say it because I believe that it is fundamentally important. What some members in this place are doing here by opposing opportunities for open public examination, for a select committee, for more time to examine in proper detail the consequences of this Bill, is undermining the legitimacy of this place. They are creating

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