Page 3850 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
One would have thought that with a day left in the Assembly there would be more relevant matters for this place to consider. I hate this business of laws being brought in and rushed through like we are seeing with this important workplace legislation tomorrow. I think the people of Canberra would expect us to be more preoccupied with giving appropriate consideration to those matters than getting into an argy-bargy of gamesmanship.
The timing of this motion has, I am sure, got somewhat to do with the introduction of changes in the Victorian parliament, which I understand occurred last week, and I note that the Speaker made a trip, at taxpayers’ expense, to the Victorian parliament to discuss this issue. The motion and the use of the Assembly’s time is as much use, as far as I am concerned, as that expenditure was. I understand the Victorian legislation differs from the ACT’s. I understand that abortion is being decriminalised up to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. After that point an abortion will only be allowed if multiple doctors sign off on it. I think in that regard the Liberal Party amendment does not really reach a point that is consistent with that new position in Victoria, so I have got issues with the amendment.
The compromise in Victoria reflects the complexity of this issue, the different views in play and, by extension, the extreme nature of the ACT’s position. I would be the first to acknowledge that this is a divisive issue in both parliament and in the community. I have had arguments, like Mr Stefaniak has had, with friends who favour—particularly some of my American friends, who are great advocates of this—what they call the pro-choice position: “it is the right of the woman; nobody else ought to interfere”.
We just heard Dr Foskey get up and announce this position: this is all women’s business and nobody else has a say. If you are a parent, as I am, of four children and have sensed the movement of a baby before birth, I struggle, frankly, not to see a life there. There is more than one perspective on this particular issue. I personally believe in the protection of life.
This motion calls on the current Assembly to reaffirm its support for the law’s reform, including the decriminalisation of abortion in the ACT. I do not know what I am being asked to reaffirm because I was not here and I am not about to reaffirm something that I was not part of and did not previously vote for.
But to address the specific points in Mr Gentleman’s motion briefly, the first element refers to the right to choose. As I have said, I place greater emphasis on the right to life, and I must say that it is somewhat ironic that, for a government that prides itself on human rights, one of the most basic of all human rights—that is, life—is ignored in a self-congratulatory motion.
I am disappointed that the Liberal Party has, I think, assisted this government in turning this into a political issue. I would have liked to see the opposition leader here throughout this debate because it has played, frankly, somewhat into the government’s hands. It is a political stunt on the eve of the completion of this term of the Assembly.
The main issue, as far as I am concerned, is that when you come to placing an emphasis on a right to choose, when it comes to another human life, it does create a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .