Page 3221 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr De Domenico, if you have actually taken the time to read the transcript of evidence of the witnesses that appeared before our committee, you will find, as an example, that Mr Moore pursued, I think, with Bishop Browning the specific issue that is covered at length in this Bill. They did not pursue the active euthanasia issue proposed in the first part of Mr Moore's Bill, but they addressed this specific issue in some detail and at length. Indeed, it was recognised by our committee, and accepted by the Assembly, I might add, that it would be appropriate not to proceed with Mr Moore's Bill. The majority of the committee believed - - -
Mr Moore: All the committee, in the end.
MR LAMONT: You are right, Mr Moore; it was a total committee decision. They believed that it was appropriate that we return to the Assembly and attempt to put into legislation the views that were quite clearly expressed by us and by the organisations that appeared before us, as far as we could concur with those views. Mr De Domenico says that I have no right to do that. He says that 17 members of this Assembly do not have the right to determine this matter - - -
Mr Moore: Or even nine.
MR LAMONT: Or even nine, or eight, or seven, or six, or however many. That is a preposterous position for him to adopt. That is what this Assembly is charged with doing. It is one of the specific and basic tenets of any democracy that, following due process, going through the procedures that we have gone through, an Assembly such as this has an obligation to consider these matters. I think that it is reasonable that we have done so. So I reject, as, I think, any reasonable member of the Assembly will also reject, those accusations.
It behoves me to pick up Mr De Domenico on one other matter. It is a matter of some concern to me. He has said, and Mr Kaine interjected, that the Bill is flawed because there have been amendments made to it. That is the process of the Assembly. That is what this Assembly is here for. It is not here to accept, in its entirety, a Bill that comes in and just say, "Well, that is all that can happen. There can be no amendments. There can be no further discussions. There can be no additions, alterations or improvements". That is what you are suggesting. That is a preposterous position; but I have heard both of you express the same sentiment on other matters. You have to understand that this is a private members Bill.
Mr Kaine: Why are you defending it so vigorously if it is a private members Bill?
MR LAMONT: It is appropriate, Mr Kaine, that, if a single member introduces a Bill, notwithstanding the basis upon which it has been introduced, there may be parties or individuals - as you are so fond of pointing out in relation to your own party's policy - that have a specific amendment that they wish to have considered to improve the Bill, to promote their issue as they see it, or just to have an issue aired. So, for you to stand in this Assembly and say, on the one hand, that we have not gone through a proper process and, on the other hand, that this Assembly does not have the authority or should not have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .