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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3656 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Those matters aside, this Bill, in my view, trivialises the entire debate about euthanasia. If we were to support this Bill, in my view there would be a response from the houses of parliament on the southern side of the lake similar to the response in relation to the Northern Territory euthanasia legislation which resulted in the Andrews Bill. It would be a swifter response because the target is much bigger. It would be much easier for those who are opposed to euthanasia to mount a case on the basis of the method which is proposed to be adopted by this legislation. It clearly trivialises the debate over euthanasia. In my view, if it were to be carried it would set the debate back at least 10 years.

I say that because it is quite easy for those who are opposed to euthanasia to say, for example, that it would cost you less for an on-the-spot fine in the Territory if you assisted a suicide than it would if you were caught speeding or smoking in a lift.

Mr Moore: It would be free under the legislation. It would be free under the legislation you supported last time. Come on, Wayne; this is just weasel stuff, and you know it.

MR BERRY: That gives you an idea of the size of the target that you create, Mr Moore, with this piece of legislation. I say to you that you are not doing the supporters of euthanasia like me any favours with this sort of legislation, because what would happen is that there would be a swift response from the Federal Parliament to this legislation. I do not think there is any doubt about that. You would get a response similar to the Andrews Bill.

I know you have said that there is a possibility of a High Court challenge. That might be a great grandstand for you, Mr Moore, but it would be a very expensive one for the people of the ACT. Even if it were to be pursued in the High Court - and there is a lot of doubt about that - and even if the law were held to be valid, the Federal Parliament would, in my view, swiftly move because it is such a big target. Mr Speaker, I think the Crimes (Assisted Suicide) Bill trivialises the debate. I am a supporter of euthanasia. I have been a supporter of my party's policy from the word go and have been instrumental in making sure that it maintains a high profile; but I will not support this sort of legislation, because it trivialises the debate and would set the cause back at least a decade.

I have said in the past that the place for this to be resolved now is in the States, where they have the authority. Very clearly, the authority has been taken away from the Territories in accordance with the powers of the Federal Parliament and there is nought that we can do about it. Thrashing around and becoming frantic about the issue, engaging in a crusade and saying, "The war is not over yet; I have not stopped fighting" will not assist us much on this issue. Mr Moore, I think this Bill should never have been brought forward. I think you have done those who support euthanasia a disservice. It was never a Bill that was deserving of success and it would invite the strongest criticism from people in other places.

I also think this legislation would further draw the Australian Capital Territory into ridicule because of its inadequacies and the way it trivialises this very important issue. I think most Australians support euthanasia provided it is in a properly regulated framework. I certainly do. But I would not like to see the whole debate shipwrecked

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