Mr ROBERT BROWN(3.34 p.m.) —I indicate at the outset my support for the amendment which has been moved by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and say, without dwelling too much on it, that I would have preferred it had the House adopted the earlier amendment by the member for Longman (Mr Brough) which would have had the effect of referring the Andrews bill to a select committee of this chamber so that additional consideration could have been given to it.

There is no question that this is a matter of great moment to not only members of this chamber but all people in Australia, whatever may have been the motivation for the position they have adopted. I emphasised before the need for members to be thoroughly aware of the definitions of some of the issues involved. I asked, for example, how many members of this chamber, or, for that matter, of the Senate, would be able, off the cuff, to identify the difference between active and passive euthanasia, between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia and to distinguish them in turn from suicide and assisted suicide. I emphasise, and I repeat: there is a great need for people to be able to do precisely that before they cast a considered decision in relation to the Andrews bill.

The second reason I thought it was going to be of importance that that procedure be adopted was that I wondered how many members of this chamber or of the Senate would have been able to thoroughly explain whether or not the Andrews bill would impact unfavourably on other legislation of the Northern Territory—legislation of the Northern Territory which quite correctly was considered and passed and legislation of the Northern Territory which has not in any way been challenged.

There are some legal opinions which have indicated that the carriage of this bill in this parliament would impact against other legislation in the Northern Territory. There is equally competent legal opinion which asserts to the contrary. Those questions have not been resolved. I believe that they need to be resolved before anyone can cast a genuine, informed, intelligent, considered response.

The motion of the right honourable member for New England calls on the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice (Mr Williams) to have an alternative bill prepared and presented to the House in a form which does not discriminate against the people of any part of Australia. I hope that the motion will be carried, and I also hope that the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice will come forward with proposed legislation which would have the effect of establishing an appropriate procedure and appropriate structure for these issues to be more thoroughly canvassed.

I have listened with a great deal of interest and concern to as much of the debate as I could possibly follow. I know that it has been followed just as assiduously by other members of the parliament and other people in the wider community. I am absolutely convinced that, quite apart from any deficiencies that there might have been in my analysis, there are many members who simply do not understand many of the implications. I say that while at the same time acknowledging and endorsing the comments that have been made by others, including the member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas) when he said that there has been a great deal of goodwill brought to this debate by members of the parliament.

I also want to make reference to one particular speech which should be compulsory reading for every member of this parliament before they vote on the motion before us or on the bill itself. I refer to the contribution made by the member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Nairn). I said to him that it was an outstanding contribution. It was considered, it was knowledgeable, it was compelling. To my mind, and I include my own speech in this, his was the best.

Mr Pyne —What about mine?

Mr ROBERT BROWN —Very effective, but I am saying that his was the best. Again, I refer that speech to all members. If they did not hear it and have not read it, they should do so. It was a very valuable contribution to this whole question.

The point has been made that this legislation would override the legislation of the Northern Territory. That causes me no concern—no concern at all. As has been observed by others, there have been occasions in this parliament when I and others have voted to overrule well-intentioned decisions made by states and territories, and on some occasions we have used our external affairs power to do so. I have no reservations about that. But on all of those occasions, when I have supported and endorsed the overruling of legislation by territories or states, I voted for something that would extend the rights of the citizens.

That is not the case with the Andrews bill. Its purpose, as far as the Northern Territory is concerned—and, at the present time, it relates to all citizens in Australia—is to reduce or contain the rights which that legislation has extended to all citizens in Australia to determine the timing and the nature of their death, and to give them the right, if it is necessary for them to avail themselves of it, to call on others to assist them.

Over the weekend I saw in the paper a photograph of a gentleman who had just been convicted of manslaughter. No severe penalty was imposed because, at his father's request, he had shot his father due to the pain his father was suffering. That was an appalling situation for any person to find themselves in. As I said before, that action was necessary on that fellow's part, and on the part of all those others who, out of their love and concern for close friends, spouses, children or parents, seek to assist those people to end their lives as they choose to.

We are not talking, in connection with the question before us, about involuntary euthanasia. We are not talking about any form of compulsory euthanasia in certain circumstances. We are simply talking about the right of individual people to have control over their own lives and the timing and the nature of their passing.

I do not know if Mother Teresa was misquoted but I saw headlines in one newspaper to the effect that Mother Teresa—an 86-year-old lady of enormous achievement, of great dignity, of world acclaim—rather than have tubes stuck in her and tests of various kinds carried out on that unfortunate, dignified woman, has said, `Let me die.' Apparently, there are some people who would say, `No, Mother Teresa, we won't.'

If the primary process, which is provided for in the constitution, had been followed in connection with this issue, there was a period during which this parliament could have acted to overrule the legislation passed by the Northern Territory. That time has elapsed. That is why it became necessary for this parliament to take this particular action, introducing special legislation, as Mr Andrews, the initiator of this bill, has sought to do.

I said as well that, in cases like the one in which a relatively young man shot his father and then was tried on that basis, I believe the people who made themselves familiar with the circumstances of that case and of so many other cases of a similar kind would probably all say that the court acted correctly. I would hope that that would be a reflection of the sort of compassion that people may bring to questions of this kind.

If we believe that the court acted correctly, but in the process perhaps either ignored our legislation or the legislation of the states and territories or modified its interpretation of that legislation to ensure that it would act from a moral position with sympathy and compassion for people who find themselves in those terribly distressing circumstances, our failure as legislators to codify the arrangements which would make it possible for the courts to do that and for the courts to do it following the law would obviously represent on our part personal and political cowardice. Let us not seek to absolve ourselves of our responsibility in relation to this because we are the legislators.

If there is compassion to be shown in cases like this, let us codify it. Do not let us wash our hands of this question. So, in order to satisfy our own conscience, perhaps we will retain the existing legislation and leave it to the courts.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Having previously interrupted the member for the Northern Territory, in the spirit of equity I should also suggest that the member for Charlton concentrate his remarks on the contents of the amendment.

Mr ROBERT BROWN —I appreciate your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I intended to relate it back, as you quite correctly suggest I should, to the amendment of the right honourable member for New England. All of those issues are quite clearly important, and that is why I believe that the consideration of this amendment, with great respect to you, sir, may be a little wider than just a direct reference to it because we would in fact be referring this question to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to have that alternative bill prepared. If we were to sensibly come to some individual and collective decision about that, we would need to also have a mind to types of issues that would address the attention of the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice in that context.

The last thing I want to do is make reference to the fact that it is estimated that 7,000 doctors in Australia have already assisted people to die, and we know that there is at least one doctor in the parliament who has indicated that he has assisted people to die and I also believe that he will be voting finally for the Andrews bill. It is estimated that 7,000 doctors would have assisted others to die. There were some quite courageous, quite heroic doctors in Victoria who went on the public record and said that they had done that. Again, they laid themselves open to incarceration for something like 15 years, but no action was taken against them, nor should it have been. If we have courage, we should codify the legislation. (Time expired)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Before calling any member, I repeat the caution that I gave to the member for Charlton and the member for Northern Territory: members should do their absolute utmost to direct their remarks to the contents of the amendment.