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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 1 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 111 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

shame and humiliation on any woman who might find herself with an unwanted pregnancy.

It is also clear from the following sections of the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act that duplication of provisions found elsewhere was included unnecessarily, attempting to create the impression that no protections were provided elsewhere:

Part II-Procedure

6. Abortions must be performed by medical practitioners in approved facilities

7. Abortion must not be provided unless information has been provided

8. What information must be provided

9. Declaration that information has been provided

10. Abortion must not be performed without consent

Part III-Miscellaneous

11. Approval of facilities

12. No obligation on any person to act in relation to abortion

13. Privacy

14. Approval of information pamphlets

15. Quarterly reports from approved facilities

16. Regulations

These provisions are already largely covered by the Medical Practitioners Act 1930, which limits the performance of medical procedures to medical practitioners; the Rogers v Whitaker High Court decision, which requires that information be provided to anyone considering a medical procedure; consent requirements already in place for medical procedures; and inspection and approval requirements already in place for every doctor's surgery and health facility. It has been made clear by the medical community not only that this legislation was unnecessary but also, more importantly, that its implementation had negative effects, not the least being the requirement of the regulations for women to view pictures of unborn foetuses.

As I said earlier, the panel set up under the act was unanimous in recommending against the use of pictures. The committee wrote to the then health minister in May 1999 to advise him:

It is the unanimous view of the panel that the presentation of pictures or drawings of foetuses is irrelevant and in some cases could be counterproductive and cloud the issues. The panel noted that the New Zealand material, which includes pictures is being revised to take into account the perception that pictures may introduce emotional bias.

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