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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 963 ..

supporting this? There is no logical difference between that and the separate laws for racial and sexual vilification, which we already have on the statute books.

I cannot see how on earth the Chief Minister can call this ideological and say it is dividing our community. I do not think a law like this remotely divides our community. I would have thought our community is very supportive; it would be a very uncivilised community if it were not. I hope our community is supportive of pregnant women. Throughout history report has been made of pregnant women and the fact that, from time to time, as a result of their condition, special consideration needs to be given to them because they are carrying in their womb—whichever way you want to look at it—a life, a baby that is going to be born.

For the Chief Minister to say that this is ideological and will divide our community is arrant nonsense. I am reading a book, which the Chief Minister read and recommended to me, called Berlin. Horrendous atrocities were committed by both the Nazis and the Soviet forces in the conflict in that city, and reading of that reminded me of dreadful offences against women. Particularly nasty offences occur throughout history in times of conflict. For example, one record shows that “the mother was eight months pregnant, and both she and the child died.”

A sad reference quite often crops up, among atrocities committed throughout history, to pregnant women being murdered and the child in her womb being murdered as well. That is how it is recorded. I think that most people in our community would think it dreadful if someone set out deliberately to hurt a woman who is pregnant—to hurt the unborn child and to hurt the woman as well.

Mr Pratt is seeking to overcome a gap. The Chief Minister himself has actually indicated that there is a gap in the law. “But don’t you worry. We’ll fix that. We’ll put that in with part 5 of our criminal code. Sorry, we’re going to do that next year. There’s no need for this. Mr Pratt, you can just wait. It doesn’t matter about this. We will do it properly; we will do it better.”

Mrs Dunne: And the mothers of Canberra can wait.

MR STEFANIAK: Exactly. My colleague Mrs Dunne says, “The mothers of Canberra can wait.” Mr Pratt is seeking to introduce a law that will offer some protection to women and their unborn children in that situation. I do not expect this will be used very often in the ACT—then again, a lot of our laws are not. But that is no reason not to bring in laws, and this will offer some form of protection.

All right, in 12 months time it may be gazumped by part 5 of the criminal code—whether it is Mr Stanhope who brings it in or whether it is this side, if we happen to get into government in October.

Mrs Dunne: It’ll be you, won’t it, Bill?

MR STEFANIAK: It might well be me bringing that in. I would be quite happy to; I brought in part 1 of the criminal code. That sounds eminently sensible. And yes, the whole code might be a bit more comprehensive. It is. We will be doing part 3 tomorrow,

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