Page 3060 - Week 08 - Thursday, 16 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
blatantly cynical, empty man viewing all his political decisions through the prism of his self-interest … His treachery should give hope to potential Liberal candidates for ACT Senator, who could clearly serve the ACT far, far better than Seselja.
Another said, again with respect to Senator Seselja:
A ‘leader’ who looks out for his own interests and not that of the people he is supposed to represent, is no leader. He is then just a manipulator of power for his own personal agenda.
Madam Speaker, I commend this motion today. It is unusual, but it is important. What the Senate has done is paternalistic. Madam Speaker, it is repugnant. It is unforgivable, and it is inexcusable. It is wicked. We will not give up. This does not end here.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (11.40): The ACT Greens will be supporting this remonstrance motion today. We are deeply disappointed by the vote in the Senate last night. In the lead-up to last night’s vote, there was cause for optimism. The signs were that this would pass through the Senate and begin the journey for repealing these laws. Whilst there were still challenges ahead in the House of Representatives, we did feel a sense of hope.
I am speaking today on behalf of Ms Le Couteur as well. As members know, her voice continues to not be very strong. She spoke extensively about this in recent weeks, when she did have her voice, and I think conveyed that sense of optimism in some public remarks she typed last night.
After 30 years of self-government, we felt the time was right that the federal parliament restored our rights in this space and gave the territory full voice, full opportunity to debate these matters, just as other Australian parliaments can and just as other Australian citizens have the right to have their representatives discuss this issue on their behalf. These are discriminatory restrictions that place citizens of the ACT and the Northern Territory in a position that none of our other fellow Australians are in. On one specific issue, our parliaments are not allowed to determine the position of their constituents.
I appreciate the comments that Mr Coe made this morning that voluntary assisted dying, which is the issue that sits behind this, is a very difficult and personal topic. I concur with him on that. My views on it are well known. They are formed by experience, stories that people have told me, opinions that have been expressed and, I guess, my own personal desire to have the opportunity for both me and my family to make choices for ourselves when we reach a point towards the end of our lives. But that is not the issue we are debating today. The point is that we should have the right to have that debate, and that has once again been denied to us.
I think that if we were to have the debate, it would be a very complex one. I have been clear in saying that publicly. If this so-called Andrews bill was removed, I do not imagine this would be a quick process in the ACT. We would have to think very carefully about how we constructed a public conversation. And if we were going to go
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video