Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 2930 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Ms Tucker asks, "Can you explain why it is good law to regulate an activity which is illegal?". That is a pretty good question. I think I can answer that one. A lot of the questions I cannot answer but this one I think I can answer. They do not have the courage to decriminalise it. That is the one I can answer. They would be on entirely different ground if it were not for that criminal law. "What will this mean for medical practitioners who are being regulated whilst doing an illegal act?". I do not know Ms Tucker. I do not think anybody else does either. "How do you advise them to deal with this?". I do not know. "What is the implication of the mention in the Crimes Act in the preamble to this legislation?". I do not know. "How have you come to this position and who did you consult with?". I do not know that either. "What are the implications of the term `approved facility'?". I do not know. "Are you going to amend this legislation now to take into account the comments from scrutiny of Bills, such as the definition of parent being unclear?". I am not sure. I have seen a mound of amendments but I do not know whether they address the issue or not. "Why do you believe it is appropriate to only give risks of abortion and not risks of having the child?". Nobody has explained that.

This is the very point that we discussed earlier today. How is it that we can call ourselves responsible law-makers when none of us really know what we are doing in relation to these laws? Mrs Carnell has a version of pro-choice that not many of us from the pro-choice movement would ascribe to. My long-serving and skilled friend Mr Kaine has a version of how we should deal with legislation. According to him, we should not oppose things in principle, it seems. I think we are going to be at odds on that for some time, my friend.

Mr Kaine: Just produce your amendments, Wayne.

MR BERRY: I do not intend to amend it. The amendments that I have seen are as appalling as the legislation itself. I do not support them. You will not see my vote going with legislation that goes out of this place containing those sorts of amendments. I do not support that approach.

Many questions remain unanswered. In fact, there has been no attempt at all to address them. I find that disturbing. This Bill is anti-abortion and anti-choice. That is the sentiment of the people who have moved it and many who support it. No amendments will change that. Anyone who is pro-choice cannot vote for the Bill and really should not support legislation which contains the proposed amendments. (Further extension of time granted) The Bill recognises the provisions of the Crimes Act. It specifically acknowledges that abortion is a crime but seeks to restrict and regulate it. This is contradictory. What sorts of law-makers are we? Let us go back a year or so to when Mr Moore was talking about euthanasia legislation. Is it possible to come up with some sort of regulatory framework which makes special regulations in this sort of form which might enable us to consider euthanasia in some mysterious way? I do not know.

This is bad law, because it is not law that deals with the problem that faces us. Any member who supports this Bill will demonstrate their unwillingness to think about the issue, their unwillingness to be properly informed and their unwillingness to accept their responsibility. Sound law should come from this place and mean something to those we legislate for, in this case the women of the ACT and other women who come to the Territory for services provided quite legitimately.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .