Page 2881 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is no legal binding on any health professional anyway. At the end of the day, they simply say, "I acted in good faith", and who is going to say that they did not? Is Mr Connolly going to say that they did not? Mr Connolly is the Attorney-General of this Territory. Is he going to say that they did not act in good faith? Of course he is not.
So I submit, Madam Speaker, that we do not need the law. It has not been established that we need it. The law before us is a bad law. If the Assembly passes it, it will discover in the future that it has made a rod for its own back. What it does is give Mr Moore a toe-in for the whammy - the active euthanasia Bill. I know that because he said so this morning. That is coming down the track. I do not support this Bill. I do not support it in principle and I do not support a great deal of the detail that is in it.
MR LAMONT (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Housing and Community Services, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (11.05): Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased that I waited to make my contribution until after it was quite clearly demonstrated by Mr Kaine that he basically and fundamentally misunderstands the processes of this Assembly. That is the only conclusion that one can draw from the diatribe we have just heard him undertake for the last five minutes.
Mr Kaine: Madam Speaker, do I have to be personally abused because I have a different view from that of the Minister? It was not a diatribe; it was a decent, honourable speech. I expect to be paid the same respect as everybody else here is paid.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Lamont, I ask you to take that into account.
MR LAMONT: Madam Speaker, the simple position is that, if I take account of the lack of objectivity which Mr Kaine has demonstrated in addressing this matter, I can draw no other conclusion than that it was a diatribe. The simple fact is that this Assembly has a right to determine how it deals with the business before it. Mr Moore, quite properly, as a private member, presented a proposal, and then sought the agreement of this Assembly to conduct a particular process provided for in our standing orders. They provide for a committee of this Assembly to consult with the public - an exposed and open process - a principle that I would have assumed would be supported by Mr Kaine.
Notwithstanding a number of positions that Mr Moore put quite forcibly, as was his right, that committee, comprising Mrs Carnell, Mr Moore and me, came down with a report. There were differences within that report; but there was an acknowledgment that, as far as legislators are concerned, incrementalism in this case is an appropriate way to proceed. That did not mean that there was support within this Assembly for active euthanasia; but it did say that, before that matter is considered within our community and the community's position is reflected in this Assembly by legislation, if that is the case, we should proceed at least to clarify the position as it is acknowledged to be at the moment. That is what Mr Moore's Bill and, indeed, the consequent amendments that have been proposed by our side are attempting to do. I find offensive Mr Kaine's suggestion that I, as a member of this Assembly in the first instance, have no right to become a member of a committee of this Assembly, to allow the matter to be debated, to consider the issue, to put a view in terms of a report and to support a legislative package which gives recognition to the recommendations of the report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .