Page 2343 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 2 August 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
So I thank Ms Cheyne for bringing this important matter to the attention of the Assembly today. As Mrs Jones says, there is always, unfortunately, more work to do until women and girls are treated equally. It is my hope that, having now a majority of women elected into this place, we can continue that work and together make a special effort to ensure that the rights of women and girls are more equal and that we are a better city, a more equal city—indeed a more equal world—for the work that we do in this place.
People will know my views on this very important matter. I want to take a few moments to reminisce a little and talk through some of the debates in this place in 2002, when a number of bills were introduced into the Assembly to remove the crime of abortion from the Crimes Act 1900, to ensure that abortions could be carried out in a registered medical facility.
Much of this information has been sourced from Hansard, but also from conversations with the person who moved that motion and changed that regulation here in the ACT. I imagine that the argument would still hold relevance for members today. The Crimes Act, before the reform was enacted, had a penalty of up to 10 years in prison for a woman who procured her own abortion. For someone such as a doctor who performed an abortion, or for someone such as a pharmacist who provided drugs which may be used to perform an abortion, the penalty was 10 years’ prison regardless of a woman’s circumstances. Ten years in jail—it is unbelievable. And it is unbelievable that it continues to be the case in other states and territories regardless of the circumstances of a woman or the choices that she would make to procure an abortion.
Our Crimes Act was modelled on the New South Wales Crimes Act, which was in turn based on the United Kingdom’s Offences Against The Person Act 1861. Wayne Berry MLA, my father, pointed out in his speech that in 1861, when this law was put in place:
Women ... were considered the property of their father until that possession was transferred to their husband. Continuing the family line—that is, bearing children—was considered essential. Women did not work outside the home. Women were not allowed to own property until 1870. Women could not become members of parliament in the United Kingdom until 1919, and they did not get the vote until 1928.
In Australia, of course, women got to vote in 1902.
His point was that many things have changed since 1861. Women are no longer considered just items of property that procreate for the good of their community or family. Women can now vote, they can stand for election, they can work, they can own property, and they can make decisions about their lives and their bodies.
A great example of how much women have achieved is that we have a majority of women in here. Yet we still find ourselves defending the right of women to retain
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video