Page 2713 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 26 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There comes a time when legislatures need to stand on principle. When we speak about it, we seem to all agree on the principle, except that what the Labor Party and the government are doing suggests they do not. It is all well and good for Mr Corbell and Mr Stanhope to say that they do not see the birth of a child, or a child, as some sort of damage or economic loss, but that is exactly what they are saying by refusing to support this legislation. That is what they are saying by endorsing this principle. Courts are free to make their decisions on their legal judgements. Whether I think they got it right or wrong does not matter. What does matter is that legislatures should be able to decide some of these crucial public policy issues, and this is about the commodification of children.
This is about the value of children in our society. We as a community and as a legislature should draw a line in the sand now and say: “We value children. We think this is unacceptable. We think it is unacceptable to make these kinds of claims, and that is why we are going to restrict them.” There is no other reason. We are not doing anything more than that; we are simply drawing a line in the sand on this and saying that, because we value children so much, we are going to stop these kinds of claims being brought. The community overwhelmingly supports this because it is the right thing to do.
It does not matter what judges decide; we represent the people and we should draw a line in the sand on this issue. We should support this legislation and we should oppose these kinds of principles that have been put up by the High Court in this case. It is our duty as a legislature to stand up on issues such as this, and it is extremely disappointing that the Labor Party will not be supporting this sensible piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that is right; it corrects a wrong. It makes things better, it improves the situation and it draws an important line in the sand.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (4.23): This bill was tabled just over two years ago, and we are debating it today. This, of course, is not a coincidence. The tabling speech refers to the High Court decision in relation to the high profile case known now as Cattanach v Melchior in 2003. Today’s debate occurs in the midst of heated discussion of another high profile case, involving two women who are seeking what must, under the current law, be called “damages” to compensate them for the expenses they incurred as a result of medical negligence.
The emotional reaction to the use of words like “damages” and “wrongful birth” to describe the birth of a child is, for some people, understandably one of disgust and abhorrence. But, Mr Speaker, these are legal words. They are needed to fit the circumstances of a case into a cause of action that is recognised by the law. We could change the wording of the cause of action in these cases to highlight the fact that we are dealing with the life of a real human being, and maybe that would be a good thing, but that is a debate to be had on another day. Today, talking about this bill, in my capacity as an MLA, a lawmaker, the language I must always come back to is the language of the law that we are being asked to amend. I believe that we need to adopt another language if we are ever going to be able to discuss with compassion matters that are at once so intimate and yet so public.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .