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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3666 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The Medical Treatment Bill is a Bill which does have some useful provisions, and those provisions are in clauses 5, 6 and 8, which, I understand, provide for a living will. They are entirely appropriate reforms and, I believe, very important reforms. But again, like Mr Humphries, in relation to the other provisions of the Act that Mr Moore is seeking to amend, I believe these clauses raise some serious concerns about the level of treatment and the level of pain relief provided by doctors to patients because of the risks that they run and the risks that are opened up if these sections are amended in the way Mr Moore wants them to be amended.

This has not been an easy issue for me to consider. I have been lobbied very effectively by members of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society in the Territory. I have no doubt that they are pursuing a course which they believe is appropriate. I have no doubt that they, with the best of intentions, are pursuing, through this legislation, with the assistance of Mr Moore, a course which they believe will achieve the outcome they believe is most pressing. I believe it is a pressing issue also. I have already put on the record my support for voluntary active euthanasia, but I do not believe this is the way to go about it. It is, in a nutshell, bad law. I think it undermines the debate. I think it undermines the cause of people who propose voluntary active euthanasia. Unfortunately, I will not be supporting the Crimes (Assisted Suicide) Bill, although I will be quite happy to support some of the provisions in the Medical Treatment (Amendment) Bill.

Mrs Littlewood: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hird): That is under standing order 46. I would suggest that we deal with the matter before the house. You can make it at the appropriate time, Mrs Littlewood.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (4.56): I start out by saying that I always admire Mr Moore's perseverance and persistence in these matters. Here we go again, with three new Bills. Fairly briefly, I would agree that the Euthanasia Referendum Bill, because of the Andrews Bill, simply would have no effect at all. Secondly, I do note that Mr Moore could possibly have raised this issue through a citizen-initiated referendum - something my party is supportive of - but he has not. I wonder why he is happy for a referendum here but not happy for that other avenue to perhaps be pursued. But it is somewhat academic, given the Andrews Bill. Were it not for those factors, there might be some merit in terms of letting the people have their say. But it is a pointless exercise.

I have significant problems with the Crimes (Assisted Suicide) Bill. I have heard the arguments made by other speakers about simply having something like a traffic infringement notice type of fine for what is taking a life. I cannot morally accept that, and I think this is quite clearly a way of getting around the Andrews Bill. It would be far better for Mr Moore to pursue those issues in another form, because I do not think it really helps the debate by putting up a Bill such as this. I cannot support that.

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