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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3408 ..

MS FOLLETT (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I believe that there are two issues at stake here in consideration of Mr Andrews's Bill. Neither of those issues is, in fact, euthanasia. I do not want any of the comments that I will make to be construed in any way as support for any particular piece of legislation on euthanasia, because that is not the issue.

There are two issues here, and the first, as has been spelt out in the Senate committee's view, is the ability of this Assembly to make laws for the people of the ACT. I believe that the ACT (Self-Government) Act quite consciously and deliberately prescribed our law-making powers. That Act, which is, in effect, the Territory's constitution, makes it abundantly clear that this Assembly can and must make laws on all matters except those which have been specifically retained by the Commonwealth. Members will be aware of what those matters retained by the Commonwealth are. In fact, there is only a tiny handful of them. They include, for instance, censorship. They include certain aspects of industrial relations law, companies law, and so on. They are quite specifically set out in a schedule to the self-government Act. Nowhere in that schedule does the word "euthanasia" appear. So, quite clearly, the Bill which Mr Andrews has introduced is contrary not just to the spirit but also to the letter of the law of the self-government Act, and it is contrary to the law-making ability of this Assembly. It is contrary to the democratic right of the people of this Territory to elect a legislature which will make laws which will stick.

Mr Speaker, in this Assembly I believe we have been more than courageous on occasions in relation to the legislation which we have debated and at times passed. The breadth of that legislation would probably stagger Mr Andrews if he were ever to have a look at it. It includes things like drug law reform, cannabis, prostitution, X-rated videos, gambling, and a whole range of issues on which I imagine Mr Andrews may well find himself troubled and in respect of which he may, in the future, want to move a similar Bill to his Euthanasia Laws Bill. Mr Speaker, I contend that the Commonwealth Parliament, whilst it may have a strict legal ability to pass Mr Andrews's Bill, has absolutely no moral right to do so, and certainly no mandate to do so.

The second issue that I want to raise is the issue of discrimination. As the Senate committee points out, if the Andrews Bill were to be passed it would mean that the Territories - the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island - would be treated on a very different basis from the States. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that, in a modern democracy like Australia, having two classes of parliament is simply not acceptable. It is certainly not indicated in any way by the self-government Acts, the constitutions which were enacted by the Federal Parliament for those Territories. There is no indication that we would be having one class of citizens who are able to make laws for themselves and another class of citizens who, by virtue of the place they reside in, namely the Territories, do not have that right. That is an issue of profound discrimination, and one which I think this Assembly should react to very strongly.

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