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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Wednesday, 10 March 2004) . . Page.. 966 ..

demonstrate. Veins, calcification and other things are happening, and we do not call it a human life.

We think we are all on safe ground when we can stand up and say, “That’s all right. It has to be unaided from the mother.” Why do we give death certificates then? We all know that babies in the womb kick and express emotion. We have heard research from America, which perhaps challenges your personal position, Mr Speaker. They are now suggesting that unborn children are given medication so that they do not feel pain before evacuation or abortion.

Whilst there are huge uncertainties for some people in this place, I fully believe and understand where life begins. It took me a long while in my life to realise where life begins. I have had a miscarriage in my life and looked into why that happened. I have also talked to women who have lost babies and had miscarriages. I do not want to go down that track, but I do want to protect unborn children. They have rights, too. Why do we give death certificates if they do not?

While we are so uncertain about when life begins, how can we not safely implement Mr Pratt’s Crimes Amendment Bill? What is the harm in doing so? I am sure that any level-headed person would err on the side of the precautionary principle. This is an extremely sensible approach to offering protection for the unborn child. Mr Pratt has my unequivocal support.

MS TUCKER (12.15): The Greens will not be supporting this legislation, the reason being mainly to do with the way this bill is framed. It is clear from Mrs Burke’s presentation that this is obviously connected to the debate about abortion, despite Mr Pratt’s protestations to the contrary. It raises exactly those questions. However, in his presentation speech Mr Pratt said it was not about that; it was about dealing with violence against women. I am interested in pursuing how best to deal with violence against women because that is something I am very interested in and something I am recorded in this place as having had an interest in.

I have to agree with the Liberals on one point. Mr Stefaniak said, “Why hasn’t the government done something about this before?” I certainly agree with that. I have found it interesting and frustrating that it has taken so long for the government to amend the criminal code. I do not know what the reasons are; however, I am very pleased to see today announcements by the government to amend the criminal code.

I think Mr Stefaniak is wrong to suggest that this is about them not wanting to be gazumped by Mr Pratt. What Mr Pratt is doing is very different from what the government is doing, so you cannot use the notion of gazumping when the approach of the government is so different—although it ends up with the same intention of dealing with serious assaults or violence that result in a pregnant woman suffering miscarriage or damage to the foetus.

In the Crimes Act 1900, and in the criminal code comments of the Chief Minister, it is clear that amendments need to be made to offences against the person as well as to the section on sentencing, where you have matters to which the court has to have regard. But even without those amendments, in the case of R v King where there was a stillbirth as a

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