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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 442 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

If the individuals in the Northern Territory who have now died peacefully - and, I believe, very gratefully - due to the legislation there, were still alive, they would still be suffering. We would still have a situation for them where there would be no peaceful end in sight. I believe that that is an untenable situation.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.42): Mr Speaker, about a month ago, the Chief Minister and I fronted up to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Senate to argue the case against the Andrews Bill, which has been much mentioned in today's debate. We argued a number of things about that legislation. We said that it was discriminatory, in that it was legislation targeted at the Territories but not at the States; that is, that the States could legislate for euthanasia but the Territories could not. We argued that it damaged the Commonwealth's relationship with the Territory - indeed, the Territories. We argued that the legislation abrogated a key principle of self-government, which is that matters of that kind, not expressly reserved to the Commonwealth, should be matters for the Territory to determine. We argued that the legislation itself may have unintended consequences, in particular with respect to the Territory's already enacted Medical Treatment Act.

Mr Speaker, we argued ultimately that the Territory had sufficient maturity to decide, soberly and calmly, after extensive communication with our electorate, on these issues, without the intervention of Federal Big Brother. Mr Speaker, I hope that that is what will happen today - that we will make a sober, sensible and responsible decision about the legislation to facilitate euthanasia in a way which reflects the requirements and the needs of a responsible society, without having to have the intervention of those in the Federal Parliament who believe that they know better. Mr Speaker, I believe and I hope that this Territory's Assembly will today reject the legislation which is before it and, in doing so, will facilitate the making of a sensible decision by the people of this Territory.

Why do I oppose euthanasia? I have strongly-held personal views which dictate, in some sense, my reaction to this legislation. The legislation affronts the values on which I believe all legislation in the Territory, all public policy, ought to be based. The subject matter of the Bill obviously concerns issues of life and death and pain and suffering, and those have deeply personal implications for all individuals in this place and outside it. The Bill goes to the most fundamental of ethical, moral and religious questions in our community, and it is understandable that the views should excite enormous antipathy in the community.

The nature of the proposal before the Assembly is one that would enable a medical practitioner to perform a positive act that results in the death of his or her patient. The legislation builds in so-called protections, such as a cooling-off period and various precautions; but, at the end of the day, where the requirements or conditions in that legislation are satisfied, a medical practitioner will be permitted to administer a lethal dose of a substance to end the life of another human being. It is that fact, above anything else, which drives me to oppose this legislation. I cannot support it, because I regard it as being contrary to the duty we all possess to uphold the sanctity of human life.

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