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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 1 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 107 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Society has moved a long way from 1861 and it is time that we brought our laws into line with community attitudes on this issue. Some will express concern that this will open up the floodgates for abortions performed by unqualified people or for abortions in late stages of pregnancy. These are the scare tactics of those who do not want women to exercise their choice free of sanctions. This is not the experience in Canada where, in 1988, their Supreme Court struck down the criminal provisions in their law, as my bill seeks to do. There has been no avalanche of abortions in Canada.

Some claim that there are protections in place that will be swept away by my bill. My bill sweeps away one thing and one thing only-the threat of a jail sentence. I need to debunk some of the myths commonly put around in debates on this issue in the community. The first is that there will be late abortions. There is nothing in the current law which sets a time limit. There are, however, protections in the law, and I am not proposing to repeal those. The existing section 42 of the Crimes Act 1900, the section dealing with child destruction, is another section steeped in early law which provides for penalties for contributing to a child's death or preventing it being born alive. This section under the law applies to the period nearer to childbirth.

The simple fact is that under the current system late abortions rarely occur, and that will not change under my amendment to the Crimes Act. The mechanisms that prevent late abortions are already in place. It is not the law that is stopping late abortions; it is women and their doctors. Doctors are not going to act against the interests of women and their unborn babies. Women in the later stages of a pregnancy are not going to seek an abortion because, as a pregnancy progresses, they come to know their unborn child as a person.

Myth No 2 is about backyard abortions. The law that is preventing them now is not affected by this bill; it is the Medical Practitioners Act. The only way we would see a return to backyard abortions is if the current Crimes Act provisions were enforced.

Myth No 3 is about the need for law to enforce counselling. I strongly support counselling. That is why, as the then Health Minister, I allocated extra funding for it. At such a difficult time for a woman, we have to provide the counselling and support needed. In my belief it would be impossible to effectively legislate for it. The problems of defining what counselling is, who is qualified to provide it, and when it is deemed to have been given are complex. I believe that the provisions in the health complaints act which relate to informed consent are a better way to go and, since they cover all medical procedures, are more likely to be successful.

I am not trying to increase the number of abortions done on Canberra women. As I said at the beginning of this speech, I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, accessible and rare. As Health Minister, I increased funding for counselling, demonstrating my commitment to ensuring that women have access to counselling. I do not believe that women will try to use abortion as a means of contraception. To suggest that is to misunderstand what a difficult decision it is to make.

The issue in this bill and the issue on which we all have to focus is the decriminalisation of abortion. The choice for this house is whether archaic laws which provide for up to 10 years jail for a woman and her doctor should remain in place.

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