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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 3009 ..

Mr Humphries: I think Labor supported the measure, too.

MR OSBORNE: I think that they did, Mr Humphries. I am sure that the Labor Party did. But there is the Labor Party and there is the Canberra Labor Party, Mr Humphries; you should know that now.

Mr Moore: There is a conscience vote.

MR OSBORNE: There is a conscience vote. Oh, yes, we have seen that tonight! Mr Speaker, this is a fair compromise. It is not what we wanted; but, Mr Speaker, I cannot accept that young children are mature enough to get across the issues without some input by some adult, somebody who cares about the child, about both of them. It is regrettable and disappointing that we have had some of the excuses I have heard from my colleague Mr Rugendyke and others on this subject. We will accept the will of the Assembly on it, Mr Speaker, grudgingly. I hope that enough members will support what Mr Humphries has put up because, as I said, it is a piece of legislation supported by pro-abortion people in Western Australia.

MR RUGENDYKE: I seek leave to make a statement at this point under standing order 46.

MR SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR RUGENDYKE: Mr Speaker, I will read the Hansard tomorrow, but I think I may have said in relation to a foster child that I do not want to be in the position of having to give consent. If that is the case, what I ought to have said was that I do not feel that I would have the right under any circumstances to grant that consent. It would not simply be up to me to be that intrusive with the life of that child. For that reason, I found the definition of parent, as described in the original Bill, to be unreasonable.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (1.44 am): In response to the contributions that have been made to the debate, I would like to suggest that there are other views - quite legitimate views; views, once again, provided to us by officers of the Attorney-General's portfolio. It has been quite intriguing today to learn the extent to which the Attorney-General is out of step with senior officials within his portfolio.

Mr Osborne: He is not out of step with Meg Wallace.

MR STANHOPE: It is probably relevant, Mr Osborne, that not everybody shares your "John Howard picket fence" view of the world. The world is just not like that. I think it is a view of life seen through rose-coloured glasses. I would like to share the thoughts of the Community Advocate on the subject. As everybody knows, the Community Advocate is charged with some responsibility for the care of young people in the Canberra community. The Community Advocate advised us yesterday - and she is referring to the original Bill, the one we are ostensibly debating:

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