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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (21 October) . . Page.. 3491 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

decision. That is why I have moved to amend this regulation. It infringes not only on the rights of women but also on the rights of medical practitioners to practise their ethics. This is the only piece of legislation which so infringes.

I heard Ms Tucker express some concern that Mr Rugendyke had not made any comment in this debate. I too express concerns about that. He is an Independent in this place. I suppose - I have no reason to think otherwise - that he will vote against my motion, but I would like to have heard him say it before we go to the vote. I suspect this is because of the arrangement he and Mr Osborne made before the last election. I accept that. That is part of the nature of politics sometimes, but it is a disappointment to me. I had hoped that it might be the debate that would convince him rather than some other arrangement he has.

Mr Speaker, you expressed a view which you referred to this morning during the debate. I will just repeat it. On 2 September you said:

Mr Speaker, I assumed that that meant that you would oppose the subordinate legislation put forward by Mr Humphries. The only way that you can oppose part of the subordinate legislation that has been put forward by Mr Humphries is to support the motion that I have put forward to amend it. It strikes me that what you said then is a wee bit hollow.

I would like to have heard Mr Osborne comment on his committee report in relation to how this regulation might be beyond the scope of the power of section 16 of the Act. I know this is not a court and we cannot make decisions as a court would, but we have had a debate in the last few days about whether things are lawful or unlawful and Mr Osborne has expressed a view and been fairly consistent on the issue of whether things are lawful or not lawful. As the chair of the committee, I had hoped that he might deal with that matter. I am disappointed on that score as well.

This motion that I have put forward today, on the face of it, will fail.

At 5.00 pm the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 34; the motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MR BERRY: I would also like to have heard again from the Chief Minister, though I can see how, with her stated pro-choice views, she might be embarrassed with the position she will ultimately adopt in respect of this motion. That has been a continuing disappointment to me and a continuing disappointment to a large proportion of the ACT community. As legislators, we are expected to try to reflect the views of our constituency and to behave in a way which we have said in the past that we would . Ms Carnell's standing has suffered on this particular issue, but that is her choice, I suppose. I just wish she would allow women to express their choice freely on this issue.

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