Page 270 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
into creating a society where violence is less likely to happen and where the children who are chosen and wanted have access to good health, education and social services, because all these things create an environment where we are going to have healthier children, healthier adults and less domestic violence. Let us realise that this bill is just one part of a suite of efforts to reduce violence against women and to safeguard wanted pregnancies.
This bill appears to be the result of some high-profile cases involving assaults on pregnant women, and we have seen New South Wales legislation, which may have been a model for this legislation, being prepared in response. In one of these cases, the victim lost her child in utero as a result of an assault by the father of her child. This case proceeded through the courts and resulted in the Court of Criminal Appeal finding in December 2003 that the close physical connection between a pregnant woman and her child in utero means that the loss of that child can constitute grievous bodily harm to the pregnant woman even if there is no other injury to her.
That was to some degree an historic finding, for it legally recognised the close physical bond between a pregnant woman and her foetus and that any harm done to that foetus is done to the pregnant woman. New South Wales responded by passing the Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Bill in 2005, extending the definition of grievous bodily harm to include the harm done to a pregnant woman’s foetus.
The ACT version goes further than that of New South Wales. It redefines a number of other levels of harm and provides for lengthier sentencing options. Whilst on the whole I am happy with the ACT version, I would appreciate an explanation from the Attorney-General as to why he felt the need to take it further. We must proceed with caution when considering this bill, due to its strong connection with the previously mentioned high-profile cases and the problems that arise when moving from the specific to the general. We must be wary to ensure that, as a result of our actions, we do not allow for injustice to occur in unforeseen circumstances.
This legislation has been very carefully phrased in order not to reopen the abortion debate. I think that the debates up on the hill show that, on the whole, the Australian legislatures are made up of people who still support a woman’s right to choose. Our reproductive and health rights were won over decades of struggle and it is very disappointing to see that that struggle continues, but we will not surrender to those who wish to impose their own ideological or religious agendas on women’s bodies. Mr Pratt mentioned a number of times the Queensland legislation as a model, but I think he might be disappointed because, in fact, it has never been used to challenge a woman’s right to abortion. So, even though it goes further than this legislation, no-one has yet used it in that way.
This bill touches on life and death, and that demands scrutiny. Consequently, I thank the officers who briefed both us and Mr Pratt and his staff and who went away after that briefing and, I believe, partly as a result of that—no doubt we will hear of it from the Chief Minister when he presents it—produced an amendment that shows that there was a responsiveness to the concerns that were expressed by some of us at the briefing.
Even though this bill is, I think, very careful about protecting the human rights of women and does not open the door to those who wish to see it as a way of fighting women’s
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .