Schubert Electorate

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (15:37): I rise not only to explain to my electorate what happened last night in the parliament but also to explain more fully how I came to the decision I did and how I interacted with my electorate over the past few months in seeking to understand the way forward on this bill.

The first thing I want to say to my electorate is that I have received correspondence on this issue like no other. I have had hundreds and hundreds of emails and phone contact and contact in the street from local people, as well as a whole series of emails, ranging from the more thoughtful and considered individual through to the more generic and spam-like ones. Basically, we had to treat them as spam because there was no way to be able to identify who the people were and whether or not they were just sending multiple emails. Unfortunately, we had to disregard those because there was no way to really be able to count those in understanding where this topic sits.

In the end, the feedback I have had has been almost exactly fifty-fifty. I have had a lot of people in support of my stand against this as much as people pleading with me in various degrees of effusiveness or various degrees of severity to try to get me to vote for this proposal. The electorate of Schubert was genuinely undecided on this issue.

Whilst those in favour are upset that I voted against it, what I want to say to those people is that there is a principle to bring in a regime of voluntary euthanasia that people want us as a parliament to enact but, unfortunately, in this place we do not deal in the abstract principle: we deal in reality. I think the debate we had last night showed that there are many minute issues—minute but extremely important issues—that we have to deal with.

I would like to thank the parliament for the debate last night, and I would like to single out the member for Florey in her role as the committee Chair throughout the debate and, also the members for Morphett and Heysen. I know that, as the questioning became more and less intense and the questioners were able to come and go from the chamber, the member for Morphett and his adviser and the member for Heysen were steadfast in being there to answer every single question that was put to them. Some may question how well they answered those questions on various topics and whether they were answered to their satisfaction, but the truth is that they sat there from 7.30pm until 4 o'clock the next morning answering the questions we put to them.

I would like to say that today is not necessarily a day for joy at all. It is a day for relief. That is certainly what I felt and what I think the parliament felt after the vote. I know the passion I hold for this issue, and I know that that passion is equalled by those proponents of the bill. To those people, I would say that I understand exactly where you are coming from and you should know that this parliament dealt with this issue in a fulsome and respectful way.

I want to say, though, that this is a definitive vote of this parliament. Certainly, some have tried to suggest that we got closer to a yes vote than we have previously and, on some measures, they would be right, but there were a number of members who voted for the second reading so that we could have the fulsome debate because it has never got to a committee stage before. Now it has got to the committee stage and, on the third reading, which is the definitive vote, the parliament voted against enacting a regime of voluntary euthanasia.

This is a definitive vote of the parliament, and I believe that this vote should stand for some time. We have had 10 months' worth of debate on this issue. We have explored, I think, every single issue that could be explored under this bill and the bill did not hold up to the test of a parliamentary vote. I think that the parliament should respect that definitive decision and that we should now move our attention to issues of importance to the day-to-day lives of South Australians, including helping them to find decent, meaningful and well-paying jobs.

Lastly, I want to say that those who did not get the result they wanted know what they have missed out on—the proponents of this bill and the people in the community who desperately want this—but those who voted this legislation down have sought to protect the most vulnerable in our community, who are very likely not to know what it is that we have done for them. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon us as a parliament to protect those who do not have a voice of their own and who may not even know that they need protection. On that score, I want to thank the parliament for the decision it made and, for those thousands of people who will never know what we have done for them, I say that I think your parliament has served you well.