Page 3663 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Other issues that arise in the Powers of Attorney Bill, which Mr Stefaniak touched on, are in relation to sections 35, 36 and 37. These mean that, by a circuitous definitional structure, it is possible that a bill allows for an attorney to authorise an abortion for or sterilisation of a principal with impaired decision-making powers if such a determination forms part of health care without which an organic malfunction or disease of the principal is likely to cause serious or irreversible damage to the principal’s physical health. These are fairly thorny issues that arise almost inevitably when there is a discussion about sterilisation and termination. I am concerned that this may not be an appropriate standard of evidence for a grave decision. This is the case with all legislation in the ACT.
There is no-one in this decision-making process to take the part of the unborn child. In fact, the advice provided by the officials says that there is no need to include principals in the right to life because the need does not arise; that no power of attorney is exercised over a child; nor does the guardianship tribunal have powers to exercise intervention on behalf of an unborn child.
There are circumstances here that we, as members of the opposition, are concerned about. We will be watching very carefully the administration of these provisions to ensure that they are appropriately applied. As this legislation is rolled out and is informed by day-to-day practice, we will keep that in mind with the possibility of considering amendments to these provisions.
We understand that the guardianship tribunal provides some safeguards, but it will not necessarily provide enough safeguards in an emergency—for instance, when a pregnant woman is involved in an accident and a decision has to be made, possibly rapidly, or there may be an imperative to make a decision rapidly. There are some concerns here which I flag—not for amendment or excision—as matters that, as legislators, we should be vigilant on in this particular matter.
I echo the call of Dr Foskey to ensure that there is very active involvement of the key players in the formulation of the documentation that makes this legislation work. I agree with Dr Foskey that I think we are falling out of one habit. When we introduce a piece of legislation that has complex documentation underpinning it, it would be better for the legislators to see it. We can then have a discussion about the whole raft of instruments that hang off it. They are integral to the effective operation of this legislation, and we will be coming at it in dribs and drabs. I echo Dr Foskey’s call for the Assembly to be able to revisit the documentation by way of leaving open the possibility of disallowance if members of the community are not satisfied with the documentation.
I think that, for the most part, it is a good step forward. But it is one that needs to be closely monitored by all of the community and us particularly, as legislators, to ensure that it does what it is supposed to do and does not unduly infringe upon people’s rights. I suppose it is a cautious endorsement of the bill, and a call for the minister and all of us to be vigilant about its application.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (11.04), in reply: I thank members for their support. I would like to address a couple of items in closing the in-principle stage of the debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .