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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 746 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It is interesting and ironic that that should be the case, because even Andrews himself had contacted my office and said that he was drawing up legislation intended to avoid those consequences. We know that Mr Humphries and Mrs Carnell went before the Senate committee and explained that that uncertainty existed. But the Senate committee, in bringing down its particular style of report - and what else could they do? - were not able to deal adequately with this issue. The moral rectitude governed all.

Some interesting things have come out of the debate in the Federal Parliament. It has been pointed out to me that, for the female politicians, the women in parliament, the vote carried in the House of Representatives was very close to 50 : 50. It was interesting that the young parliament that debated this issue in the Assembly chamber some weeks ago supported voluntary active euthanasia by about two-thirds to one-third. The issue is changing. It is only a matter of time before Australia has voluntary active euthanasia. Unfortunately, it will not happen in the Territories, perhaps, for a very long time. Reversing legislation like this means reversing a two-thirds majority, roughly, in the House of Representatives.

The focus now is on the States. In South Australia, legislation is already before the South Australian Parliament; in Tasmania, the Greens have indicated that they will be introducing legislation; and I have been in discussion for some time with members in New South Wales, who seem most interested in getting legislation up on voluntary active euthanasia and in introducing a referendum to allow the people to decide. I feel very confident that that referendum will pass easily. The majority of people will still say that individuals have the right to make their own choice, to practise their own beliefs.

Those in the Lyons Forum, those in Right to Life, have had at best a very temporary victory. This issue will continue and will come back. For those MPs who voted according to their own conscience, who did what they believed was right on this issue, I have no problem whatsoever. There will always be a difference of opinion on this. As for those who were not sure and who were manipulated, who were put under pressure and who succumbed, I think they ought to have trouble looking in the mirror in the morning. What they have done is deny people in the most vulnerable situation a right to practise their own belief. They did it, ironically, at a time when they were demanding for themselves a conscience vote - the very same thing that somebody who wants to make their own decision about their end-of-life situation is demanding as well: Simply a conscience vote.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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