Page 2929 - Week 09 - Thursday, 18 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Corbell’s comment that it would not be a foregone conclusion if the issue were to be debated in the Assembly is a very interesting contribution to the debate. I had already been thinking about the fact that no doubt there are differing views. Mr Hanson talked about the fact that this had been debated in other jurisdictions, and it certainly has. It has been debated in New South Wales, as he mentioned, but also in South Australia and Tasmania in recent times.
What we have seen in those jurisdictions is that the views on the matter of euthanasia vary very strongly—across party lines, but within party groupings as well. And as this is invariably a conscience vote across parliaments, we see very interesting views expressed across political lines. I make no presumption about that either, and I suspect that if we were regranted this power, we would have a very long discussion both with the community and within this place—appropriately so, as I said in my first remarks.
I also think it is important that we discuss these matters. As I said, residents of the ACT have a range of issues that they are interested in. The nature of this town is that many people are not even at all interested in the ACT Assembly; they are much more focused on federal issues. That is because that is the work they do, and that is what seems to captivate their attention. I can comfortably assure Mr Hanson and his colleagues that I am quite focused on matters such as network 14 and the coming bushfire season. These are the matters that I work on most of the time most days. But I am also quite focused on the fact that there are other matters that are of concern to our constituents, and there are other matters that people raise with me. I do my best to represent all of the issues that the many constituents out there raise, including people who do not vote Green, who approach me consistently about issues that are of concern to them. I do my best to deliver on a range of those issues.
As I said in my introductory remarks, today’s motion is about allowing the ACT Legislative Assembly to be able to discuss this matter. There are differing views on the matter. We touched on that to some extent today. There is no doubt that if we were to have this discussion, as I think we should, it would be a complicated, difficult and passionate discussion. But the point is that we should be able to have it. It is discriminatory for the ACT not to be able to have that conversation, compared to our colleagues just across the border or people who live in Queensland, South Australia or Western Australia. They are entitled to have their parliamentarians debate this matter and form a view on it, as some of them have done.
I thank those members who are going to support the motion today. I think it is appropriate that we continue to agitate with the commonwealth that they should remove this discriminatory provision. I hope that we can. We have seen a number of other places where the ACT has been regranted powers, or granted powers for the first time. I hope that, as this institution has matured and there is a recognition of its competency, we are restored these powers, and that somewhere down the line a member of this place or a future member of this place will have the freedom to bring the matter before the Assembly and test the views of what will be the 25 members of this place as to the future of this issue within the territory.
I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video