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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2564 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

The last of my opponents on this matter, Mr Humphries, has used those same values to put together his argument. If I can put it bluntly, he brought his silkiest tongue with him today. Yes, it is true that abortion in the ACT is covered by a mixture of the common law and statute law. But what Mr Humphries probably missed in my speech-and I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he overlooked this bit-is that Judge Newman ruled in New South Wales in about 1994 in respect of abortion in relation to a damages matter which had been bought before his court. This was under the New South Wales Crimes Act, from which the ACT Crimes Act is a direct lift. He said that abortion in New South Wales was illegal, unlawful, against the law, a criminal act.

Shortly after that, I made the first moves to decriminalise abortion in the ACT because of those very obvious connections. I introduced legislation into this Assembly in 1994, but because there were insufficient numbers here to pass that legislation, I never proceeded with it.

Since then there have been some other events which have strengthened my resolve to deal with this issue. The first was in Western Australia, where an abortion matter was directed to the police. The Western Australian parliament was involved in consideration of that issue and provided a legal way for abortion to occur in that state, given the previously existing criminal nature of access to that procedure. I remember at the time sending a copy of my 1994 bills to the Labor member of the Western Australian parliament who first pursued the matter.

Some years after that, the performance of abortions in Tasmania was referred to the police or the DPP. That has been mentioned here tonight. Women were forced to go interstate for abortions because for a time they were held up. They were held up because the contention was that it was a criminal offence to conduct an abortion in Tasmania. Of course medical practitioners would not perform the procedure against that background. I say to members in this place that it is open for that to occur in the ACT. That would take us back 10 years to a point when about 1,600 women per year were forced to travel interstate to get access to the procedure.

Mr Humphries has tried to lighten the impact of this legislation against the weight of the legislation as it exists and against the weight of events which have occurred throughout Australia in relation to abortion.

Those of us who support a woman's right to choose know that our opponents who campaign against abortion at any time are working hard to prevent abortions from occurring in any event. It is a matter that we have to contend with, whether or not this legislation passes tonight. Even if it passes tonight, this campaign will continue. We have to be vigilant about protecting well into the future any gains that are made. The campaign will not be over. It is driven, on one hand, by religious fervour and, on the other, by a firm concern about the issue of abortion.

What pains me most about the legislation as it exists in the ACT is that it attempts to create the impression that a woman is a lesser person if she has an abortion. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to any right-minded person in the ACT. It is particularly unacceptable for those of us who have progressive views on this issue and for those who have been fighting the campaign for such a long time.

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