Mr STEPHEN SMITH(6.04 p.m.) —I oppose the motion moved by the member for Longman (Mr Brough). In the course of my remarks, I will formally move an amendment which I have asked the clerk to circulate. The first point I want to make is that I support the bill moved by the member for Menzies (Mr Andrews), and on division in this House I propose to support it. My view on this issue has always been that it is a matter of individual conscience, so far as both procedure and substance are concerned.

I have been concerned at the procedure which the House has adopted to date and proposes to adopt in the handling of this bill. I believe that the conduct of the House in the handling of this matter goes to the great national expectations that have arisen about this issue of great national conscience.

The House has before it three or four avenues of procedure. I want to deal with those and, in the course of my remarks, make some comment on the motion moved by the member for Longman and refer the House expressly to my proposed amendment.

The first procedure open to the House is that which was flagged by the member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus) to discharge the bill from the Notice Paper. The effect of such a motion, if successful, would be to kill the bill before any debate. I was pleased that the member for Hindmarsh did not go down that road because not only would it have killed the bill without debate but also it would have struck me that the member for Hindmarsh had been particularly selfish. Having taken the opportunity of being one of only six members to speak on the bill, her proposal would have deprived any other member of the opportunity to speak. I am pleased that the member for Hindmarsh did not proceed in that way.

The second avenue available to the House is that proposed by the member for Longman, namely, reference of the bill to a select committee. That approach would be to run away from the debate now. Two essential points go against the motion moved by the member for Longman to establish a select committee. Firstly, the bill presented to the House by the member for Menzies seeks to override the law of a territory. I have no difficulty with that. I subscribe to that quaint, old-fashioned notion that, since there is a Commonwealth head of power, the Commonwealth parliament is entitled to utilise it. I have no difficulty in that respect, but the people of the Northern Territory, the ACT and Norfolk Island are entitled to know sooner rather than later whether this House proposes to interfere and override that legislation.

The second essential point is that the House normally moves a matter to a select or standing committee when the House requires judgment to be made on matters on which the House is lacking—technical matters or matters of expertise—or matters which have come to the House quickly, without notice, and on which the House might want to pause. This is not such a matter.

Members of this parliament will have been besieged by views on either side of this debate. In one respect, while it is perfectly open to a member over time to change his or her view on this very important matter of conscience, in another respect, if you do not know now you will never know. You do not need the delay which would be imposed by a reference to a select committee to make up your minds on an individual matter of conscience we have been aware of for months and in respect of which many members of this House, because of death among family, friends and loved ones, have been touched personally.

So this is not an issue about which the House is surprised. The people of the Northern Territory and Australia are entitled to know sooner rather than later what this House proposes to do. You do not need the luxury of three or four months before a select committee to make up your mind.

The next procedural avenue open is to continue down the course which the House resolved on 8 October on the motion of the Leader of the House (Mr Reith), which would see this debate conducted in the Main Committee. That would see matters of life and death debated in sideshow alley. The Main Committee is not a venue for such a matter. This is not a non-controversial matter, but one in respect of which one voice of dissent or conscience ought to ensure that the matter is heard in this chamber.

As a matter of principle, I do not propose under the current arrangements to speak on this bill. I do not propose, and did not seek, to be one of the six who excluded the other 142 members of this chamber thereby making them second-class members. I certainly do not propose to skulk up to the Main Committee and speak in sideshow alley. `In the great euthanasia debate of 1996, Dad, where did you speak? Did you skulk off to sideshow alley?' As a matter of principle, I am not proposing to go up to the Main Committee and speak on this matter.

So the best procedural way open to the House is to adopt the amendment which I now formally move. I move:

That all words after "prevent" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the member for Perth from moving the following motion forthwith:

That those provisions of the resolution of the House of 8 October 1996 relating to the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 which have not yet had effect are to have no effect and all further proceedings on the bill shall be conducted in the House for the reasons that the House recognises:

(a)   the need to ensure the issues raised by the bill are the subject of national discussion led by the House of Representatives;

(b)   the public concern, especially among Territorians, that consideration of the bill as currently proposed would substantially occur outside the House itself; and

(c)   the course of action proposed for the bill which has not yet had effect is contrary to all established rules and practices covering the operation of the House and its Main Committee".

I do not propose to traverse the matters about which I have spoken to the House before. I certainly do not want to raise the ire of the Leader of the House (Mr Reith) who has had them from me on two or three occasions. Suffice to say that the dignity and standing of this House, of this parliament and the meeting of community expectations on a great national issue of conscience requires that this chamber itself lead the debate. You cannot do that if you send the bill off to sideshow alley. You cannot do that if you run away from the debate and send it off to a select committee. You cannot do that if you discharge the bill, as the member for Hindmarsh may have been thinking about, without a fulsome debate in this House. All of those avenues diminish this parliament, this debate and the members here.

There is only one proper approach: this great issue of national conscience ought to be conducted wholesomely, fulsomely and completely in this chamber, to ensure the standing and dignity of this parliament and a proper meeting of community expectations. On this matter there are individual views of conscience: strong views firmly held; strong views emotionally held; strong views sensitively held—all after careful thought. Those views may change over time and members may want to dwell and reflect upon them. But those views should be expressed, articulated and responded to by the community when they see members do it in this chamber. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Martyn Evans —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I greatly respect the way all members have contributed to this debate tonight. It is a very difficult issue. I remain absolutely opposed to euthanasia, but I respect the views of others on this matter. The amendment moved by the member for Perth is along similar lines to one he has moved previously and on which the government has a particular procedural view. The point of order I put to you, Mr Speaker, for clarification is that the amendment to the motion by the member for Longman is to put the whole debate back onto the floor of the House and not refer it to a select committee or the other chamber.

Mrs Crosio —What's your point of order?

Mr Tim Fischer —I am coming to it; just keep calm. The member for Longman has moved that the Euthanasia Laws Bill be referred to a select committee. That is truly a matter of conscience on which members will have a chance to vote directly. But this amendment moved by the member for Perth and to which the government is opposed is out of order. Mr Speaker, I invite you to clarify whether you believe it is in order, firstly, because of the importance of these proceedings that everything be absolutely correct and, secondly, because it denies the House the option of referring the bill to a select committee and then back to a debate in the House as a whole.

Mr SPEAKER —I listened very carefully to the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister and I have read very carefully the proposed amendment. Apart from all of the emotional issues, we are dealing here with procedural matters. On the basis of the procedural matter under consideration, the amendment is in order. I call the honourable member for Werriwa.

Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Bonython seconded the motion of the member for Perth and reserved his right to speak. The call should be to this side of the House now—and I wish to speak.

Mr SPEAKER —That is fine, but the honourable member for Werriwa has the call.

Mr Latham —It's not a matter that goes from one side of the House to the other.

Mr SPEAKER —Order! Let the adjudicator adjudicate. The honourable member for Werriwa has the call.

Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, on a point of order—

Mr SPEAKER —I listened very carefully to what the honourable member said. You will have your opportunity to speak.