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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 2794 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

He went on to explain why he felt it was important, in order that the information that the advisory panel may give as a result of its discretion did reflect the world view of women, was balanced and appropriate, and was material that it thought would be appropriate.

That debate about whether or not it was mandatory or discretionary that there be pictures arose as a result of concerns which Ms Tucker pursued persistently throughout the debate about the nature of the obligation on medical practitioners to provide the information. The legislation, as Mr Stefaniak once again has pointed out, says that it must be properly, appropriately and adequately provided, and Ms Tucker pursued this point relentlessly during the debate and did not get a satisfactory response from anybody as to what that meant. In that context, members will recall that the DPP, perhaps the second or third most senior legal officer on the public payroll in the ACT, had given us the benefit of his view on this issue.

Members will recall that he faxed every single member at 3.36 pm on the day of the debate to outline his continuing concerns about the legislation and the lack of certainty in relation to this particular issue of the nature of the obligation to provide information and what information. I will paraphrase what Mr Refshauge said was the difficulty with Mr Moore's amendments in relation to the abortion Bill. This is what Mr Refshauge told us and warned us about and foreshadowed. Mr Refshauge said that, because the advisory panel was to be given a discretion, it may be that the advisory panel would utilise that discretion to not provide any information at all.

Mr Refshauge, this senior legal person within the ACT Government, wrote to each of us and said, "You must understand that there is an issue here. It may be that the advisory panel, because of the discretion that has been provided to it, will chose to not approve any information at all". This went to the point that Ms Tucker dwelt on of what was the proper, appropriate and adequate information that would then be provided under the scheme that was being arranged. So every member was fully aware, through advice from Mr Richard Refshauge, and as advised by Mr Moore and Mr Hargreaves, that there was a clear discretion about whether or not pictures would be included in the material, if any material was to be provided at all. (Further extension of time granted)

We do need to debunk this notion that this Assembly, as an assembly, thought that there would be pictures. I had no such illusions. Mr Moore addressed directly the point that there was a discretion. He said it was facilitative only; it was not mandatory. They are Mr Moore's words. Mr Hargreaves applauded the fact. He said he sat and waited for clarification of the fact that there was to be a discretion. It was important to Mr Hargreaves that there be a discretion. The DPP told us of his concerns about the legislation because of the fact that there was a discretion. So, for us now to be debating this on the basis that the expert panel in some way has subverted the will of the Assembly by not including pictures is a simple nonsense. It is simply not true, and I think it strengthens the arm of those in the community who will seek to legally challenge this information.

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