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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3186 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

would we simply quit? Would we say, "They have made their decision. There is nothing we can do about it now."? Or would we attempt to marshal the forces and say, "This is not the time to give up. It is time for us to push on and explore alternative ways in which we can deal with these issues."? Secondly, we can choose to consider this as an opportunity to set a range of legal outcomes reflecting the community standards on the way we deal with voluntary active euthanasia.

Assisted suicide must be considered a serious issue, particularly where there is no medical practitioner involved and even more particularly when no request has been made by the patient. It will be a very different set of circumstances where a medical practitioner is involved, where a series of stringent conditions are met and where the person who has made the request is suffering great pain and distress. What I have presented here is a logical approach for this Assembly to consider. It is a Bill which, whilst not achieving the state of high principle I would want, improves our criminal law and better reflects community values. It is democratic, responsible and worthy of support.

Finally, Mr Speaker, there are a number of people who deserve thanks for the preparation of this legislation - the staff in my office, who have worked tirelessly in the preparation of the legislation, and Parliamentary Counsel, who have been willing to meet the demands we have placed on them. Mr Speaker, Angela Gowing, a Year 10 work experience student from St Francis Xavier High School, has typed the speech from my dictation. There is a myriad of other community members who have checked through the legislation, including people from the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, Mr John Bailey, MLA, from the Northern Territory, and others who have written to my office. To them I offer my sincere thanks. Mr Speaker, I commend this Bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Osborne) adjourned.

MS TUCKER (10.48): I present the Motor Traffic (Amendment) Bill (No. 5) 1997.

Title read by Clerk.

MS TUCKER: I move:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Mr Speaker, this Bill amends the Motor Traffic Act to reduce the general speed limit in Canberra from 60 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour. The Bill itself is very short and simple, but its implications for road safety and urban amenity in Canberra are huge. Let me explain how this Bill will work in practice. The Motor Traffic Act, as it stands, sets a general urban speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour but allows for higher speed limits on specific roads where signposted to this effect. So, if a road does not have speed signs on it, then you can assume that the speed limit is 60. However, arterial and other major roads in Canberra are signposted with higher speed limits of up to 100 kilometres per hour, depending on the type of road.

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