Page 820 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 April 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As you would be aware, Madam Speaker, I still advocate active euthanasia. The Labor Party's policy still advocates active euthanasia. It was clear during the committee's hearings that the Labor Party had determined that it would not proceed with its policy at this stage. The Labor Party believed - I think this is a fair interpretation, but Mr Lamont will have the opportunity to comment on it further - that further discussion would be necessary before this issue was dealt with by legislation. My own approach to that was to say that the best way to ensure a fair discussion on that issue was for the issue to go to referendum. One of the ironies of that is that the Liberal Party, in a quite public process, indicated that it would not support this issue going to referendum. The irony is that the Liberal Party favours a referendum system.
I accept that, Madam Speaker, and I also accept the very public process that went with this committee's report. It was a quite different process from the one we usually use in committees, but because it was an area of such concern I believe that it was appropriate. I also believe that it was appropriate that other members of the committee have the opportunity to discuss the issues with their party colleagues and that responses be made in a very public way. That is why I had no difficulty with Labor making a general announcement while the committee was still sitting and, similarly, the Liberals making a public announcement. Quite clearly, the issue of active euthanasia is an issue that would need widespread community support for that particular legislation.
In writing the preface to this report, Madam Speaker, to which you drew attention, I felt that it was appropriate to explain why it was that the view of approximately 80 per cent of the people of Australia - probably a higher percentage in the ACT, although there is no evidence for that - would be delayed by the recommendations of this committee. I believe that the reasons are political. I believe that the reasons why the Victorian committee and the South Australian committee came up with a similar report to ours were simply political. In no way do I see that as a reflection on the other members of the committee, who I believe acted appropriately at all times, discussed the issues at all times, and dealt with them in an appropriate way. It is the party decision in both cases that I have criticised, not the individuals. That is why I thought it would be a most appropriate public process.
Madam Speaker, there is a series of precedents of prefaces being written into reports of the Assembly, prefaces written by the chair without reference to other members. In this case, as part of the openness of that committee - and it reflects how well members of the committee were working together - I circulated a copy of the preface to the other members before presenting the report to you. Indeed, Madam Speaker, that did cause some consternation, particularly for Mr Lamont. When a member writes a dissenting report to a committee report, nobody has the opportunity to write a dissenting report to the dissenting report. When a member writes additional comments, no other member has the opportunity to write additional comments to the additional comments. But, recognising the unease the other members of the committee felt with the preface, I added the words that appear at the bottom of the preface:
This preface has been prepared by the Chair and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Committee.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .