Mr ROSS CAMERON(4.07 p.m.) —I rise with a certain amount of fear and trepidation to oppose the venerable right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who I would rather not oppose on any issue, but most particularly on one relating to a matter of principle on a piece of legislation before the House. Having listened carefully to the argument he advanced in support of the amendment, I find myself in firm opposition to it.

Likewise, I listened with interest to the speech by the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). It was a speech of considerable feeling and emotion—one might even say of passion. Had the emotion been matched by a similar measure of reason, it would have been, in my opinion, a better speech.

Mr Tanner —It would have been very unusual for Wilson.

Mr ROSS CAMERON —I listen to the member for Melbourne interjecting. I begin my remarks by referring to his speech, which I thought was one of the most balanced and persuasive offered to the parliament on this subject. The member for Melbourne may be surprised to know he was animated by a Catholic conspiracy. Having said that, I recall in his remarks he said that, of all the arguments advanced in opposition to the Euthanasia Laws Bill, the weakest of those is the states rights argument. That is a view to which I entirely subscribe.

Having listened to the right honourable and venerable member for New England, his principal argument was that the bill discriminates against the Northern Territory. That argument was taken up by the member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas), who advanced a number of propositions. But I have to say that the credibility of the member for the Northern Territory on this issue has been dramatically weakened by the actions of his constituents and of his party in particular.

The member for Grayndler (Mr Albanese) spoke derisively about the tactics, if you like, of some of those who have participated in the debate with threats against members. I note for the record that every member in this place from the Northern Territory who represents the Country-Liberal Party has been put on notice that if they support the Andrews bill, they will be expelled from the party.

Mr Slipper —You're kidding!

Mr ROSS CAMERON —That is absolutely serious. So they have a gun put to their heads and they are marched into the parliament, but they are told, `Naturally, feel free to exercise your conscience.' I have to tell you that the credibility of the contribution of every member from the Northern Territory has been pretty dramatically undermined, in my eyes at least, in the knowledge that all of them are speaking under complete duress.

I turn now in a dispassionate way to the amendment that is before us. I want to reflect on the basic arguments that are being advanced in opposition to and in support of the amendment. The member for O'Connor suggested that those of us who support the Andrews bill do so on the basis that it somehow `transcends the constitution'. I suggest that nothing could be further from the truth, that this bill represents one of the most orthodox, pedestrian exercises of Commonwealth power that you could ever imagine.

I advance that proposition having carefully studied the speech by the member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Nairn), which was a good speech but which nonetheless obscured the fact that this is an entirely orthodox exercise of a clear head of power under the constitution. So I approach this matter as a very humble solicitor, having dusted off my first year constitutional law notes which explain fairly clearly that the Commonwealth is a government of enumerated specific powers. If we want to do anything in this place, we have to go to the constitution, look through the heads of power and find one which covers the subject matter under consideration.

I suggest that nothing could be clearer than section 122 of the constitution. It provides a power for the Commonwealth to govern over the territories. This is not a case of the Commonwealth desperately wanting to legislate in an area over which it has no power. This is not a matter of our looking desperately under section 51(xxix) for the most bizarre construction of the external affairs power in order to justify a domestic act. This is not drawing some long constitutional bow in order to satisfy the whim of a centralist Commonwealth executive. This is an entirely orthodox, simple exercise of a Commonwealth constitutional power.

If we just want to look at the logic of the amendment, the member advances it on the basis that the bill is discriminatory, that we as a parliament should be looking at matters which affect the whole of Australia and not simply one territory. I ask: is it possible as a matter of logic for the parliament to exercise section 122 without doing so in a discriminatory way? I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as a matter of simple logic, it is impossible for the Commonwealth to exercise section 122 without doing so in a discriminatory way. How can you do it otherwise? So the implication of the member's amendment is that we should expunge it from the constitution.

I take up the point made earlier by the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop), who quite rightly said this is a simple exercise of Commonwealth power. She is an advocate of states rights for the Northern Territory, but we have not yet arrived at that point of conferring statehood on the Northern Territory. We cannot somehow project ourselves forward and second-guess the will of this parliament or the Australian people as to whether we will or will not confer statehood on the Northern Territory. But the minister, a passionate advocate for statehood for the Northern Territory during her time as shadow minister for Commonwealth-state relations, nonetheless supports the Andrews bill, because she rightly acknowledges the most commonsense proposition that the Northern Territory is a territory.

That is why I come back to the point of the honourable member for Melbourne: the weakest argument of all advanced by those who oppose the Andrews bill is so-called states rights. Nothing could be more inherently contradictory in arguing for states rights than when dealing with a territory. Again, the simple solicitor's logic says to me the constitution confers a power.

The member for Hindmarsh (Ms Gallus) says there may be a legal right to legislate but there is no moral right. That is an extraordinary argument to try to come to grips with. The member is saying she does not want the Commonwealth to exercise the power. She is entitled to that view. But the power is there as clear as day. We have not yet arrived at the point where the Northern Territory has been granted statehood. So we not only have the power but, having the power, we have the duty to exercise it as legislators in a national parliament.

I read with interest and listened to the opening speech by the member for Grayndler at the beginning of this debate when he said that those of us who opposed euthanasia ought not to have any concerns with this bill because it does not apply to us; it only applies to those who support euthanasia. That is an entirely flawed understanding of the role of the Commonwealth parliament and the way legislation works.

The test that I would apply to this debate, and specifically dealing with this amendment, is the CNN test. That is, when covering the issue, what will be the headline on CNN? Will they broadcast to the world that in a dramatic move the Commonwealth has reopened an argument about the extent to which the Commonwealth parliament ought to intervene in the affairs of a territory before conferring statehood under the constitutional process? Will it read that the Commonwealth parliament of Australia has taken a very dramatic and decisive decision to move the euthanasia debate from one chamber to another? No. When CNN reports this debate it will say, `A province of Australia has passed the most far-reaching and daring patient killing act known to the world.'

So let us retain a degree of proportionality about this discussion. As we have had to face up to the difficulty of this issue, there have been various attempts to sideline it. If we want to talk about side-show alley, it is those who oppose the Andrews bill who are grasping at straws, taking every step, contrivance, ruse and blind to try to get this debate off the national agenda and out of this parliament altogether.

Those of us who support the bill simply say: bring it on. To those who maybe are out there listening to this debate now, wondering why we are voting on the amendment, it is yet another attempt to take the mind of this parliament off the key matter of substance to which we are all directing our minds. The question is: when is enough enough? When will we simply take a deep breath and each one of us nail our flag to the mast? When will we simply take the vote which all Australians are groaning about and waiting for after weeks of deliberation in what has been an excellent debate with fine contributions from all sides? Now is the time to simply come to a conclusion, make a judgment and vote on the bill.

On that basis I support the Andrews bill and specifically oppose the amendment. There is no substance to it. There is no legal obstacle to the Andrews bill. In the way the debate is understood by the people of Australia and of the world, this is a bill of substance and the entire debate has been focused on that substance. It is about life and death, it is about euthanasia, and it is about time we voted on it.