Page 3220 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Anyone who has been in government would know that. In fact, anyone who has been in the Assembly should know that. Mr Humphries thought it appropriate to move an amendment. It was a very proper thing for Mr Humphries to do, and the Government said, "Yes, you are right, and we support it".
Certain members opposite have seen fit to play a little bit of grubby politics with that and say, "This indicates that the Government has treated the views of the community with contempt". Quite the contrary; we were aware of the point, and we thought it was better to speed up the process of the house and deal with it as a Clerk's amendment. But, instead, we have dealt with it through Mr Humphries's amendment. It is quite inappropriate to suggest, as a number of members suggested, that that indicates a failure to take into account community views. In fact, I can say that views from people in that organisation, saying that they were very worried about this being a back door to active euthanasia, were on the scales as we considered what to do. They were not the reason, but were one of the factors, that led us to come in with the amendment that we are now debating, to make it abundantly clear that the community should not feel that this is a backdoor to active euthanasia, even though we felt that the Bill was safe in its original form and even though it was clear what Mr Moore's and the committee's intention was. That was clear from Mr Moore's presentation speech.
There were community concerns expressed by groups, including the Right to Life Association and others. Mr De Domenico referred to the letter from the Knights of the Southern Cross. Because we were aware of those concerns, we sought to make the position even safer. So, to try to play a bit of politics and suggest that, because we were not going to deal with what was clearly a typo, the Government has not listened to people or does not read letters is just fatuous politicking. Indeed, far from ignoring letters from the community, the fact that we were aware of some disquiet on whether this could be a backdoor way of achieving active euthanasia was one of the factors that led us to come up with this sensible amendment, to make absolutely certain of something that I felt was certain in any event.
MR LAMONT (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Housing and Community Services, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (12.20): Madam Speaker, I have some concern over comments that have been made by Mr De Domenico in particular but also by a number of others from the Opposition benches who have spoken this morning. I was a member of the committee, and I reject out of hand and in absolute terms the criticism levelled, that this Bill that we are considering today has not had an appropriate airing. These were the essential issues that were tested by the Assembly's committee that inquired into this matter when the original legislation was tabled by Mr Moore. We did so in a very public, very open and, at times, very bitter way amongst the members of the committee; but we all believed that we had an obligation to ensure that these issues were aired publicly so that organisations or individuals - whether they be church based or non-church based, based on one particular philosophy or on another - had the opportunity to address the issues that are encapsulated in this Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .