Mr STEPHEN SMITH(5.55 p.m.) —I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House, the member for Flinders (Mr Reith), and I oppose the amendment moved by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). I propose to speak very briefly.

When the Leader of the House indicated that, so far as he was concerned, we were now dealing with a procedural question as a matter of conscience, I was both pleased and bemused. What today's events have shown to all of us eagerly waiting to vote and determine the outcome of the substance of the Euthanasia Laws Bill is the absolute and complete folly of the Leader of the House and the government foisting upon members of this House a party vote on procedural matters.

That has been significantly illuminated today because most speakers have taken the opportunity of re-running in this place the speeches or the sentiments they expressed in the Main Committee. If we had had this debate in this House properly, leading the national debate as we ought to have, then this procedural debate today may not have been required.

I oppose the amendment moved by the right honourable member for New England on the same basis—conscience and attitude—that I support the bill presented to the parliament by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr Andrews), and for the same reasons of conscience, attitude and approach that I propose to support the amendments circulated by the member for Adelaide (Ms Worth). It is for the same reasons that I propose to oppose the foreshadowed amendment to be moved to the second reading by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas) that I oppose the amendment to the Leader of the House's motion by the right honourable member for New England.

There are two aspects to this bill and to this debate which the parliament is required to seize: first, the question of the capacity of this parliament to override a territory law; and, second, the correctness or otherwise of that. There is no question that we have the capacity to do it. My attitude in these matters is quite simple and straightforward. Where there is a Commonwealth head of power, if the parliament determines, use it. If you have the right and the capacity and you are entitled to exercise it, if the parliament determines that judgment ought to be exercised to override the law of a territory, then so be it, do it.

That goes to the second threshold question of the substance of this bill, which is the question of euthanasia itself. On that aspect, my attitude, the dictates of my conscience and why I propose to support the bill, is that I believe that in a compassionate society the state ought not to sanction death, that morally, ethically and socially a community is legally entitled and should be entitled to do whatever it can to alleviate the pain, distress and suffering of the dying. But that is qualitatively different from having the intention of seeking to put them to death.

There is a qualitative difference between the intellectual approach, the ethical approach, the moral approach and the legal approach of the Northern Territory legislation and the approach which we find in the bill presented to the parliament by the member for Menzies. What makes it qualitatively different is the question of intention. As I have indicated, I believe that in a compassionate society we are obviously entitled—morally, ethically, socially and legally—to do that which we can to alleviate the suffering, the distress and the pain of the dying.

That is, I think, reflected by some good legislation that we see at the state level, particularly in South Australia and Victoria. The amendments proposed to be moved by the member for Adelaide will make it absolutely clear that such a regime would be entirely appropriate in the Northern Territory. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment moved by the right honourable member for New England and support the motion moved by the Leader of the House.