Mr LIEBERMAN(12.34 p.m.) —When an elected member of parliament who belongs to a political party is able to vote on an issue, the community usually—and sometimes cynically—says, `Oh, well, the member follows the party line.' That is an oversimplification of the role of a member of parliament who belongs to a political party and is unfair, because policy decisions result from many people in that party working and contributing towards a resolution and a policy outcome. However, when a member belongs to a political party that says also that members may exercise a right to vote on an issue if it can fairly be categorised as a conscience issue, I think that member can proudly say that he belongs to a party which recognises the sensitivities of issues and allows members to vote according to conscience without any recrimination.

I am particularly pleased that, in the whole of this parliament, members from all parties have been given the privilege of voting according to their conscience on this important legislation, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, even though some of those members not belonging to my party do not normally have that right. Parliament is enriched by the process.

Secondly, members of the community in my electorate have spoken to me and said, `Lou, you really should vote the way we say you should. After all, it is what we want you to do. It is our will.' I try to explain to those people, `Yes, I respect your view and I am interested to learn about it and to discuss it with you. But it is not the view of all of my electorate.' It is quite strange when they then say, `Oh, but it must be. How can anyone not have a view the same as ours?'

It is an interesting paradox that a member of parliament has to explain sometimes to his individual electors that what they say to him is not necessarily the same as the views of the rest of the constituents. Like other colleagues, I have had a lot of correspondence, phone calls, and personal conversations with people in my electorate about this issue. If I were wanting to count up the number of people that have actually taken the trouble to contact me, I would find that most would overwhelmingly be against euthanasia and would overwhelmingly want me to vote in support of the Andrews legislation and thus frustrate the Northern Territory parliament in its legislative program.

But I have been around a while and I am also aware of the fact that the silent majority often does not take the trouble to express its view. You cannot always say to yourself, as a parliamentarian, that since you have got most letters from people who take one view, it therefore follows ipso facto that that is the view of the whole electorate. I do not take that view. My own conscience view is—and always has been, and I believe always will be—that life is precious, and that the mysteries of life are not always understood, and I certainly do not understand them fully. I personally would always strongly oppose euthanasia.

As a former minister for health and a shadow minister for health in the Victorian parliament, I was often confronted with the dilemma of trying to find enough resources to meet all of the health needs of the community. There are cogent arguments put to you to fund this and not, perhaps, put as much into another area. That is one of the dilemmas, of course, of being in public life and making decisions that often you have to balance things.

I do not see any compromise on the question of legalising euthanasia. It is something that I cannot support. I remember when I was at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne and being shown the premature babies in that particular area where with great skill many babies have been saved and have gone on to become healthy children and adults and productive citizens of this country. I can remember one of the bureaucrats saying, `Minister, you know it costs, I think, $27,000 a week to keep these babies alive. You know, Minister, you are going to have to—' I said, `No, I don't know.' `You know, Minister?' I said, `No, I don't know.' But I knew he meant, of course, that maybe the funds should be cut off. There was no way that I would adhere to that, either.

I have been a strong advocate of the development in Australia of palliative care. I think that is an issue. I have asked a lot of people who have been opposed to us opposing this euthanasia law whether they understood that in Victoria, in particular, and in other states, there is the right to refuse medical treatment. I played a little role in that when I was in the Victorian parliament in helping to develop those laws. They are surprised—and many citizens of Australia do not understand—that there are now legislative rights in most states to refuse medical treatment which prolongs that person's life when that person does not want support systems. There is now a right to refuse. When I explained that, I found a lot of people who were wanting to have euthanasia laws said, `That is all I need, Lou. I am happy with that and I do not particularly want to go ahead with supporting euthanasia.'

Coming from a state parliament and now in the federal parliament, I respect very much the sovereignty and the principle of the elected parliament being accountable and having its rights to enact laws, even though you may not approve of them, without interference from central government. So you can understand that I am in some quandary here, except that I believe that under section 122 of the constitution, federal parliamentarians are expected to maintain their duties and responsibilities and not abrogate them. So I do not find the arguments against interference with the Northern Territory parliament very strong at all.

The other point is that the Northern Territory law has extra-jurisdictional operation. In fact, people have already moved from my home town in Victoria to the Northern Territory to seek access to the Northern Territory law. So it is a nonsense to say that the Northern Territory law only applies to Northern Territorians. It has the potential to apply to all Australians. That is another reason why the Commonwealth parliament has a legitimate right, in my view, to debate the issue.

Secondly, in the abstract, it can also be argued that the Commonwealth commitment to health funding through Medicare and other grant systems involves interconnection between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. So Commonwealth parliamentarians have the responsibility anyway in the knowledge that, if one territory in Australia has a law like this, it is going to act as a magnet for people from other parts of Australia. They will want to avail themselves of this law.

I go back to the fact that our responsibility is to work as hard as we can to improve access to and the quality and effectiveness of palliative care. That is the important area. I am not here to moralise about the painful process of death. Obviously, I have had family and friends involved in that process, as we all have. However, from all the reading I have done and instruction that I have received, I strongly believe that palliative care can give relief to people who are suffering, and it can give it in a way which is dignified and which assists them to cope with a difficult passage of time. However, I know that more needs to be done in that area.

I pay tribute to the people in my electorate who are committed to developing those programs, particularly for rural people on farms and in isolation who do not have access to palliative care as you and I who live in large communities have. I pay tribute to those people in my electorate who are pioneering the development in Australia of palliative care to isolated communities and to people on farms through volunteers and visits and the like. I just wanted to take the opportunity to mention those people and commend their work in this society.

Finally, I respect the right of people to disagree with me. I have no disrespect for their view. It is good for us to be able to participate in a debate on an issue as sensitive as this with goodwill and understanding on both sides. I have a final prayer for all the people of this world that this country and this nation will lead the world in caring for people in the right way.