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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 985 ..

deterrent. Ms Dundas is therefore quite wrong in asserting that there is no need for this bill because there are provisions under current law that cater for certain offences. I would like Ms Dundas to reflect on that before we vote here today. It is important that we look beyond the first breath of a child when deciding at what point we should be providing legal protection. Section 313 of the Queensland Criminal Code provides:

Any person who, when a female is about to be delivered of a child, prevents the child from being born alive by any act or omission of such a nature that, if the child had been born alive and then dies, the person would be deemed to have unlawfully killed the child, is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for life.

I take that quote from Queensland law as a very clear definition of life and when life begins. That certainly determines that life begins before birth. The code also provides that:

Any person who unlawfully assaults a female pregnant with a child and destroys the life of, or does grievous bodily harm to, or transmits a serious disease to, the child before its birth, commits a crime—maximum penalty, imprisonment for life.

That is a clear indication of how Queensland law determines culpability and responsibility for death of the unborn. I would like members to take those quotes on board.

The legislation we are debating here today provides different degrees of assault and separates the offences, based on whether the perpetrator had prior knowledge that the woman was pregnant, or whether the perpetrator had an intent to kill the unborn child. In that sense this legislation is more comprehensive and flexible than the Queensland example. We are designing a law that has gradations of penalties and that allows our magistrates a broad range of flexibility to judge each case on its merits and take into consideration the sorts of complex issues we have been talking about here today. I commend that to members and ask them to understand that.

I refer to a couple of comments raised during the debate. Ms Dundas regrettably stated that I am merely making a political point by proposing this law. That is perhaps not just a little offensive. The fact is that this is a technical exercise to make sure that the right of defence against wilful harm of the unborn is set in concrete. I would challenge anybody in this place to scrutinise all of my speeches on this issue, and the proposed legislation document, and point out where this is allegedly a smokescreen exercise. [Extension of time granted.]

In this debate today Mr Stanhope said that whether or not this legislation influences others to revisit the abortion debate is irrelevant and is really immaterial. I reject that notion entirely; that is not the purpose of this bill. We have determined that there exists a loophole in law. If the Chief Minister is happy to live with that loophole, that weakness in our legal system, be it on his own head.

I presume that, if the abortion debate is resumed somewhere down the track, the Chief Minister would allow that in terms of democratic principles. I understand that that might happen but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate today or the presentation of this bill. The Chief Minister has shown little regard for the debate on when life starts. He has demonstrated that by the fact that, with his flawed bill of rights, he has enshrined a

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