Page 352 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (12.21): I want to respond briefly to the position put that it is important we acknowledge that the law changes. Certainly, the law does change and Mr Stefaniak pursued this point. There is within the Criminal Code of the ACT and every crimes act around Australia—and similar criminal provisions within the United Kingdom and other common law countries—a provision which Mr Stefaniak referred to, namely, section 10 of the ACT code, which provides that the criminal law, as it imposes offences against the person, applies from the moment of birth.
Mr Stefaniak went to a couple of instances of offences specifically against very young children—that is, at the time of birth or after birth but, nevertheless, those that fall within the description of a life in being, as defined within section 10. Mr Stefaniak says, “Well this might be the law now around Australia and the United Kingdom and in other places around the world, but the law moves, the law changes.” And, indeed, the law does change.
There was a significant change in the law three years ago—and this is relevant to the amendment moved today by the Liberal Party—when this parliament decriminalised abortion in the ACT. We removed the offence of abortion from the criminal law. And the law moved; the law changed. The law in relation to abortion in the ACT reflects this community’s view and attitude to a woman’s right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. So the legislation did develop, it did move. The point is, Mr Stefaniak—and I also make this point to members of the opposition in the Liberal Party in this place in relation to the amendment that we have been debating today—that that change in the law does not accord with your views. You opposed that change in the law. You opposed that development in the law. You opposed the fact that this parliament removed abortion from the criminal law.
So do not stand up and say, “Well, the law can change, the law develops.” It certainly does and in this place it changed quite dramatically. It changed in accordance with this community’s views around the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy by removing from the Criminal Code the criminal offence of abortion. That significant change was made in recent history in this parliament, in this place, and your amendment today seeks to undo that change. My plea to you is to be open, transparent and honest with this community that your amendment seeks to redefine the moment that life commences so far as the criminal law is concerned. We can argue forever about when life commences. It has been determined that the criminal law in respect of offences against people applies from the moment a child is born, becomes a separate being, a separate personality, and it does not commence at some stage during the nine months, the time in utero, or from the moment of conception.
You might say that the amendment seeks to exclude a woman’s right to abortion. But the two cannot sit together, and you know that very well. If you are being honest with yourselves, you would know in your hearts that this amendment and your two previous attempts to introduce this change are designed to change the way in which the criminal law applies to people. You are seeking through your amendment to deem at least as a matter of law that life commences and that a person to whom the criminal law might apply comes into existence from the moment of conception. You cannot create a law
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .