Ms WORTH(4.30 p.m.) —I oppose the amendment moved by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). He is usually right about most things but I will have to disagree with him today. The main reason I have for that disagreement is that I was in the position, like some others, of having heard many of the speeches in the Main Committee—confined to 10 minutes, as has already been said.

They were some of the best speeches I have heard since entering the parliament, and I do not think for one moment that the speakers there misunderstood what they were talking about. They did not misunderstand that it was a constitutional matter. It was not just that they were debating their conscience and what they thought about euthanasia.

The speeches were thoughtful and considerate. It was an extraordinarily good experience to hear members stating which way they would vote and why. They did not skirt around the issue of the constitution. I say that the territories go through a maturing process and that the constitution is such that citizens of the territories—and, in this instance, a good number of the Aboriginal community and also others who feel vulnerable—are protected by Commonwealth law through this maturing process. This is not a question of discrimination.

In my own speech in the Main Committee, I referred to the Commonwealth's rights in this matter and recalled the relatively recent example of the Commonwealth overriding Tasmanian law. I also recall commenting on the fact that the electoral roll of the Northern Territory has 115,000 on it and my own electorate of Adelaide has 83,500. I put forward the argument there that my constituents would not deem it proper or appropriate, I am sure, to be arguing what was right for the rest of Australia.

I am comparatively new in this place, compared with others like the right honourable member for New England who have been around for quite a long time. So I thought it might be appropriate to quote a member who usually sits on the other side of the chamber, who is absent today, who made a good speech in the Main Committee. I refer to the member for Lalor, Mr Barry Jones. When he referred to these matters, he said:

Oddly, the Northern Territory's remonstrance does not refer to section 122 of the Commonwealth's constitution which gives this parliament a specific head of power over legislation passed in territorial legislatures. Until the Northern Territory becomes a state, or until the constitution is revised, there can be no moral, legal or political objection to the Commonwealth parliament exercising its functions.

Reference was made earlier by other speakers to what sort of pressure was being put on people who speak on this issue and to what the opinion polls have to say. I return to the member for Lalor's speech:

I am singularly unimpressed by the argument that, because public opinion polls support euthanasia, the Northern Territory's law should be allowed to stand. If the Northern Territory decided to restore the death penalty, that too might generate rousing support as indicated in public opinion polls, but I would not hesitate to vote to overturn it if it was brought before this parliament under section 122.

I do not intend to take up a lot more time because, as I have already said, an extraordinarily good, high quality, top-class debate has already taken place on this subject in the Main Committee. I think that comments made in this place now should be strictly to the amendment which has been moved. I congratulate those who have taken part in the debate and urge them to reject the amendment.