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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 549 ..

international covenant, I will personally stand up and remind you that, when it suited you, you removed the protection for the unborn that is recognised in at least three documents by the reading of these documents here tonight.

The Chief Minister claims that he has got advice that it doesn’t matter. Any clear reading of that says it does. Perhaps the Chief Minister would like to come back and expand on the advice instead of giving his stock standard answer, “I’ve got advice that it doesn’t count. You’re wrong and I’m right.” It doesn’t wash, Chief Minister. You are talking about life, about a time-honoured declaration. We should be removing this section tonight.

MS DUNDAS (9.27): I will be brief as I have already put my views forward on this. I would like to correct some assertions made by the Leader of the Opposition. He spoke about the International Convention on the Rights of the Child and the right of the child to legal protection before and after birth. My understanding—and I believe it is widely recognised—is that this particular section of the preamble is retrospective. The right to legal protection before and after birth is granted to a child. It is used in cases where chemicals are used around pregnant mothers and the child is then born with birth defects. That is the major example that I can think at the moment. That is how it is being used in international law time and time again. The International Convention of the Rights of the Child is something that I have done a bit of work on. It has been recognised across nations that that particular section is retrospective.

Once a child is born, once they have taken breath, they are granted the protection and the right to argue their case if, through some form of action, they have been damaged when in the womb. Mr Smyth is claiming to be an expert on international law—

Mr Smyth: I did not claim that. You should withdraw that.

MS DUNDAS: Sorry, I withdraw. He did not claim he was an expert on international law; he said that if we pass this law today that we are giving up on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Quite clearly we are not; we are supporting the rights of children. Mr Smyth needs to go back and look at the rights of the child and at the work that has been done around the rights of the child, as opposed to just reading the document out of context, and look at how international law has recognised that this is retrospective, that rights are granted once a child has taken breath.

MRS BURKE (9.30): I just want to make a couple of comments on what we have heard. I have sat listening to the debate and the whole thing has caused me great alarm because, whilst I have said that the rights of a human being are paramount and everybody deserves to have rights, I am very concerned about part 3, subclause 9 (2), in particular, about right to life. Ms Dundas was saying about the debate becoming narrow. Well, it is a sweeping and broad statement in that subclause:

This section applies to a person from the time of birth.

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Smyth, has put the case forward very clearly and articulately that we cannot decide in this place. That is a given; there are many views about that. Mr Stanhope says we have been working away for two years at this bill. It is interesting to note how it moved from being called a bill of rights to a Human Rights

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