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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3669 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

It seems to me that a series of issues have been raised, and I am pleased to get to those issues. The first one is a possible challenge in the High Court. Whenever we pass any legislation there is always a possibility of a challenge in the High Court. In this case, when I tabled this legislation I also tabled a series of legal opinions - and these are legal opinions from QCs of great standing - that made it quite clear that this is likely to withstand a challenge in the High Court. That is a pretty reasonable thing to say.

The other issue that was raised, as far as challenge goes, related to the Senate. The numbers in the Senate have changed and the mood in the Senate has changed because of the reaction to the Andrews Bill. It is quite clear this legislation is not going to pass; but, had it been the situation that the legislation with regard to assisted suicide was passed, then an attempt to change it in the Senate would likely fail. It would easily pass through the House of Representatives, and blind Freddy could see that; but the Senate is a different story, particularly because of the very public statements from people like Tony Burke of the right wing of the Labor Party, who made it very clear how he had gone about pressuring members of the Labor Party and how the Liberal Party Lyons Forum had gone about pressuring members of the Liberal Party in terms of their voting. It was skiting - I think that is the only word you could use - and, I imagine, would be upsetting to all members in this chamber, because I believe that at least there has been a fair conscience vote in this Assembly; people have acted on what they believe in. It is very clear, when we hear people speaking with regard to the issue when it was before the Federal Parliament, that it was the Clayton's conscience vote; it is very clear that people on both sides of the house were under enormous pressure to vote the way they did.

Another general argument with regard to the Crimes (Assisted Suicide) Bill is that it trivialises the debate and trivialises it in that our opponents would be able to use it because they could say, "You put life at the level of a speeding ticket". What a stupid argument that is! It is sheer stupidity. Of course it is. The same opponents could be saying, "You value life as nothing", because we did not, under the previous Bill before the house which they supported, put a value on it because there was no penalty; the same with the Northern Territory. It is an absolutely stupid argument; the same as, indeed, the argument that this somehow trivialises the debate. For heaven's sake, how do you trivialise somebody who is in great pain, who is in great suffering and who seeks assistance to leave behind their pain and their suffering when they are dying? It has nothing to do with trivialising and is simply a part of turning and twisting in this debate. Whilst I have a great deal of respect for people who have opposed this legislation because of their own personal convictions, I consider that the people who use this sort of excuse for political opportunism ought to have trouble looking at themselves in the mirror.

It seems to me that Mr Humphries raised a series of very important questions about this piece of legislation. I would like to deal with those. Some of them were raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The first one relates to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

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