Page 2898 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEFANIAK (12.10): I have listened carefully to what everyone has said. This is a fairly complex and vexed issue. One point that Mrs Grassby made at the end was that it is supported by the churches. I think it would be more correct to say that the churches' attitude would be that they really do not see the need for it, but there are points in there, if we have to have it, that they would like to see. That is probably a more accurate reflection of the situation.
Mr De Domenico: They have not seen the amendments yet.
MR STEFANIAK: That might well be so, too, Mr De Domenico; they have not seen the amendments. I have actually seen the amendments and perhaps there is a lot of merit in that particular position. This is not a Bill to bring in active euthanasia or voluntary euthanasia as such. My colleagues have said, be they supporting it or not, that it probably is a foot in the door by Mr Moore. They are probably quite accurate. Mr Moore, as my colleagues have said, of course, has always been very open about his views and very open about what he does, but whether that should be supported or not is another thing entirely. I also can count, Madam Speaker, and it is quite obvious from what people have said here today that this Bill will be approved in principle.
There are a number of points raised which I would like to cover. Firstly, my colleague - indeed, my learned colleague - Mr Humphries spoke about the common law and statute law and gave a quite learned dissertation on that last night. I think that is a terribly important point here. At present, of course, doctors do terminate life. The proponents of this legislation have indicated that all this will do is, in fact, give some certainty and enable doctors to have some legal cover to do what they are doing anyway. Also it has been said that it would show more care and compassion for relatives and, indeed, the person who is to die at any rate.
The law in Australia is a mixture, of course, of common law and statute law and I think one does need to go back to that, to an extent, to see what the difference is. The common law is the law of the land, the law applied by the courts, the law applied by perhaps convention that has grown up and has been supported in court cases. Statute law is there to interfere and intervene when the community and the legislature on behalf of the community see a need to change an existing situation which is not covered by statute law or perhaps is covered by common law, but not satisfactorily, and there is a need to change.
I have not seen a huge demand in the community to change this. I am mindful of what other members have said about their views on active euthanasia - that the vast majority of the community would not support that second step Mr Moore might want to take, but there may well be support for this. But, again, I can also see that people's doors have not been battered down. I can appreciate, I suppose, the concern of some doctors that they would like something in concrete, something written, to protect them. That might be somewhat misplaced, in that they have, it would seem, protection by convention, protection by the common law, at present. This is a situation that I think all people realise has been going on for many years in the ACT as a matter of practice and as a matter of convention.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .