Mr KERR(4.35 p.m.) —I welcome the amendment moved by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) because it does do us the honour of giving us an opportunity to really reflect whether we are taking a position which is of principle that applies to the whole of Australia or whether we are being simply asked to be opportunistic, to strike down laws that apply in one territory of this Commonwealth in a way which will have no impact on the electoral fortunes of any of us as members of this House who represent other states or territories.

As to the general matters of this debate and the issues that go to the question of euthanasia at large, that has been the subject of what I think has been a very thoughtful and deeply emotional debate which ought to have occurred in this chamber. It would have done this House great honour, were it to have occurred in this chamber. I regret very much that we come back to this chamber for a debate about a procedural aspect when the substantial debate has not been given to this chamber by the government. I think that dishonours the process that has been adopted.

The right honourable member's amendment does give us some opportunity to look at this in a broader context. Reference was made to this parliament's overriding of the Tasmanian law, but members who are aware of the nature of that debate and of the legislation proposed by the government know that it applied universally. It was law that applied, consistent with the Commonwealth's constitutional reach, to all states and territories. It did not apply to Tasmania specifically. Its reach was to all jurisdictions. So it is now unlawful for a state law to intrude upon the consenting sexual practices of adults conducted in private. That was a decision this House made, knowing that those consequences applied to all citizens of this country wherever they might reside—state or territory.

This proposed measure is selective. It applies only to one jurisdiction and purports to leave all other jurisdictions free to proceed as they will. I cannot see how we can genuinely address this issue as a matter of conscience, saying that we apply it to all of those that we represent, if we are being asked to supply such a selective application to the work we do. Is it such that this parliament would have no objection in principle to the state parliaments in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia or my own home state of Tasmania, were those democratically elected parliaments to take courses—which have been urged from time to time by some of their members—to legislate in a like manner to the Northern Territory?

For my own part, I made my views clear in the debate. I propose to vote against the Andrews bill on the substantive matter when it comes before this House. But, irrespective of whatever view I have of the matter, I believe this House could address it more properly. It needs the courage to say that it is prepared to back its judgments and apply the laws across all Australian states and territories. I do not believe that our consciences, such as they are and as they have been aroused in this debate, are limited to those places, such as territory legislatures, over which this parliament has in the past exercised jurisdiction as the superior parliament. We have moved past that stage.

The jurisdictions in the Northern Territory and the ACT are fully self-administering. They have democratic processes and they elect democratic chambers to represent them. What we are going through today is a complicated debate. All of us will ultimately take positions in relation to a matter of grave principle, which is the morality or otherwise of permitting Australians to choose to have available to them a dignified death. But, whatever one's view in the final outcome of that debate, this process is a fundamentally flawed one.

A reference was made to my colleague Barry Jones, the member for Lalor. I believe that he made one of the most significant contributions to the debate on the side of those who have ultimately concluded that this parliament should resolve against the principle of allowing Australians, through their freely elected representatives, to shape their response to euthanasia on a state by state or territory basis. I do not share that view and I did not share it in the Main Committee. I made it plain in that debate that the reason I took this view was that in practice there is already an unregulated system where many elderly Australians, those facing pain and suffering and those subjected to trauma or long-lasting disease, are having dealings with a substantial proportion of the medical profession which has indicated that it is ready to assist actively in the provision of euthanasia. That being the case, we would be better served by setting down clear guidelines that govern acts which are plainly not an offence, as we see things.

I notice the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) sitting in the chamber today. I will repeat what I said in the Main Committee. I find it extraordinary that a medical practitioner who has publicly indicated on a number of occasions that he has participated in active euthanasia on at least two occasions can say that euthanasia should be available to him to choose but then preclude the legislatures of Australia from setting limits to its exercise by the God medical practitioner.

It is plain that no-one went out to arrest the member for Bradfield, seek a confession from him or treat him as a murderer as they would had he confessed to some other directly criminal matter. People have a deeply compassionate and human understanding of the circumstances faced by individual patients and doctors in those circumstances. That is the reason why a large majority of the Australian public wishes that the legislation proposed before the House be defeated.

But, be it the will of this House or otherwise, it is far better that this House looks to a process that applies across the whole of Australia. We could speak of the death penalty. Were the death penalty introduced by any jurisdiction in Australia—I agree with the member who said that it should be repelled—the national parliament would have ample powers to repel it across Australia. That ample power would allow this parliament to legislate, were it so minded. It would be the occasion for a substantial debate.

Were it so minded, there would be ample power in this parliament for us to pass a law, as we did in the Tasmanian instance. It would apply across the whole of Australia in order to preserve basic rights and fundamental freedoms. This would include the right to life if it were violated in the case of a state intending to introduce capital punishment, which is the intentional deprivation of a life in an unwilled way, not as a matter of choice by an individual who wishes to end their pain and suffering. This would be the case were the matter to come before this House.

I support, not with any great passion but as a matter of correct principle, the amendment moved by the right honourable member for New England. I propose, before ultimately voting on the motion moved by the member for Menzies (Mr Andrews), to see whether we can as a House have this matter addressed in a way that would put people to the test. This would involve passing a law that would apply in their electorates when, plainly, the vast majority of their electorates do not share the views they are expressing in this House. They are able to get away with these views in a fairly convenient way by addressing all the arguments towards the citizens of one territory but avoiding any responsibility for the application of their conduct to their own electorates and the wider Australian community.