Page 3157 - Week 10 - Thursday, 17 September 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
For instance, their legislation, unlike the Tasmanian law, attempts to avoid a blunt instrument approach to setting the protest free zones which has caused us concern in the past. For those who feel that supporting this law runs counter to standing up for civil liberties a reminder, the international covenant on civil and political rights makes clear that the right to free speech and expression does not give any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognised herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present covenant, (Article 5). The right to privacy and medical autonomy must exist alongside freedom of protest and expression. This bill is a fair attempt to achieve both ends.
There are a few other minor amendments coming from the exposure draft submissions I received, such as increased time periods relating to the protected periods as information was provided regarding the current clinic’s hours of operation. There were also some further drafting refinements but, overall, the intent of this final bill remains the same.
As well as the formal submissions during the consultation phase, my office also received letters from people seeking clarification or assurances that the bill would not unduly impact on our human rights legislation or the principles of freedom of expression, two areas close to the ACT Greens’ heart. I am pleased to note that, while this issue has obviously created much debate and discussion about the possible impacts most people, once provided with a clear response, came to support our position.
Perhaps the clearest example of that process I can provide for members who may also be considering a first-blush, out-of-hand rejection would be that from a gentleman who wrote, and I quote:
Is this just more nanny state leftist loony policy designed to restrict freedom of speech even further?
After my office spent some time developing a comprehensive response to his questions, outlined some of the issues faced by women seeking these medical services and provided him the proposed map that accompanied the exposure draft, we received this follow-up email:
If this is the sole purpose of the bill then I am in full agreement with you. It is an emotionally difficult time for any woman who has to make this decision. If the bill is to have an exclusion zone around the clinic just for the rights of privacy for women patients then you have my full support there.
As members can imagine, or perhaps can understand from the lobbying efforts of various stakeholders in recent weeks, some in the community do not want the government to legislate on this issue. Some may see this bill as not going far enough to protect the privacy, dignity and safety of women seeking these health services. Personally, I believe this bill is the least restrictive to meet the desired outcomes, and I really hope all members of the Assembly across the chamber take the time to think about what we are trying to achieve here.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video