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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1715 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Clause 6 relates to the published cases known as authorised statements. Those members who were in the last Assembly may well remember, when we dealt with the referendum entrenching Hare-Clark, those who voted for the referendum did the Yes case and those who voted against it - and it was only Dennis Stevenson who voted against it - did the No case. To me, that is a reasonably unsatisfactory system because there will be people, I am sure, whenever there is a referendum issue out, who have different views on what they think the referendum should come to but who agree that we should have a referendum. Under those circumstances, we need to use a slightly different technique to ensure that we get a solid Yes case and a solid No case, which the Electoral Commissioner can then distribute to each and every voter in the ACT. So, clause 6 provides for that.

Then, Mr Speaker, there is a Schedule to the Bill. The Schedule specifies the text of the two proposed questions. We give a definition to start off with. The Schedule states:

In these questions "voluntary active euthanasia" means the termination of the life of a mentally competent adult person at his or her request if he or she has a terminal illness and is enduring pain and suffering that he or she considers intolerable.

1. Do you believe that voluntary active euthanasia should be permitted by law?

2. Do you support the following statement?

The people of the ACT call on the Commonwealth Parliament to restore to the ACT Legislative Assembly the power to make laws with respect to voluntary active euthanasia.

Mr Speaker, you would probably be aware that the original version that I circulated had three questions. A number of people approached me and suggested that one of the questions was redundant because it was effectively taken up in the final question. I agreed with that comment and thought that the simpler a referendum can be the better.

Mr Speaker, the Andrews Bill passed through the Federal Parliament; it passed easily through the House of Representatives and just snuck through the Senate. Had two senators changed their vote, it would have gone the other way. Nevertheless, it is now legislation. I think many of the senators would have been very surprised at the outrage expressed by people in the Territories and around Australia when that appalling piece of legislation passed through the Federal Parliament. I know that, even within this Assembly, people who oppose my views on voluntary active euthanasia also are appalled at the legislation going through the Federal Parliament because of the interference in the ability of people within this legislature to deal with this issue. It is interesting to note that it was easier, of course, for Federal members to vote as they are one step further removed from the people than are members of this local legislature; the representation here is much more intense.

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