Page 2885 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If it is a question of morality - it appears that that is what it is coming down to - then what we should debate and discuss is the wider question of morality. I do not believe that it is simply good enough to say, "I object to the Bill because the process that has been used to get it here was flawed, or was wrong, or was not an appropriate process". That is a nonsense argument. That is not a personal vilification of you, Mr Kaine; it is a statement of fact, as far as I am concerned, about the processes quite properly outlined in our standing orders. This legislation before us has had wide exposure and wide debate, and I believe that it is acceptable to by far the overwhelming majority of our community.
MR DE DOMENICO (11.21): Madam Speaker, Mr Lamont began his speech by criticising Mr Kaine personally for his lack of objectivity. Mr Lamont is quite capable of expressing his point of view. At least we all know where Mr Moore stands on this issue, because he has been quite public and quite open about it. There are a lot of members in this Assembly who would disagree with Mr Moore on this matter, as they would on many issues; but at least Mr Moore has the courage and the guts to stand up and say what he thinks. He takes the consequences, as we all do after we say what we think. This place has been called a political bearpit, and quite rightly so, Madam Speaker. That is what it is. So let us talk about the politics of this matter. I can recall that Mr Moore, quite rightly and quite sensibly, in terms of his constituency and his ability to play politics, had a look at the ALP platform and thought about his own personal views of the issue which was - - -
Mr Moore: And his own platform.
MR DE DOMENICO: And his own platform as well. He said, "How can I introduce a private members Bill which is likely to get support?". That is a quite reasonable way of approaching an issue. Mr Moore, having had a look at his own platform and having made public statements about where he stood - we all know where Mr Moore stood - had a look at the ALP platform, which supported active euthanasia. It was quite simple: He brought in a Bill reflecting ALP standards as well and expected to get support. But he did not get support, and why not? It was because the Labor Party, in a fulminating piece of intelligence, realised that that is not what the majority of the people of the ACT want; so then they started playing politics as well.
They asked themselves, "How can we support something that the majority of people in this Territory do not want us to do and yet be loyal to our backroom boys and girls and do what the platform tells us we must do?". The answer was, "Let us form a bipartisan or tripartite committee. The Assembly agrees that Mr Moore chairs the committee. We will stick the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs Carnell, and Mr Lamont on it. Let us see how we go. We will put forward to that committee a Bill which proposes active euthanasia as well as passive euthanasia". So off it went to this committee, and that was the Bill that this committee was going to look at. In came submissions from all over the country - some for and some against, as happens with all committees. The consensus of opinion on the committee was, firstly, that there was not sufficient public support for active euthanasia, which was the original intention of Mr Moore's Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .