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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3426 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Clearly, the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act, unnecessary as it was, set out a procedure for the establishment of a panel. It also set out a procedure for that panel to approve information to be provided to women in circumstances where they were considering the termination of a pregnancy. It sets out a scheme where forms have to be signed to demonstrate that the information has been provided. The panel is to consist of seven expert members - a specialist in obstetrics nominated by ACT Health, a specialist in neonatal medicine nominated by ACT Health, a specialist in obstetrics nominated by Calvary Hospital, a specialist in neonatal medicine nominated by Calvary Hospital, a specialist in psychiatry nominated by the territory branch of the relevant specialist college or institution, a registered nurse specialising in women's health issues and a registered nurse currently specialising in neonatal medicine. Reflecting on the debate about those issues, that was to involve ostensibly two groups of people - one from what might be considered by some members here to be on the pro-choice side of things and the other from an area which would might be considered anti-abortion.

The legislation was passed against the strident opposition of many members in this chamber. Subsequently, the expert panel came down with the decision, certainly based on their concerns about women's health, that the provision of pictures, an option which is provided for in the legislation, was unnecessary and counterproductive. My understanding of events was that members in this place were asked what they thought about this. Did they want pictures in, or did they think there would be pictures in? A number of members rose to the occasion and said that they thought there should be pictures. Not one of those who said that pictures should be forced on women was elected into this place as an expert in the field. Not one of them would have the level of expertise as spread throughout the panel I described.

The emergence of these regulations was a shameful usurping of the role of a panel of experts, many of whom I understand are upset by this decision. It was a most arrogant and shameful move. But we then found that it was full of errors and that the Ministers - as I have said all along, acting on their own narrow beliefs - were about to force women to view information which was inaccurate. The expert panel said it was unnecessary and possibly counterproductive. The two Ministers were prepared to have women forced to view inaccurate information. Embarrassed and humiliated by their mistake, off they went and drew up some more regulations and came back with another schedule, which is the issue that the motion I have moved here today seeks to deal with.

Mr Speaker, we should also consider what the scrutiny of Bills committee said. That committee is chaired by Mr Osborne, who has expressed persistent opposition to the availability of abortion for women. It made some comments in relation to this regulation. Referring to its own terms of reference, it asked:

(Extension of time granted) The committee went on to say:

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