Page 4161 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 15 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Liberal Party in the ACT do not believe that that is a relevant factor to be taken into account in the sentence that is to be imposed. How remarkable is that!
Amendment 10 would require the ACT courts to regard sentencing practices in other states and territories as a model. This amendment would invoke a plethora of contradictions for the court and unnecessary appeals. It would be almost impossible for ACT courts to reconcile all of the different nuances of sentencing practice in all the states and territories for each ACT sentencing decision.
Amendment 11 would omit the provision that requires the courts to behave proportionally when imposing a good behaviour order. The court could not impose a condition that would be so severe as to compare with imprisonment or a greater punishment. Of course that provision should be retained in its current form. I am disappointed but not a bit surprised by that raft of amendments. They should all be opposed, and the Liberal Party should be exposed for its attitude to human beings. Essentially, that is what I am saying.
Before I sit down, I need to clarify remarks I make before. I did distinctly hear Mr Pratt, speaking on behalf of the opposition, claim that the opposition now supported abortion in appropriate circumstances. They were his very words. That is what the transcript says. I did not know that. I apologised to all members of the opposition for the fact that I did not know that the opposition now supported abortion in appropriate circumstances. Mrs Dunne was here at the time and did not take issue with the fact that Mr Pratt had indicated that the opposition now supported abortion in appropriate circumstances; so I assumed that Mrs Dunne was comfortable with that opposition position.
Mr Stefaniak, however, has now stood—and almost by way of a personal explanation—insisted that, in fact, he does oppose abortion; so I am at somewhat of a loss. I did apologise. In relation to Mr Stefaniak, I do need to withdraw my apology. But the situation we have—and I do feel awkward about this; Mr Pratt, it is in Hansard—is that Mr Pratt’s words were: “The opposition supports abortion in appropriate circumstances.” I did not know that; I did not know a single one of you supported abortion and I have made remarks to that effect. To that extent, it was inappropriate. I apologised.
Having apologised, Mr Stefaniak jumps to his feet and says, “No, I oppose abortion.” I am in an awkward position. I am told that the Liberal Party position on abortion is that the Liberal Party now supports abortion in appropriate circumstances. I assumed—and I erroneously assumed—Mr Pratt was speaking for all seven members. Of course he only needed to be speaking for four. So I apologised to those three members who now do continue to oppose abortion and acknowledge that there are four that support it.
Mrs Dunne was here when Mr Pratt made his remarks; so I assume Mrs Dunne is one of the four. I will leave it at that. I now acknowledge that the Liberal Party supports abortion in appropriate circumstances. Mr Pratt does; Mr Stefaniak does not; I do not know about the other five. Three of them obviously do support it; maybe two do not but maybe they do. I will leave it at that. I will not speak another word on this, other than to say that that was an absolute revelation and an enormous shift. I guess it is the Liberal Party trying to become relevant and trying to respond to the constituency that it pretends to represent. But it is an enormous shift that, within the space of three years, the Liberal Party has moved from a position of total opposition to one of support. I congratulate you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .