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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3425 ..

MR BERRY: The point of order that Mr Humphries makes was certainly anticipated. This is clearly an amendment rather than an attempt to strike down the entire regulation. Mr Humphries might say that it goes to the same question. It certainly deals with that issue, but it allows the regulation to stand. It merely makes the provision of material free.

I accept with some regret that the law that gave rise to these regulations was passed in this chamber and that my earlier attempts to strike out the regulations failed. I intend at every opportunity to continue to raise this matter until one day a woman's right to choose, free of the restrictions of legislation, is recognised in the Australian Capital Territory. I guarantee that I will continue along that course.

Mr Speaker, you have said on the record here that you will not be voting on this issue anymore.

MR SPEAKER: That is correct.

MR BERRY: I expect that if it all follows the usual voting pattern this motion will go down 8:8. There is, therefore, a heavy onus on the self-declared pro-choice Chief Minister to consider her position on this issue very carefully. This has moved closer and closer to her. It is her decision.

The Chief Minister has said over and over again that she is pro-choice, but she does not want anybody to have a choice over this matter. The only choice that she wants women to be faced with in relation to the decision whether to terminate or not is the Chief Minister's choice. The Chief Minister has chosen a course which would force women to observe this information, if she is to have her way.

Mr Speaker, the regulations and the attached schedule are offensive to women and they are offensive to fair-thinking people. They reflect a narrow moral view on the issue of abortion. I respect members' rights to hold these narrow moral views, as I hope they would respect my right to hold views different to theirs. But I cannot stand idly by and allow these narrow moral views to be imposed on women in such a way.

This schedule was devised by extremists who have been involved in the debate to influence women in their decision, to use psychological pressure on them. It never had as its origin any commitment to the health of women - the mental health, physical health or any other aspect of the wellbeing of women. It has always been about imposing narrow moral views on women faced with this important decision.

Mr Speaker, there is also the question of whether or not it was within the power of the Ministers to make this legislation. I know that that has been raised before, but it needs to be raised again. This Assembly passed a law which gave a Minister power to make regulations. As I have mentioned before in this place, there is plenty of form where the courts have struck down regulations where the regulation maker sought to extend the intent of the original legislation.

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