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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3671 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

somebody who has no health qualifications and somebody who is a nurse, compared to somebody who is a doctor. The penalty was exactly the same for a nurse or a doctor, unless the doctor met a whole series of other qualifications. Those qualifications allowed them to make decisions as to whether the person was in a terminal phase of a terminal illness and was able to get a second opinion on it. There were a series of other things that only a medical practitioner in our society would be prepared to deal with.

Those were important issues that Mr Humphries and the Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised, but I think there are sensible answers to them. I must say that in some ways I find it disappointing that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee made so much effort to go through this Bill with a fine toothcomb, while at the same time they missed out on the Henry VIII clause in another piece of legislation. Be that as it may, we hope that each Bill gets the most detailed scrutiny it possibly can, which gives us options to look at and to choose how we should act.

There is also the Euthanasia Referendum Bill. Quite a number of people raised issues about the Euthanasia Referendum Bill, such as that it would be useless on its own. I must say that I have some sympathy for that view, but I should also remind members that this was part of a campaign right around Australia, largely carried by the Democrats. Other people in each parliament also had agreed that they would table such legislation. I was part of that campaign. Members may remember that there were quite a number of petitions tabled in this house from a large number of people, although they came in in dribs and drabs, that called for support for a referendum on this issue. It is still part of the whole notion of the legislation, and I encourage members to change their mind, therefore, on this issue. What would happen is that around Australia a proposal would go through assemblies. This could well lead to a national referendum on the issue, which I think would assist in clarifying the situation.

On that issue Mr Stefaniak says, "So, Mr Moore, why do you not support CIR?". CIR is a major transfer of power to a majority, as opposed to a referendum that is put up to try to assess a view of the community as a whole on such a divided moral issue. On the moral issue, the one thing about the whole issue that I find most difficult to comprehend is that, by passing this sort of legislation to remove an impost that one group makes on another, those who resist euthanasia legislation insist on forcing their view on other people. What I say to you is: If you do not want it - and I am talking about just euthanasia legislation generally, rather than specific legislation - do not use it; but leave those of us who do want to have this legislation available to us to make that choice for ourselves.

Not even giving us a referendum to see the general view of the community about it is appalling, but I understand the reason why the referendum is generally not supported by those who oppose this legislation. We all have different reasons, but those who oppose this legislation are dead scared of a referendum because the polling is so consistent. Right across Australia the polling on the issue of euthanasia shows that 78 per cent of people, plus or minus about half a per cent, support the right of people to choose. That is why they do not want a referendum.

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