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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3657 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

because of this sort of backdoor exercise. This is a tricky-dicky attempt to outsmart the Federal Parliament. They would not be outsmarted by this and they have made their intention clear in the past. I think this would trivialise the debate, as I have said, and I think it would draw an equal but swifter response from the Federal Parliament.

The third Bill in the trio is the Medical Treatment (Amendment) Bill. I have a different view about some clauses of this Bill. I would be prepared to support this Bill in principle in order that I could support some clauses which I think are positive. Overall, I think this again is part of the backdoor approach to legislation and I do not think it would take us very far. There are some clauses of it that I support. I think it is clause 5 which refers to an amendment to section 6 of the principal Act. It proposes to omit the words "for a current condition". That is part of a package to remove "a current condition" from the play. That, in effect, would allow somebody who wanted to issue a direction in relation to medical treatment to do so for a current condition. That, in essence, is a living will proposal and I think it is a fair one. If the Bill is passed in principle, I indicate now that I intend to support those three proposals - that is, clauses 5, 6 and 8 - to ensure that the essence of a living will, in so far as medical treatment is concerned, is supported. I do that because it is consistent with my party's policy, which I support, and it is framed in a very tightly regulated piece of legislation which has been on the record for some time.

I will go back to clause 5 of the Medical Treatment (Amendment) Bill. Clause 5 relates to section 6 of the Medical Treatment Act and I will quote that. It states:

A person who is of sound mind and has attained the age of 18 years may make a direction in writing, orally or in any other way in which the person can communicate to refuse, or for the withdrawal of, medical treatment -

(a) generally; or

(b) of a particular kind;

for a current condition.

I support the omission of "for a current condition" because it will allow somebody to make an advance direction which might anticipate suffering some sort of terminal injury where they are not able to make these sorts of directions - for example, head injuries as a result of a car accident and so on. This would enable a person to make a direction for a future unknown set of circumstances. I support that approach. Section 10 of the Act refers to the cessation of a direction and that talks, again, about a current condition. If the current condition no longer applies, then the direction is no longer current. Mr Moore seeks to repeal that part of the legislation, and I am happy to support that.

The Schedule again goes to those same issues. (Extension of time granted) I thank members. I will not be long. The Schedule to the principal Act is proposed to be amended by Mr Moore's Medical Treatment (Amendment) Bill. It again refers to the condition to which the form related - that is, an existing condition. Paragraph 8(b) deals with a current condition as well. Those are the three sections that I would support if the Bill makes it through the in-principle stage.

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