The Web Link-Zone
Welcome to the Link-Zone website Image Courtesy of Renjith Krishnan
2010 ARTICLES
-
Feb
Mar
LINKS
Australian Christian Lobby
Saltshakers
Family Voice Australia
Australian Prayer Network
Parliamentary Prayer Network, Canberra
Australian Family Association
Sexual Integrity Forum
Make A Stand
The Australian Family Asssociation
Electing Pro-Life Mps in Victoria Election 2010
Protecting religious freedom in Victoria
Debate Magazine
Viewpoint Magazine
Australia Votes
QLD Parliament LIVE
QLD Parliament Sitting Dates
QLD E-Petitions
WEBSITES FOR VOTERS
OpenAustralia
School Resources
Factsheets on the role of Government and Parliament
Information for School Students
Information for Educators
2009 ARTICLES
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2008 ARTICLES
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
Election Pocket Book 09
The Electoral Pocketbook 2009 edition
click here
2007 ARTICLES
Dec Nov Aug
PARTY QUOTE PAGES
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
Nationals
Family First
Greens
CDP
-
SAME SEX POLICY - GENERAL
Lib/Nats
Nationals
Family First
CDP
-
SAME SEX MARRIAGE
Lib/Nats
Nationals
-


ABORTION
Lib/Nats
Nationals
Greens
-
EUTHENASIA
Lib/Nats
Nationals
HUMAN CLONING
Labor
Lib/Nats
Nationals
Family First
Greens
CDP
-
IVF & SURROGACY
Lib/Nats
Nationals
Family First
Greens
CDP
-
SAME SEX ADOPTION
Lib/Nats
Nationals
Family First
CDP
-
INDIGENOUS ISSUES
Lib/Nats
Nationals
Family First
Greens
CDP
-


Election Focus

It's Never TOO Early to be ready for the Next Election

acl

Speech to Senate – Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration

QLD Senator Ron Boswell - Media Release

November 13, 2008


Senator BOSWELL (Queensland) (10.40 am)— I wish to make some comments about a couple of the submissions made to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration. Firstly, the submission presented by the Australian Reproductive Health Alliance was the same as the submission from the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development.

That in itself is cause for concern. Senator Moore, as chair of the PGPD, presented the submission to the committee. In the covering letter, she writes, ‘Thank you for the opportunity to present the PGPD’s views. Yours sincerely, Senator Claire Moore, Chair.’

However, not only was the submission a straight copy of another submission; it also did not have the support of the PGPD. It was wrong to claim that the submission represented the views of the PGPD. The submission was not put before all members of the parliamentary group to gauge their support or input. It was put forward as the group’s submission without consultation.

I understand that several members of the Parliamentary Group on Population and Development have resigned or disassociated themselves from the submission. As a result of this submission going forward in their name, the credibility of the PGPD must now be seriously in question. There is a very good reason for disquiet from members of the PGPD. The submission essentially argues that abortion is a cheaper alternative to looking after children with severe disabilities.

The submission includes a section entitled ‘The community impact of increased numbers of children with severe disabilities.’ It states:

The removal of item 16525 from the Health Insurance (General Medical Services Table) Regulations increases the likelihood of a greater number of persons being born with severe disabilities and high support needs … The cost and impact of an increased number of individuals with severe disabilities living in Australia cannot, however, be ignored …

… … … The financial cost of caring for a severely disabled individual is high not only for the family, but for the greater community. Removing item 16525 would save the Commonwealth, by some estimates, $181,560 per year based on 2007 utilisation of item 1652515. Adequately supporting an individual with high support needs costs the community and families far more than this.

I would like to know whether the government supports the approach that disabled children be aborted rather than put further strain on the disability services sector, because that is what is clearly implied by this offensive submission. Its underlying premise is that some lives are worth less than others because they will cost too much to support. This is the kind of thinking that was typical of the Hitler regime. It set itself up as judge of who deserved to live and who deserved to die. This revisiting of eugenics principles is repugnant to a society that prides itself on the contribution of all, regardless of whether they have disabilities. We are all human and equally deserve to live.

 

Media Contact –       02 6277 3046           

 

 

 



 

 

 

disclaimer
Link-Zone does not necessarily endorse the views held by contributors, or by authors of linked websites. The material in the Link-Zone site is provided for your information to assist you in forming your own opinion. It is Link-Zone's hope that you are able to find quality resources that will help you in your research of contemporary debates and issues. We are also unable to endorse the content of external sites linked to via Link-Zone pages & advise that you exercise proper caution when visiting websites you are unfamiliar with.

Copyright: Link-Zone, 2012