Mr ANDREWS(10.36 p.m.) —The amendments which were moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Ms Worth), which had their origin in some discussions that I had with the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), who is not here today, are those which I indicated in the debate in the Main Committee on the second reading I was proposing to accept. I indicate that more formally here.

The amendments relate to that part of the schedules relating to each of the territories which are the enabling provisions of the act. That is, in each of the schedules for each of the territories there are words, slightly different depending on each piece of legislation, to the effect that the legislative assemblies do have powers to make laws with respect to, firstly, the withdrawal or withholding of surgical measures for prolonging the life of a patient but not so as to permit the intentional killing of the patient and, secondly, medical treatment in the provision of palliative care to a dying patient but not so as to permit the intentional killing of the patient.

Those enabling provisions are based on the state of the law throughout Australia, with the notable exception of the Northern Territory. More specifically, they are based on specific legislative provisions in Victoria—namely, the Medical Treatment Act—and, in South Australia, the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act. What the honourable member for Lalor was concerned to do was encourage the legislative assemblies, particularly in the Northern Territory, not only to introduce modern refusal of treatment legislation but to introduce modern refusal of treatment legislation which enabled the appointment by a person of another person as their agent to make decisions on their behalf about medical treatment should they in the future become incompetent or incapable of making such decisions. That reflects the state of the law specifically in Victoria and South Australia and reflects some provisions by way of guidelines in some of the other states.

It could be argued that it is open to the legislative assemblies of the territories to introduce provisions to this effect now. There is nothing standing in the way of doing so. But by adding this provision to those already in the bill which we have voted upon, it makes it clear that there is an encouragement to introduce modern refusal of medical treatment legislation in the territories. It is for those reasons that I indicated to the member for Lalor last week and to the member for Adelaide that, whilst in a sense these provisions are not necessary, it is still open for the legislative assemblies to pass such laws. This would give some encouragement to do so and therefore introduce modern legislation in that regard. For those reasons, I do not oppose the amendments moved.