Page 2925 - Week 09 - Thursday, 18 September 2014

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


That is what you are seeing here today—a government that is distracted. Instead of having a minister focused on ACTION’s network 14, on his responsibilities as a minister, on making sure that there is a safe environment in the jail or a safe environment in our hospitals, we have a government that is distracted by its pet ideological projects. That is what we see again and again, and that is what we are seeing again today.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Capital Metro) (11.52): I move the amendment circulated in my name:

In paragraph (2), omit “pass”, substitute “consider”.

I am moving this amendment today to reflect the fact that this debate is not about whether or not the territory should have euthanasia; it is about whether or not this parliament, this Assembly, is allowed to debate and consider a law called euthanasia. That is what it is about, and my amendment makes clear that that is what we are debating today.

It is an archaic and absurd proposition to say that this Assembly should not be allowed to debate these questions which are of significant interest to many people in our community. Ask anybody who has seen a relative, loved one or friend die as a result of a wasting and terrible illness like cancer and you will evoke strong reactions in both directions. Some will argue passionately about the need to provide for a person in those circumstances to bring their life to an end in a safe, dignified and calm way. Others will argue that that is the nature of life and the passage of life includes that journey and passage through death, which can only be ameliorated to a certain extent through medical technology.

This is not a new debate for our Assembly. When I first joined this Assembly as a new member in 1997, the Assembly was convulsed by a debate then about euthanasia. The then independent member, Mr Moore, had a bill before this Assembly to provide for a form of euthanasia, and the Assembly was on the verge of voting on that legislation. It had been a detailed and lengthy consideration. It had involved a series of committee investigations into Mr Moore’s bill and a large number of public submissions on the question, which reflected the strong level of community interest in the issue.

This Assembly was denied the opportunity to consider whether or not to enact that bill because of the rushed passage of the bill proposed as a private member’s bill by a member of the federal parliament, Kevin Andrews. It removed the capacity for this Assembly to decide on the question. There is simply no legitimate argument to say that in a modern democracy, a democratically elected parliament like the ACT’s is somehow not sufficiently comprised, established or legitimate to consider a question such as euthanasia when exactly the same parliaments in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania or Victoria can.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video