Page 3421 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 14 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not a majority view in this place, who have serious reservations about our abortion laws and have a conscientious objection to abortion. That is where some of the concern lies, and some of the concern lies in terms of retrospectivity.
Generally in terms of the amount of detail in this quite significant piece of legislation and the short time frame for debating it—Dr Foskey, who no doubt has views different from mine on this issue, highlighted this—there may well be other things that have been missed. That is certainly my concern. I think the committee had concerns around that, and Dr Foskey has concerns around that.
For the sake of good legislation we should not be afraid to put it up for scrutiny. We should not be afraid, as a community, to debate these issues, even where they are contentious—and clearly some of these issues are contentious. Issues around arbitrary detention and issues around abortion are contentious. We should not be pushing through an omnibus bill without any real mention in the tabling documents, and certainly in the tabling speeches, of some of the serious issues. I put those concerns on the record, and I flag my support for Mr Smyth’s amendment.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.35): I am speaking today about the absolute failure of scrutiny of the government to put forward a bill which has such glaring and appalling errors in it as we see in this bill. Let us read it. The new clause 59A, which the government now proposes to withdraw, says:
If a person who is given a notice under section 59 (1) does not appear before the tribunal as required, the presidential member may issue a warrant to detain the person. A warrant authorises the detention of the person named in the warrant; and the bringing of the person before the tribunal; and—
Get this one, Mr Speaker—
the detention of the person at the place stated in the warrant until the person is released by order of the tribunal.
What happened to habeas corpus, minister? This is the most appalling failure of this minister and her department. Did this minister ever read her cabinet submission? Did she ever read the piece of legislation she was putting forward? Did the Attorney-General, when his department signed off on the human rights compliance, ever read this legislation? What we have here is lock them up and throw away the key. If somebody who is the president of a tribunal—
Ms Gallagher: Who is a magistrate, who has Supreme Court oversight.
MRS DUNNE: Not in his capacity as a magistrate but in his capacity as a member of a tribunal that oversees the professional registration and complaints against professionals—not for any criminal matter necessarily. Because somebody did not turn up or did not have the right documents, this minister was prepared to introduce it into here and pass a piece of legislation that has these draconian powers in it.
Dr Foskey and Mr Smyth have pointed out other elements, where section 130C (1) (b) (ii) makes it an offence for a pharmacist to prescribe matters in relation to menstrual problems. The officials and the advisers were tittering. These are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .