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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 446 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

that those pressures are there, that they are very real, that they do result in choices being made on a daily basis by doctors and others within our health system, and that to support legislation like this strengthens the conviction in those people that they need to make choices that sometimes discriminate against those who are infirm or disabled or, in this particular instance, dying.

Mr Speaker, let me say a couple of things before I close. I want to respond to a point Mr Berry made in his remarks about his being happy to go along with the policy of his party at the last election. I do not know what the policy of his party was at the last election, and I am not sure that most people who voted for the Labor Party knew what the policy of the Labor Party was at the last election. There is a provision in the Labor Party's policy platform, which you can buy for $20, which says something about euthanasia, as I understand it. There was also a statement before the last election that there could not be a decision about euthanasia until there was a much more extensive community debate.

Mr Berry: Did you see the plane flying around?

MR HUMPHRIES: No. I do not know where you secrete the information, Mr Berry, but it did not come to me. Assuming that this legislation is defeated, I think that, if any party goes to the next poll with a position on euthanasia, it ought to state that position in letters 10 feet high. Mr Moore, to his credit, did say what his position was and has always made his position very clear. Nobody voting for Mr Moore would be under any illusion about where he stood on euthanasia. But it is important, if political parties seek to adopt positions in these areas, that they state that very clearly up front.

Mr Speaker, the other option that has been discussed in recent days is a referendum on this issue. I would support that concept. I believe that there is an idea that such issues are too important to put to a broader, less structured public debate. I do not believe that people would always necessarily get the answers "right" from the point of view of me or somebody else who might take a strong view about what is right and wrong; but I believe that these are issues which are fundamentally of concern to the community and which the community ought to have a right to comment on. I also happen to believe that, once the issues are put very squarely before the community, a referendum to support euthanasia would be unlikely to succeed.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Mr Berry said that the best way to rebuff the Andrews Bill is to pass this legislation today in principle. I believe that the best way to show the Federal Parliament that we can take a responsible course of action without Federal intervention is to reject this legislation all on our own. The legislation should be rejected. It changes adversely the ethics of medical treatment; it dramatically corrodes the relationship between doctor and patient; and it is bad public policy. I want to end by quoting the same House of Lords select committee that Mr Kaine referred to:

It would be next to impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary, and that any liberalisation of the law was not abused. Moreover to create an exception to the general prohibition of intentional killing would inevitably open the way ... to test the limits of any regulation.

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