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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3503 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, you will find this difficult to believe. In spite of that, today, in the media, some people, including Margaret Tighe of the Right to Life movement, were able to say that this is a shame for Australia - that there was enough compassion to allow this man to make his own decision about his own suffering. It is the people like Margaret Tighe who should wear the shame, Mr Speaker, because they - - -

Mr Osborne: I will wear it.

MR MOORE: You have already spoken, Mr Osborne. They will wear the shame for allowing these people to suffer. The shame is the lack of compassion that those people would show to somebody who is in great pain and great suffering. They would stand back, point the finger and say to them, "Continue your suffering". That is what these people would say. The man who sits next to me here, chuckling, Mr Osborne, is one of these people who lack the compassion to allow these people to say, "I choose". People with a terminal illness, already suffering from cancer, want to choose when they no longer wish to suffer; when they recognise they can no longer live in this sort of way.

Mr Speaker, I find it very hard to believe, on top of that, but it happens, that men of the church lack that compassion - a church that supposedly preaches love as its prime message. After all, Christ, when asked what was the greatest of the commandments, said, "Love one another as I have loved you". That is the prime message of Christianity, Mr Speaker. Yet we see in these people who consider this a shameful episode a lack of love, a lack of compassion for somebody who is already dying. They want to increase that suffering. I say shame on them. How can they hold up their faces and call themselves Christians, Mr Speaker?

MS TUCKER (5.04): Through you, Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mrs Carnell for organising the breakfast with the Dalai Lama. I was not able to attend, but Lucy Horodny went and felt very privileged to have been at that meeting. I think there were many State leaders who did not show that courage, possibly because they were concerned about diplomatic repercussions. As someone who has been concerned for a long time about what has been happening in Tibet, I was very pleased to see Mrs Carnell organise that breakfast. Thank you.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (5.05), in reply: Mr Speaker, I would like to make a few summing up comments on the debate on the adjournment. First of all, obviously I have to defend the Government's decision about the Dubydome. The words of some great sage spring to mind: "Things that men do live after them". I am afraid that there is very little else in the Territory that will live after Mr Duby, so to do away with his one remaining monument in the Territory would be a great pity, Mr Speaker.

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