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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2510 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

I think that the relationship of that act with the Crimes Act could actually do with a bit of cleaning up too. We ought to be saying, "It's not on with the Crimes Act, but if section X happens with this Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act, then it's fine." That would give a connection similar to the South Australian one.

The objects of that act, for people who are aware of them, I think, are quite reasonable. But, again, it says that it has to be by a medical practitioner, and has to be an approved facility. The difficulty I have with this legislation is that it actually has not been done properly over the period of time.

Members who were here might remember that I actually moved an amendment to ensure that there were at least three women on the panel that was going to determine this booklet-because I did not think, with the state of the medical profession in the ACT as it was, that there were sufficient medical practitioners who were women. I still hold an absolute opposition to the position of a psychiatrist on that panel. I think that is a blatant insult. Women have a psychological episode, whether it's short or long, sure, but they do not go crazy. They do not require psychiatric treatment. That is another insult. I think that could be replaced with a psychologist or someone with similar qualifications. There is a distinct difference between the two. But, more importantly, the actual product or the work of that panel I don't believe satisfied what I was hoping would come of out the legislation.

I wanted to have information not forced down people's throats, but available. I wanted to have information there that talked about all of the alternatives: carrying to term, abortion, adoption, all the rest-every single thing you can think of about having a child.

Who would be actually providing those services-and some indication as to the sort of trauma that people would go through in either case? I have known as many people who have had children that have gone through trauma as I have people who have had abortions and gone through trauma. But I also wanted an unbiased presentation. I did not want pictures of foetuses and I did not want pictures of coat hangers. I wanted it fair, so that people could pick this up, read it and be aware of all of the alternatives before them. And I include the father in the relationship, if that father wishes to be involved in a partnership of three. Mind you, if the father takes off, he takes his rights with him as far as I am concerned, and good riddance to him.

With respect to Ms Gallagher's bill, I support what Ms Gallagher is trying to do-absolutely. The sadness for me is that it is dependent upon the other bill. I think the points that she is making are quite right. It actually does have similar provisions to those within the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act, which says:

No individual or body is under a duty, whether by contract or by statutory or other legal requirement, to-

(a) perform or assist in performing an abortion; or

(b) provide counselling or advice in relation to an abortion; or

(c) refer a person to another person who will do the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b).

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