Page 3415 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 14 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
clause that causes the opposition some grief. I will be moving an amendment to remove clause 250 on page 25. This clause retrospectively makes the following authorisation:
… in a medical facility, or a part of a medical facility, approved under a prescribed notified instrument is taken, for all purposes, to have been done in a medical facility, or part of a medical facility, approved under section 30D (1).
People would be aware that most on this side of the house are against retrospectivity in most issues, and we are certainly against the provision of abortion in the territory. This retrospectively validates all the facilities which have to be approved under the act where an abortion may have taken place since it lapsed.
Firstly, these things should not lapse. It is important that we get continuity so everything that is approved is done in compliance with the law. Secondly, as a general principle, it is conscience voting. A number who might choose to speak here today will not be having any truck with things that provide a facility that allow an abortion to take place.
It is a debate, as well you would understand, Mr Speaker, that we have had long and hard in this place on numerous occasions. The current law authorises and allows abortions in the ACT, but I will find it very difficult to vote in this debate for this particular clause that will validate those facilities. With that in mind, I have given the Clerk an amendment. If that can be circulated, I will move the amendment.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.12): This is an omnibus bill which performs a number of functions, as the minister itemised when tabling the bill. I guess it has become fairly clear since the scrutiny of bills committee reported that there may have been a number of things in the bill that are only coming to light now. That highlights the very big problems that occur when a bill is tabled, as this one was, on the last sitting day of a sitting week. Here we are debating it on the first sitting day of the next sitting week.
One of the things that has happened with the scrutiny of bills report is that it shows the enormous, positive role that an assembly of people who are not in the party of government can play in making sure that the legislation that leaves this place is well considered and as good as it possibly can be. I believe that is the role that most members in this house want to see the Assembly taking. We do not want legislation to go out that has embarrassing oversights, as I believe this one did.
I guess this time frame is a product of the squeeze between the time it has taken the medical professions to update their codes of practice and the expiry of existing transitional arrangements that came into place when the act was passed. The problem is that such tight time frames mean that it is almost on the day of debate that the members of the Assembly, and indeed the government, are advised of civil liberties concerns raised by the scrutiny of bills committee. In this case it was an amendment to the Health Professionals Act that gives the presidential member of the Health Professions Tribunal seemingly untrammelled power to issue a warrant to detain a person required to appear before it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .