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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 543 ..

year. Under the charter of the United Nations the threat or use of force by any state against another state except in exercise of the inherent right of self-defence is already prohibited. The committee considers that states have the supreme duty to prevent wars, acts of genocide and other acts of mass violence causing arbitrary loss of life. Every effort they make to avert the danger of war, especially thermonuclear war and to strengthen international peace and security constitute the most important condition and guarantee the safeguarding of the right to life.

In this debate we are starting to take a very narrow view of what we mean by the right to life and when that takes place. There was a lot of debate about when life begins when we debated the right of women to access an abortion in this Territory. Mr Pratt has spoken about a women seven months pregnant. Is he insinuating that at six months that child isn’t alive, or five months, four months, three months, the time of the first visit to the doctor? How far back are we going to go? Everybody has the right to protect their possibility to have more life. I don’t think that that debate is helpful when we are looking at civil and political rights as we are today.

When I first saw the report come down from the consultative committee I too was interested in this clause about the right to life and what it meant for the ACT—especially as we have just gone through a quite extensive debate in relation to abortion. I took time to meet with the people on the consultative committee to work through those concerns. They informed me at the time that the right to life as expressed in the international covenant is something that right to life groups around the world have deplored because it doesn’t help their cause to end abortions. It doesn’t support their aims at all. It supports, and is meant to support, the broader concept of people to be free from harm, from conflict, from another country dropping bombs on their head, which is the main thrust of what is discussed in international covenants.

I am disappointed that we’ve started to skate around the abortion debate again. I thought that issue was settled for the term of this Assembly at least. I can understand where the Attorney-General is coming from in adding subclause (2) to say that the bill applies to a person from the time of birth. It has been agreed, not only by this Assembly but by many courts, that independent life begins when the first breath is taken.

Mr Stanhope: It’s consistent with the common law.

MS DUNDAS: Yes, as the Attorney-General has said, it is consistent with common law. That is all we are reflecting in this part of the legislation. So I guess I’m disappointed that debate has gone down this path. It was something that I was concerned about so I took time to talk to the consultative committee and hear its views. It’s disappointing that despite words from those in the know, the debate has gone the way it has this evening. Subclause 9 (2) is needed in this legislation to make it clear, to put forward that common law principle. I hope the Assembly sees it fit to leave in.

MRS DUNNE (9.07): I support Mr Stefaniak’s amendment. Almost every Assembly since self-government has had a lengthy debate on the availability of abortion in the ACT. So, one would think the question of when life begins would have been thoroughly canvassed. If we look at the Hansards of those debates spreading back through the years we can see that everyone who expressed a view on when life began argued that life began sometime before birth, usually at conception. It doesn’t mean that everyone is

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