Page 4603 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 27 November 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Our first appeal to the federal parliament today is to ask its members and senators, particularly members representing state electorates, to put themselves in our shoes. If their own state was less privileged democratically compared to another state, the situation simply would not be allowed to persist. On that basis you cannot tell me that if they actually lived here—instead of the FIFO nature of their work—they would not want to have the same rights afforded to them as every other Australian. If they woke up tomorrow and happened to be territory citizens, you cannot tell me that they would not want the same rights they currently enjoy by being citizens of states.
For the philosophers and ethicists among us, it is a Rawlsian concept. If you could not be certain of where your residence would be tomorrow in Australia, would you not want all states and territories to effectively have the same democratic rights? That is what the first part of this motion is calling on: for federal parliament to recognise and to resolve that no Australian citizen should be disadvantaged with respect to their democratic rights on the basis of where they live.
If they agree with that notion—and they should—it naturally follows that they should be working to remove the democratically discriminatory provisions from the legislation which established our self-government, that they should be prioritising it, that they should collectively be working to put it on the agenda. It would be a simple bill. It is not difficult to prepare. We know this because of the efforts of senators and members already who have done it before, including our own Katy Gallagher and Andrew Leigh. A template is available. A bill of this nature costs literally nothing; there is no hit to the budget bottom line.
But we know our federal parliamentarians may need a nudge in the right direction, and that is why I am calling on all party leaders in this place to write this year to their federal counterparts requesting their commitment in 2020 to remove these discriminatory provisions. And by “all party leaders” I do mean all. This is not an issue to be political about. It is about standing up, united, as a parliament. The rights of our citizens depend on it.
Mark my words: there is new energy and new determination behind this. There will be more to come. This is just the beginning. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (10.49): I thank Ms Cheyne for bringing this motion to the Assembly. I recognise and appreciate her commitment to and sincerity on this issue. Of course, there are different schools of thought in the community on this matter. While some people can separate the issue of self-determination or Assembly autonomy and the issue of euthanasia, for others they are inextricably linked. For some people it is very clear that the removal of 23(1A) and 23(1B) will lead to euthanasia being legalised in the territory. To that end, I respect Canberrans who have that view. I do not think it is wrong that they have that view and I do not think they should be disrespected for having that view.
Obviously, some people are passionate about the issue of self-determination for this Assembly and others are passionate about the need to legalise euthanasia in the territory. But there is no doubt that for some people this is a proxy debate for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video