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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 545 ..

even worse than that—the idea, as we have said in other places, that you can stand up and declare the most fundamental human rights and in the next breath you take it away.

This is what the Chief Minister does here. Everyone has a right to life, in particular no-one may arbitrarily be deprived of life. “Arbitrarily” is an interesting word there. Then the next clause arbitrarily takes that right away from anyone who hasn’t had the fortune to be born. Perhaps this qualification is not intended to mean that unborn children lose the right to life, but rather the government doesn’t care whether they have it or not, and they are simply excluded from consideration. Does that scare you, Mr Speaker? I know it scares me, and I know it scares a whole lot of other people. Who will be the next to be excluded from their rights? We can only wonder.

My own views on the beginning of life accord with all of those members who have expressed a view on the matter during a lot of debates in this place. Life begins at conception, and I think that the right to life is the most fundamental human right and cannot be unilaterally abrogated by governments, even this one. I’m not seeking to amend this bill to impose this view. I think a human rights bill, if we must have one, should enshrine principles which are broadly agreed in the community. It is clear in this area that there is no community consensus, and thus the legislation in this area should be considered on its own merits and not be pre-empted. Ms Dundas made the point that we don’t want to narrow the interpretation, but clause 9 (2) does just that. If a clause said everyone has the right to life, that would be broad, but by imposing clause 9 (2) we actually limit it; we do what Ms Dundas says we don’t want to do.

If we want to decide matters affecting the rights of the unborn, as we have done on numerous occasions in this place, let us have the debate at the substantive level. The Chief Minister contends that we have done it and that’s the end of it, but having a debate about whether someone has access to abortion or whether one should be charged for a criminal offence by accessing abortion does not take away the fundamental issue. It might be uncomfortable for members here, but the fundamental issue about when life begins was not legislated away on that day, or on any of the occasions that we have debated abortion in this place. No-one can put their hand on their heart and say they have never felt the pregnant belly of a woman and say that is not a life. It might be inconvenient, but it is a life, and it begins long before birth.

MS TUCKER (9.15): I will speak briefly on this matter. I refer members to part 2 of the Crimes Act “Offences against the person”—this is not introducing something new. Paragraph 10 is headed “When child born alive” and states:

For this part, a child shall be taken to have been born alive if he or she has breathed and has been wholly born, whether or not he or she has had an independent circulation.

Under Australian law a foetus in utero cannot be the victim of any kind of homicide, regardless of the stage of pregnancy at which it is killed. A foetus can only be the victim of murder or manslaughter if it is born in a living state. Also, just on the question of international conventions and the rights discussion, which is what this debate is about, in signing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Australia undertook to respect and ensure that all individuals in Australia have all the rights of the ICCPR (Article 2). The ICCPR contains some key provisions which are denied to women

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