Page 3206 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore talked about Rita Marker and said that he did not pooh-pooh her. Perhaps he did not pooh-pooh her, but the way Mr Moore spoke tended to make you think that he disagreed with Rita Marker because she happens to have this passionate view against euthanasia. I accept the fact that Mr Moore says that there are certain people whose viewpoints are coloured by their personal viewpoints. I am assuming that Mr Moore's viewpoints are also coloured in the same way.
Mr Moore went on to argue that this Bill is better because it is giving power to two professionals and now only one professional has been making the decision. The difference, Mr Moore, is that this has been happening all the way through, and the professional who is making the decisions now is someone who has an intimate knowledge of what is happening with the patient. So, I do not think we can use that argument now, because it tends to open, in my view, a lot of Pandora's boxes. Mr Moore said that it is in fact tightening up something that is happening now. I do not believe that it is tightening anything up, really. That is my personal view.
Mr Moore went on to talk about the definition of "reasonable". He said that it was fallacious to assume that, just because one court in the United States had made some sort of determination, that would have an effect on any determination made in a court in Australia. I do not know whether that is true or whether it is not true, whether that is going to happen or whether it is not going happen; but the mere fact that it may happen leaves me in a position of not wishing to support this Bill. There are too many ifs and buts.
I think Mr Moore said that this Bill was simple and straightforward. I think they were his words. Madam Speaker, I am suggesting that this Bill is not simple and it is not straightforward. The mere fact that it has caused so much disagreement between members of the Assembly tells me that it is not simple and it is not straightforward. It is not simple and it is not straightforward, notwithstanding the Attorney's comments initially that most of the amendments are technical amendments. There are, I believe, Mr Connolly, 30 amendments before us. This Bill has gone through committees and all sorts of things, yet we are still talking about 30 amendments - albeit some of them technical - to a piece of legislation that is supposed to be simple and straightforward and that everybody ought to be sticking up their hands and supporting. I am saying that it is not simple; it is not straightforward.
I believe that Mr Kaine is correct in this situation in saying that we are being asked to make comments in a legal way on moral issues. As I said, I will not be supporting any of the amendments, just as I did not support the Bill, because there is no burning passion out there for us to be legislating in the way we are attempting to do now, and because, in my view, it is going to open up a Pandora's box and trying to go through it will be a legal person's dream.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (11.27): Madam Speaker, having listened to the comments in the detail stage by both Mr Kaine and Mr De Domenico, I think they really disagree in principle with the Bill, as they voted against the Bill. They have pretty much indicated that they are against the Bill and against the concept. I think their comments were more to the principle than to the detail, but I do want to address some issues.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .