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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 744 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The discharge of this legislation is a sad day for individual rights and for Territory rights. Discharge of the Medical Treatment (Amendment) Bill marks the end in this Assembly of the debate on voluntary active euthanasia. It is interesting that, since the Federal Parliament made its decision to override Territory legislation, in both the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, we have seen such dramatic public outrage. Even while the Australian was editorialising on what a sensible decision it was, its letters to the editor pages were filled with the opposite perspective. It is no longer just an issue of a narrow-minded minority, notably from the Catholic Church, who are carrying the debate, particularly the group known as Right to Life, who are continuing to get their views across to other Australians; the dramatic public outrage has fired up many Australians and the debate is now owned by all Australians. This is a new development in this issue.

It has been interesting that members of the Federal Parliament have been so blind to the arguments that they have ignored wider public opinion. Indeed, there is no doubt that the wider public opinion still continues to favour voluntary active euthanasia. Even in Mr Andrews's own seat, the same statistics apply as apply almost everywhere else in Australia, with over 75 per cent of his constituents being in favour of voluntary active euthanasia. It seems to me that one of the issues we saw in the vote in both houses of the Federal Parliament was the difference between what happens with single-member electorates and what happens with proportional representation, but there were other influencing factors.

What was called a conscience vote in the Federal Parliament was anything but a conscience vote. We know that there was manipulation and frightening of members in a series of ways. We also know that there were many members who voted, as has happened in this house, in different ways for genuine reasons, and I have no difficulty with those members taking that action. But we are conscious that there were those who were manipulated by threats about promotion positions, knowing that they would not be able to move into Cabinet positions or onto the frontbench if they did not vote in a certain way. Certainly, the overriding threat of preselection or no preselection was also there for members. Such issues are never dealt with in simple, straightforward ways, as often naive members of the public perceive.

I feel angry about the decision, and I feel most angry about the religious zealots. On the one hand, they demand freedom of belief, freedom to practise their own religion, their own beliefs; on the other hand, they deny the same freedom to others to practise their beliefs. These are the Paul Osbornes of the world. They attempt to protect this hypocrisy by claiming that people such as me are simply anti-religious. I am not anti-religious at all. In fact, I strongly support people's right to practise their own religion. What I strongly oppose is people trying to enforce their religion on others, and I would oppose somebody doing that to Paul Osborne just as strongly as I oppose him doing it to other people. Indeed, the Federal legislation that has overridden the Northern Territory legislation and the potential for this house to determine its own legislation in this area has meant that individuals will no longer have the right to practise their belief about the way they end their lives.

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