Page 686 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 31 March 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Greens colleagues will continue to pursue this issue until the unjust situation concerning euthanasia is remedied. I am sure that this Assembly feels the same, and momentum is only growing.
As I said earlier, I am very pleased that Ms Lee has co-sponsored this motion. This has not previously been the position of the local Liberal Party, and this new position of recognising that it is a territory-wide issue, a matter about territory rights, is very welcome. I hope that our local senator, Senator Seselja, has the same change of heart. Senator Seselja previously voted in the federal parliament to prevent the ACT from considering and enacting voluntary euthanasia laws. That is a particularly offensive and confusing action. One can only assume that the senator thinks that his own constituency does not deserve the same rights as people in the states, and that the ACT parliament does not deserve the same rights as other parliaments.
Regardless of one’s personal views on this issue of voluntary assisted dying, the question we are considering is about territory rights. You do not have to support voluntary assisted dying to support the democratic rights of your constituents. On the actual issue of euthanasia, of course, it is well known that the Greens support the right of people to make decisions at the end of their life. We support the creation of a compassionate, safe and workable scheme for voluntary euthanasia. In fact, the vast majority of Australians agree and also support such a scheme. The majority of Greens voters, Labor voters and Liberal voters agree, according to the publicly commissioned polls. Who wants to suffer at the end of their life, deprived of their dignity and the most personal choices over their own body and their own life?
This is an issue where the Australian parliament has simply failed to reflect the desires and values of the Australian population. As Ms Cheyne noted, there are, of course, other views, but I think that there is a clear sentiment among the bulk of Australians.
I emphasise that if the ACT is returned its democratic right to consider euthanasia laws, it would involve extensive community consultation, input of experts and, no doubt, vigorous debate in the Assembly. It would involve all of the parliamentary and community engagement mechanisms that are appropriate for such an important and sensitive change, and governed overall, of course, by the right of ACT citizens to vote their government in or out as the ultimate act of democracy.
It would require careful discussion, technical discussion, thoughtful discussion and, no doubt, some contested points. But, as a territory, that is the opportunity we should have—to have that debate, to have our committees scrutinise legislation and to have members engage with each other on the sensitive details.
That is a process that I hope we are able to at least engage in, in the very near future. That is why I am pleased to commend the motion to the Assembly. I thank my fellow co-sponsors for working together to develop a motion that we think reflects, importantly, on the rights of ACT citizens and residents. It sends a clear message to the federal parliament that we look to them to take the leadership here and restore to the territory the ability to debate issues, just as the other jurisdictions in Australia can.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video