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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2595 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

provided to a woman facing this decision so that in the solitude of her own heart she could make the best decision she could.

I know that every single woman who has ever faced it and ever will face it will do just that. But we can help her in that process. The only thing that did not sit well with me was whether or not it should be in the statute or not. I thought, "What is the problem?" They are provided with sufficient information. The list that Ms Tucker gave us satisfied most of the needs I have. It challenges the initial decision by asking, "Have you got it right?" A woman can then say, "Yes, I have, and I am going to the next step."

I thought, "Should we put it in a statute?" Whether it is in a regulation or an act matters not to me. The point made was that we did not have to, because it was being done. It is normal for somebody to go along to a doctor or to the clinic. As an aside, if there is any threat to the clinic, I will stand with the clinic.

We regulate an enormous amount of minutiae in this town. We regulate the diameter of a tree that we can cut down. We regulate residential boundaries to the inch. A chap speaking to the other day has 50-millimetre encroachment on his neighbour's yard. It happened inadvertently. Now he is being asked to go the considerable expense to move back. Why is that? It is in a statute that he cannot do it. We go to that level of detail for issues not concerned with people's lives, so for issues concerned with people's lives we can do the same.

There are two reasons why we have statutes. One is to say to people, "These are the absolute minimum and you are going to stick to them or we are going to belt you." The other one is to give guidance to people by saying, "This is what society feels at this point." Over time as society changes, those things move. At the moment, we are moving, and it is a matter for our collective judgment how far we move.

If we can regulate the diameter of the wheel on a vehicle or the width or length of an axle on a vehicle, are we going to walk away from regulating or at least putting in a statute the minimum standard of information that society expects? It is a bit wrong.

I moved an amendment to the composition of the panel last time to make sure that there were at least three women on it. I would have gone for four, except that I did not get the agreement of the then government. I am still opposed to a psychiatrist being on that panel. I think that is absolutely insulting.

We should be saying to the people on the panel, "Reinvigorate yourselves. Do it again. It is not good enough." I do not think the mandatory information provided in the booklet matches the stuff Ms Tucker referred to.

When I checked out what information was given to people, I was not satisfied that it gave an unbiased presentation. When the pictures of foetuses were put in, that was a deliberate attempt to influence-I hesitate to use the word "blackmail"-people to take a certain direction. I was opposed to that, and I remain opposed.

We should not be doing away with this piece of legislation. We should be making it work. If we are not happy with it, let us not toss it in the rubbish bin. Let us make it work.

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