Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1511 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
It does not in any way change the current legislation with regard to surrogacy. All it does is give Jessica and Hamish the right to an appropriate legal status. It creates a situation where Hamish and Jessica's genetic parents, with whom they are living, can sign their preschool documents, take them to Accident and Emergency and sign the parental agreements and do all the things that normal parents do at this stage. But because they are not recognised by law, they cannot do these things.
This is an unacceptable position for the very small number of children involved. I urge all members again to please speak to the couples involved in the births of Jessica and Hamish and get their story. Let us not make this a political issue. Let every member make a decision based upon their conscience and their own investigations.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stanhope ) adjourned.
MR OSBORNE (4.57): Mr Speaker, I present report No 10 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, entitled The Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No. 4) 1998, together with a copy of the extracts of the minutes of proceedings. I move:
That the report be noted.
The report I table today is in response to what has commonly been referred to as the drunk's defence. Members will recall that in 1997 a certain individual before the courts on an assault charge was not found guilty because, in his defence, he claimed he was too drunk to remember what had happened. Members will recall the outrage that that generated across the country. This legislation which was tabled by the government is a response to that.
The committee has made two recommendations basically in support of the legislation and recommending that the government report back to the Assembly in three years time on the impact of this new piece of legislation.
We looked at some of the legislation across the country. From memory, some jurisdictions have decided not to go with the removal of the drunk's defence. Mr Humphries may correct me on that. Victoria is one, from memory. Nevertheless, we in the territory will not be going with them.
I thank my fellow committee members for their work on this report. I commend the report to the Assembly.
Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries ) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .