Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 85 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The issues are complex, and a sense of danger and a need for caution and extra responsibility is rightly felt by all who discuss this issue. But what other piece of legislation has been so thoroughly considered, so carefully refined, and so broadly debated? Many practical and important objections have been brought forward over the years. One by one, concerns as to the availability of and the conditions for voluntary active euthanasia have been raised, considered and resolved. The Northern Territory law, the ACT Bill, and other Bills around Australia, such as the Anne Levy Bill in South Australia which is currently before the Legislative Council, now show the fruits of that process of evolution. Good law is now within our reach. It remains only for legislators to rise to the task of enacting it.

For me, this issue has brought together two basic themes that underlie my goals as a member of this Assembly. One is the cause of individual liberty. The other is a vision of a healthier society. I shall expand upon these themes. By liberty I mean personal autonomy - the right for a person to make all decisions concerning their own lives unless their fellow citizens can demonstrate good cause to limit their freedom. This is sometimes expressed in liberal philosophy with the description of the individual as the moral agent. Of course, we constrain each other's actions in many ways. That is the very purpose of laws. So, is there good cause to justify constraining the individual autonomy of a person in great pain on the verge of death? Opponents of law reforms such as this Bill argue that there is, yet all too often their justifications prove to be based not on the protection of other members of the community but on the protection of the dominance of their own values and religious convictions. This so-called justification is simply not good enough for the majority of our society, including many of strong religious conviction. On the contrary, the majority of people seek to have laws such as these implemented. Hitherto, in almost all cases, their legislators have disappointed them.

Mr Speaker, I have mentioned the opportunity of the legislators gathered here today to enact good law. It is more than an opportunity; it is our duty and our role. Good law means law which results in the best and most principled outcomes. Such law need not reflect our own personal preferences. It may not necessarily be the law that any of us would force on people should we come to power in a hypothetical dictatorship. We do not create society. We should not presume to dominate it either. Rather, we should serve it by providing a legal order which reflects our citizens' wishes and helps to guide their affairs. It is also our duty to create an open society rather than a secretive one.

Throughout this debate we have seen constant references to tragic cases which reveal the reality of mercy killings by doctors and relatives, done secretively and without the medical advice and attention which is so plainly possible. The manner in which most of these deaths occur would not satisfy the strict voluntariness tests and other safeguards set out in the North Territory law and this ACT Bill. These laws, therefore, provide an opportunity to clean up such practices, and will allow those contemplating ill-considered and secretive actions to have access to expert and compassionate advice. In doing so, these laws may actually save lives.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .