Page 3846 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a medical procedure. It is not the problem. The problem is why the women seek an abortion. They should be able to do so without the public shame that those who oppose abortion seek to impose on such a procedure.
In the debate tonight I was very interested to hear how all those members of the opposition are suddenly converts to the idea that decriminalisation is a good thing and that we will never go back to those dark days, as Mr Pratt characterised them. Given that, I felt that it was worth while to check the record on how members in this place voted when, only six and a bit years ago, the question was put to them as to whether or not abortion should be decriminalised.
Mr Speaker, you would be most aware of this: the Crimes (Abolition of Offence of Abortion) Bill 2001, which you put forward in this place at that time, was debated and agreed to in principle on 21 August 2002, six short years ago. Which members who stood up tonight and said that decriminalisation was appropriate voted against the proposition in 2002? I will read them out to you, Mr Speaker: Mr Cornwell, Mrs Dunne, Mr Hargreaves, Mr Humphries, Mr Pratt, Mr Smyth, Mr Stefaniak and Mr Wood.
We all understand that members have diverse views on this matter, and that is respected on both sides of this place. But it is hypocritical in the extreme for those who voted against decriminalisation to now profess a new-found commitment to maintaining abortion as a decriminalised matter. What hypocrisy. Mrs Dunne, Mr Stefaniak and Mr Pratt have all stood up tonight and said, “We’re not going back there.” But they opposed it; they are on the record as opposing it. Why wouldn’t they go back there again? Their views clearly have not changed when it comes to the matter of abortion.
And now we know that they are joined by their leader, Mr Seselja, who again is on the record as saying that he personally opposes abortion. Will he join those of his colleagues who have voted against decriminalisation in the past? Will he adopt a similar morally conservative view? There is no reason to think that he will not. There is no doubt at all. Mr Barr has outlined the type of company that Mr Seselja is interested in acquainting himself with—organisations such as the Moonies in South Korea, who profess to be absolutely opposed not only to the provision of safe and legal abortion but also to same-sex law reform and the recognition of gay and lesbian couples and their equal rights in our community.
We know that we have a Leader of the Opposition who is not a humanist. He is a big “c” conservative. He leads the most conservative Liberal opposition we have ever seen in this place. All the small “l” Liberals have been purged. Mrs Cross and others like that, and even those who want to remain true to Liberal values, have been forced out—Mr Mulcahy. All we have left are the true social conservatives, the true reactionaries of the ACT Liberal Party.
The gaping hole is there. Where is the Leader of the Opposition? Where is his leadership on this matter? It is not just about his personal views; it is about how he will provide leadership on this important social issue that affects so many women in Canberra each and every year—how he will give leadership and direction? Will he support humane policies that would recognise the importance of allowing women to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .