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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2581 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Of course we would require a cooling-off period. We require a cooling-off period of 10 days for a purchase made from a door-to-door salesman in the territory-10 days, Mr Deputy Speaker-yet we are not prepared to countenance a three-day cooling-off period in respect of the conduction of an abortion. Goodness me!

Ms Gallagher: You do not know you are going to buy something for four weeks. You cannot draw a conclusion from that!

MR HUMPHRIES: I agree there is no comparison between those things. But if the law says we have to give people the chance to take 10 days to think about whether they should buy a vacuum cleaner, why should we not have a provision which requires someone to spend just three days thinking about whether it is appropriate to have an abortion? Of course we support the collection of statistics in other, equivalent, circumstances, but not here-not in respect of women contemplating abortion.

Let me explode one of the myths that have been repeated again and again in the context of this debate. That is the myth that, at the present time, women are required to look at pictures of foetuses before they have an abortion. This legislation has been in place since 1998, and the provision to look at pictures of foetuses was repealed more than six months ago. In this legislation, there is not necessarily a requirement-

Mr Berry: But it is enabling legislation.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, it does enable it. This Assembly has the ability to disallow regulation which includes, in the information which goes to women contemplating abortions, the showing of foetuses. If the Assembly today repeals the Health Regulation (Maternal Health Information) Act, there is no capacity to require women to be given or shown anything before they make that decision. There is no requirement that they be shown information about the process, or the effect on them, of this procedure. There is no requirement that they be given information about counselling services-whether counselling before an abortion is conducted, or support services if they choose to continue their pregnancy. There is no requirement whatsoever.

There is no requirement to give women information about where they may turn to. I cannot believe members are so prepared to dispense with those requirements when I imagine that, in equivalent circumstances, we would be rushing to protect and support people making such major decisions. Apparently it does not matter. If it can be viewed as somehow standing in the way of a person proceeding to obtain their abortion, then we do not want it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the arguments used here have been utterly fallacious and are without a basis in common sense. The suggestion has been made that putting these requirements on women interferes with the autonomy women have over their own bodies-that the Assembly is legislating to do things in respect of women's bodies that it has no right to do. That is nonsense.

In November 1995, I introduced legislation in this place which did precisely that. It interfered directly and very substantially with the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies. What is more, that legislation was supported by women's groups across the territory, and by every member of this chamber. That was, of course,

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