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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 439 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

enormous compassion for people suffering from terminal illness and pain that cannot be alleviated; but, as a matter of public policy, I do not see the Bill as providing the solution that Mr Moore wishes to achieve. Mr Speaker, it is for these reasons that I oppose the Bill.

MR WOOD (11.26): Mr Speaker, I first considered the question of euthanasia some 40 years ago. That was when, as a brash youngster in a youth group, I was allocated the pro side in a debate on "That mercy killing is acceptable". That was when, after my spirited support of the proposal, I learnt some of the complexities and all of the passion attached to the issue. Those two factors have remained constant in all the debates over the years, and especially now that the proposal has emerged in legislative form. In those 40 years, my views have not remained constant, fluctuating as I have been influenced by one argument or another. I mention this passage of time to indicate that my decision today, as it was on the last vote, has not been easily or hastily reached. It follows some study and much thought.

This Bill would establish a principle: That the state can sanction death. I have been a member of this Assembly now for eight years. I do not have the confidence in myself, or in this Assembly, to cede to us the power to determine life or death. I remain convinced that this is a power which the state must not have. The state, as for all of us, must nurture life. We must be responsive in attending to the sometimes tragic circumstances of people; but our actions must be based on promoting the interests of society generally, and those interests are not met by this legislation.

Some years ago, this Assembly introduced measures to allow, in some circumstances, for life-sustaining treatment to be withheld. Today, we are considering further measures to allow, on request, medical treatment to cause death. What might we consider tomorrow? After my last vote on this issue, I was challenged by the question, "Why do you, Mr Wood, presume to impose your conscience over mine?". The answer to that is clear. As a legislator, I am, with all members here, and through the democratic process, constantly imposing my conscience on others - seldom, of course, on so momentous an issue. In casting my vote today against this measure, I am confident that it is in the best interests of society.

MR HIRD (11.29): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak against the Medical Treatment (Amendment) Bill 1997, as tabled in this parliament by our colleague Mr Moore. I acknowledge that there are arguments for and against this proposed legislation; but, on balance, I believe that there are stronger arguments against it. Therefore, I am opposed to it, for many reasons, which I will outline. Firstly, Mr Speaker, I believe that the tabling of this Bill is ill timed. This parliament is in a no-win situation. As we all know, there is a Bill currently before the Senate, as Mr Berry and Mr Kaine indicated earlier in this debate, known as the Andrews Bill, which, if carried, will make the deliberations of this parliament a total waste of time. The Andrews Bill, which would override any legislation we put into effect, has passed through the House of Representatives. I know that that does not guarantee that it will pass through the Senate; but I believe that there is more than a fifty-fifty chance that it will.

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