Mr ANDREWS(11.18 p.m.) —Can I indicate that I am not fixed in whether these amendments are passed or not, but I would like at least for members, when they are debating them and making a decision about them, to understand the way in which they operate. I will go back.

About three decades ago, each state in Australia, as I recall, repealed their laws against suicide. It was stupid to have a law against suicide. If a person had suicided, how could you criminally impose some offence against them? When they repealed those laws against suicide, generally they also repealed laws against attempted suicide—that is, if someone was in such a state psychologically that they tried to suicide, it was inappropriate to actually charge them with a criminal offence.

In order to discourage suicide in some instances a provision was introduced—for example, in Victoria—which said that, if you aided, abetted or incited a person to suicide, that was a criminal offence. Also in the Victorian Crimes Act, in section 463B, you can take reasonable steps to stop someone, prevent somebody whom you reasonably believe is about to commit suicide.

Let us take the classic example: if someone is caught climbing over the fence at the top of the Westgate Bridge in Melbourne and you reasonably believe they are going to jump off, you can use reasonable force to prevent them from doing that, and that is a discouragement against suicide. So far as this provision is concerned where it says that the legislative assemblies may make laws repealing laws or offence of attempted suicide, there is nothing in this provision that the territories and the states cannot enact at the present time.

The other part of the amendment which has been moved by the honourable member for Adelaide (Ms Worth) relates to the appointment of an agent. There are situations where, for example, under the common law a person may refuse medical treatment but, if that person becomes incompetent, becomes incapable through illness or disease, to be able to express that refusal of medical treatment, there is a doubt that anybody can actually refuse on that person's behalf. Therefore, in Victoria and in South Australia, as the honourable member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans) has pointed out, legislation was introduced to allow a person whilst competent to appoint another person such as his or her spouse, as the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) indicated.

If the member for Charlton became incompetent—God help the day—his spouse could make medical decisions on his behalf. This provision does not go to the extent, I should say, that the member for Charlton would like it to, which would be to assist his death, but it says that his spouse could under this sort of legislation make a decision about refusing ordinary medical treatment provided that refusal was not done with the intention to kill the member for Charlton.

I will answer the points made by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas). Whether you vote for these amendments or not, you should at least understand what they mean. These amendments are imposing nothing on the Northern Territory. They simply say that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory may, if it thinks fit, introduce legislation to allow the appointment of a medical agent or introduce legislation to repeal sanctions against attempted suicide.

The reality is that the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, the Legislative Assembly of the ACT, as the honourable member for Namadgi (Ms Ellis) has pointed out, and the Legislative Assembly of Norfolk Island already have the power to do this if they so wish. It is simply clarifying that those legislative assemblies have that power, if they so wish, to introduce such legislation. It is imposing absolutely nothing on the legislative assemblies; at best, it is encouraging them to take that course. As I said, honourable members may have some misgivings about whether they vote for this or not but, with due respect to all, at least understand that that is the effect of the amendments.