Page 346 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 7 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
say that this is a work in progress. In the context of the opposition’s interest in this issue, I said we would extract this aspect from the chapter on offences against the person and deal with it ahead of the rest of the chapter. That is the genesis of this. This is work that is being done methodically and reasonably by the ACT government. It is work that is being done methodically and reasonably and as part of a very good process, and we have extracted this small part from that very significant chapter.
So that is the history and the fact of the matter. To suggest that this is some Steve Pratt inspired, knee-jerk response is just a touch too egotistical. I have to suggest to you, Mr Pratt, that it is just a touch too egotistical. But the fact remains that this point has been made ad nauseam. This is the third occasion in the last two years that we have debated this provision. Of course, that is the tactic and it goes to the heart of this. I would suggest—Mr Stefaniak has a good memory for these things—that this would be the only piece of criminal law reform or issue that has been debated three times now in two years. That is interesting in itself, isn’t it?
At the heart of the passion for this particular form of law reform is abortion. This is about when life commences. We all know that. That is what this amendment is about. This is about the fight-back from those that oppose abortion to find a way through the law on this incredibly complex and morally difficult issue around abortion, life, the meaning of life and the legal rights of women to privacy, their own rights and their own responsibility for their bodies. It is precisely that. Let us not mince words about it. Let us not pretend that this is just some late-found commitment by the opposition or the Liberal Party in this place to do all they can to protect pregnant women from domestic violence. This is about opening a new front by those that oppose abortion, that are against abortion. That is what it is. I do not object to or dismiss your right to do that. It is your business. It is an expression of your philosophy and your view of the world and I respect that right. But I wish you would be honest about it. I wish you would be honest about the fact that what you introduced into the Assembly today—
Mrs Burke: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. In accordance with standing order 57, the Chief Minister needs to withdraw that comment.
MR SPEAKER: I have already ruled on that. A call for honesty is hardly disorderly.
Mrs Burke: He is accusing us of being dishonest.
MR SPEAKER: No. The words were, “I wish you—
MR STANHOPE: “I wish you would be honest.” That is not disorderly, Mrs Burke.
Mrs Burke: Oh, isn’t it?
MR SPEAKER: Order! Continue, Mr Stanhope.
MR STANHOPE: And I do wish that. Such a significant debate—a debate which seeks to reopen a front by those who oppose abortion—should be conducted publicly and honestly so that the community knows what it is that you intend and what it is that you seek to achieve.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .