Page 2566 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, accessible and rare. Abortion is and will always be a controversial issue in the community. I accept this, and I want to make it clear in introducing this Bill that I accept those strongly held views. All I ask is that you consider the question: Should we ignore the reality of 80,000 abortions which occurred across Australia last year? Should we accept that on a strict interpretation of the law many of these women and their doctors would be threatened by a gaol sentence?
Abortion itself, of course, remains a controversial issue which appears irreconcilable. I know this; but I ask for acceptance of the fact that abortions, legal or otherwise, will continue to occur. Regardless of anyone's views on the moral question, we have the collective responsibility to ensure that we cannot be charged with turning a blind eye to the reality of ACT women having access to abortion and at the same time running the risk of criminal sanctions.
As you all know, I feel very strongly about this issue; and it is my commitment to law reform in this area which has led me to my actions today. It is a woman's right to choose whether or not she has an abortion, and most in the community accept this position. It is worth while to look at how we got to this position. The Crimes Act 1900, which I seek to amend with this Bill, has three sections which make an abortion illegal - sections 42, 43 and 44. They provide a penalty of up to 10 years in prison for a woman who procures her own abortion; for someone, say a doctor, who performs an abortion; and for someone, say a pharmacist, who provides drugs which may be used to perform an abortion.
Our Crimes Act is modelled on the New South Wales Crimes Act, which in turn was based on the United Kingdom's Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Let us now consider how things were in 1861 when this law was put in place in the United Kingdom. Women in those days were considered the property of their fathers until that possession was transferred to the women's husbands. 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 the Parliament in the United Kingdom until 1919, and they did not get to vote until 1928.
In Australia we were much more progressive. Women were granted the vote in 1902, but the Crimes Act was passed in 1900. Things have changed since then, and the attitudes that prevailed in 1861 are, thankfully, a thing of the past. The way the changes in community attitudes have been recognised is through the court. Rulings by judges have meant that the Crimes Act 1900 has not been enforced. I do not know about you, but I have moved along a bit since the 1950s. This law has not moved since the 1900s, though in practice much has changed.
We cannot ignore, however, that court rulings may be altered by later decisions. I think this was demonstrated starkly by the recent Newman ruling in New South Wales. In that decision, members may recall, Judge Newman reaffirmed that under the Crimes Act abortion is illegal. Of course, that began alarm bells ringing all around the country. We have relied on the Menhennitt ruling and the Levine ruling, which are well known by people who are concerned about this area of the law, for over 20 years; and now a judge in a higher court has reminded us that the illegality is still there.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .