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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 987 ..

I welcome that statement because the Chief Minister has recognised that the loophole in law does exist. Putting aside his attack on and misrepresentation of the bill and the motives swirling around the bill, that we have put here today, at least he acknowledges that there is a problem to be addressed. But to date we have seen no action from the government on this problem. Why do we need to wait for the government to look at this new criminal code some time down the track when we know that a problem exists? I would challenge the government to embrace this bill today, so we can take action now to close a loophole and protect women in the ACT and their unborn from now, not from 2005.

In relation to the Chief Minister’s concern about the so-called division or non-division between a mother and foetus, as Mrs Dunne points out, section 42 of the Crimes Act illustrates the fallacy of the Chief Minister’s argument, which is simply not supportable. I illustrate that by pointing out to the Chief Minister a piece of law brought forward by a senior judge in the UK. Lord Hope of Craigshead in 1998, in looking at a case where a woman had been stabbed and her unborn had been killed as a result of that stabbing, said:

It serves to remind us that an embryo is in reality a separate organism from the mother from the moment of its conception. This individuality is retained by it throughout its development until it achieves an independent existence on being born. So the foetus cannot be regarded as an integral part of the mother in the sense indicated by the Court of Appeal, notwithstanding its dependence upon the mother for its survival until birth.

That learned judgment clearly backs up the fact that we cannot simply shut down the idea that life does not begin until after the first breath. The abortion legislation states that women have the right to choose to terminate their pregnancy. This legislation states that women have an equal right to choose to take the pregnancy to term, with anyone who interferes with that in a violent or reckless manner being held accountable for their actions. I commend this bill to the Assembly.

MRS CROSS (3.48): I seek leave to speak. I am sorry, I did not realise Mr Pratt was closing early. I rushed down to get here in time.

MR SPEAKER: This could start a chain of events. If you say something Mr Pratt wants to respond to, he may wish to seek leave as well. Members should keep that in mind when they deal with the question of leave.

Leave granted.

MRS CROSS: Very briefly, this proposed bill has been hanging around for quite a while and it looks as if it is in danger of going off. This bill had its genesis immediately after the successful decriminalisation of abortion in the ACT. When the bill was first raised, only days after the abortion debate in August 2002, I said to the Liberals that it would be seen as simply their way of couching the same debate in a different package; that they had lost the fight; and that if they persevered they would look foolish.

It saddens me to think that some of those who profess great care and concern about the interests and rights of the unborn seem to have great difficulty in showing that same

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