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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 550 ..

Bill. We cannot really decide at this late hour. People have assumed and asserted and made sweeping statements that a person is a person at the time of birth. That is not so.

There are many conflicting arguments. I do not want to go into the abortion debate because Ms Tucker pointed some things out. I find it very hard that we legislate against life and death, particularly, because I believe that is between the individual, their family and their physician, but I am very concerned that subclause 9 (2) is going to cause us grief down the path.

I think we do not know what we are going in for. We have got very excited around the edges about some of this stuff that will possibly deal with some of the human rights violations that are currently being suffered by people—a minority I would have to say—in this territory. We cannot say it is the majority, but we need to certainly look after the rights of the minority.

Mr Stefaniak is proposing an amendment that is sensible if we must have this bill of rights, which no doubt we are going to have. I am very alarmed at that, and I will keep on saying that, because I am; it is concerning that this is just another example of legislation opening a can of worms. Mr Stanhope stood over there and made some sweeping statements about his position and about how we have responded as an opposition, and I will make my case. I think subclause 9 (2) is wrong in what it says. If that is going to stand, we have to consider the rights of the unborn child; otherwise, we have to remove the subclause altogether.

For me, life begins the moment a male sperm meets a female egg. It is simple; that is life. As Mrs Dunne said, you only have to watch a baby grow inside a mother’s womb; you cannot deny that that is life. Recent research now suggests that that baby within the womb actually feels pain and so forth, and that is scientifically proven. It puts a big question mark over part 3, subclause 9 (2). I am disappointed in it, and, although I do not want to go into the abortion debate, I would implore the crossbenchers to consider very carefully what this really means and, in the fuller context, the conventions and rights of the child.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Stefaniak’s) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

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