Dr LIM - 1998-02-17
My question relates to legislation on abortion. Once again, we have seen the member for Wanguri leap in before he had his information correct. By his ill-advised comments, he has caused widespread concern unnecessarily among women in the Northern Territory. What ramifications does the Attorney-General foresee for Territory doctors and their patients in light of the recent debate on abortion in Western Australia?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr STONE: The member for Arnhem may want to trivialise this matter, but I can assure him that there are people listening to this broadcast who are interested in dealing with the facts and not the fiction.
I too am disappointed in the member for Wanguri. Had he bothered to pick up the phone or sought a briefing, he would not have caused unnecessary alarm. Make no mistake about the impact of any political figure or someone with a high profile and the damage they can do. For example, in Western Australia, there is already a reported case of a lass who endeavoured to procure an abortion with a knitting needle. What she read in the newspaper led her to the belief that she would not qualify under the legislation of that state. I hope this grandstanding by the member for Wanguri has not led to similar situations in the Territory.
From the briefings that I have had, it is quite clear that the law of the Territory is not to be confused with the law of Western Australia where common law is applied in determining the defence of necessity. In the Territory, it is clearly set out. I will read the relevant section so that people listening to this broadcast will understand what the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory states in terms of when an abortion is permitted:
At less than 14 weeks pregnancy, the continuation of the pregnancy would involve greater risk to the life of the
pregnant woman or greater risk of injury to her physical or mental health than if the pregnancy were terminated.
Further, at less than 14 weeks pregnancy, there is a substantial risk that, if the pregnancy were not terminated
and the child were born to the pregnant woman, the child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities
as to be seriously handicapped.
Further, at less that 23 weeks pregnancy, the termination is immediately necessary to prevent grave injury to the
physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
Finally, at any time, the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr STONE: Quite clearly, the member for Wanguri should feel embarrassed by what he did. If he does not want to apologise for what he did, I am sure there are people listening to this broadcast who want to hear the answer.
Mr Bailey: Tell the truth, Shane.
Mr STONE: The truth is being told. All he had to do was find out the facts. With his grandstanding and frenzied efforts to try to attack the government, he has probably compromised the way in which the legislation works in the Territory. I quote also from advice that has been provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions:
Obviously, every case is different, but it is important to note that section 174(1)(a)(i) identifies risks or injury
to either physical or mental health as a justification for termination. It might be expected that, in an appropriate
case, 2 medical practitioners could come to this conclusion in good faith without much difficulty.
Page 8
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr STONE: Will you keep quiet! You would have to be the most irritating person who has ever sat in this Chamber.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: If you want to ask a question, why did you wait for three-quarters of an hour into Question Time and allow a government member to raise the issue? You are not fair dinkum!
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: All he wanted was a headline. He got the headline and now he is exposed as the fraud that he is.
Page 9
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
Mr Ah Kit interjecting.
Mr STONE: The member for Arnhem may want to trivialise this matter, but I can assure him that there are people listening to this broadcast who are interested in dealing with the facts and not the fiction.
I too am disappointed in the member for Wanguri. Had he bothered to pick up the phone or sought a briefing, he would not have caused unnecessary alarm. Make no mistake about the impact of any political figure or someone with a high profile and the damage they can do. For example, in Western Australia, there is already a reported case of a lass who endeavoured to procure an abortion with a knitting needle. What she read in the newspaper led her to the belief that she would not qualify under the legislation of that state. I hope this grandstanding by the member for Wanguri has not led to similar situations in the Territory.
From the briefings that I have had, it is quite clear that the law of the Territory is not to be confused with the law of Western Australia where common law is applied in determining the defence of necessity. In the Territory, it is clearly set out. I will read the relevant section so that people listening to this broadcast will understand what the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory states in terms of when an abortion is permitted:
At less than 14 weeks pregnancy, the continuation of the pregnancy would involve greater risk to the life of the
pregnant woman or greater risk of injury to her physical or mental health than if the pregnancy were terminated.
Further, at less than 14 weeks pregnancy, there is a substantial risk that, if the pregnancy were not terminated
and the child were born to the pregnant woman, the child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities
as to be seriously handicapped.
Further, at less that 23 weeks pregnancy, the termination is immediately necessary to prevent grave injury to the
physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
Finally, at any time, the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr STONE: Quite clearly, the member for Wanguri should feel embarrassed by what he did. If he does not want to apologise for what he did, I am sure there are people listening to this broadcast who want to hear the answer.
Mr Bailey: Tell the truth, Shane.
Mr STONE: The truth is being told. All he had to do was find out the facts. With his grandstanding and frenzied efforts to try to attack the government, he has probably compromised the way in which the legislation works in the Territory. I quote also from advice that has been provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions:
Obviously, every case is different, but it is important to note that section 174(1)(a)(i) identifies risks or injury
to either physical or mental health as a justification for termination. It might be expected that, in an appropriate
case, 2 medical practitioners could come to this conclusion in good faith without much difficulty.
Page 8
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Mr STONE: Will you keep quiet! You would have to be the most irritating person who has ever sat in this Chamber.
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: If you want to ask a question, why did you wait for three-quarters of an hour into Question Time and allow a government member to raise the issue? You are not fair dinkum!
Mr Bailey interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STONE: All he wanted was a headline. He got the headline and now he is exposed as the fraud that he is.
Page 9
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016