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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 2790 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

Mr Osborne's compromise Bill, and it was debated at some length there. I think the clear intent of a majority of the members of the Assembly at that time was that the material referred to in subsection 14(4) of the Act would be provided. I think that intention could be shown also when one looks at section 8. Maybe the use of the word "may" in subsection 14(4) is unfortunate - I do not know - but it is something that I think needs clarification. Whilst it would have been nice perhaps if this panel had just come up with some pictures, it has not, and that has led us back to discussing this matter in this place.

Quite clearly the intent and expectation of the majority of the members of the Assembly was that part of the information that would be given to women - the panel would look at it and make sure it was appropriate information - would include pictures or drawings and descriptions of the anatomical and physiological characteristics of a foetus at regular intervals. There was a lot of debate last November in this place in relation to that. The debate ranged about the appropriateness of that. My recollection, quite clearly, is that the majority of members thought that would be appropriate and that the panel would have some suitable material.

We have had further debate too, Mr Speaker, about what is suitable material. I think the Chief Minister has made her point known in the lead-up to this debate today as to what she felt was not suitable, was highly emotive and was not appropriate. There seemed to be a consensus, though, that the material which New Zealand used was suitable and, accordingly, I understand that that is what my colleagues have proposed. That was proposed after discussion with a number of people in terms of what was suitable. Given, Mr Speaker, that we have this legislation, given that there was a clear intent that women be provided with material, including, I would submit, pictures and drawings and descriptions, it is appropriate for my two colleagues to bring forward these regulations.

My views, substantively on the question of abortion, I think are well known. However, in terms of this particular matter, I think the majority of the Assembly on the last occasion quite clearly expected that appropriate pictures and drawings would be included. Accordingly, I think Mr Berry's motion to delete that is inappropriate. There are times when all members in this house will have to vote on issues on which we are not expert. You cannot expect in a small house of 17 members to have people who have had experience in every single walk of life that is relevant in terms of any legislation or regulations that come before this house. We have to exercise our commonsense on other issues and, of course, we have to exercise our conscience. We also have to look very carefully at what was expected. In a situation like this, I submit, we would certainly have to look very carefully at what the majority of the Assembly expected on the last occasion. I think that should give considerable guidance to members who may be having difficulty in terms of this particular issue of pictures.

I have always indicated that I am anti-abortion, but, putting aside any personal opinion of mine, just on this issue of the pictures of foetuses, quite clearly, I think the expectation of the majority of members on the last occasion, and perhaps the expectation of most members as they walked away, was that appropriate pictures would be included in the information given to women who are considering a termination of their pregnancy. Accordingly, Mr Speaker, I will be voting against Mr Berry's motion.

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