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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1716 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, what has become clear is that the public demand is there; it must not be ignored or denied. When I began this process of dealing with voluntary active euthanasia there was a fairly quiet support element. When people were asked the question, they supported voluntary active euthanasia, but they were not particularly active in that support; whereas there was always a very strong anti voluntary active euthanasia cause - the people with whom Mr Osborne and other members have worked quite closely. What has come out of the Andrews Bill is a very strong and growing movement for voluntary active euthanasia, which reflects the overwhelming view of the community that people who are in great pain and who are suffering should be able to make this choice. What has occurred is that a national campaign for compassion is under way and will continue; and that national campaign can be seen in the national referenda petitions which have been distributed right around Australia and which are being assisted particularly by the work of the Democrats in the Senate and in other parliaments throughout Australia.

There is just one point I would like to make, Mr Speaker. When I originally suggested that we have this referendum, the Chief Minister and others said, "No; we should not; it is much too expensive", because that was the best argument they seemed to be able to come up with. This came from a party who have tabled in this Assembly legislation for citizens-initiated referenda, which, of course, is a very expensive exercise in itself.

Mr Osborne: What is it going to achieve?

MR MOORE: I will come to Mr Osborne, who interjects, "What is it going to achieve?". I will come to that in just a second; you remind me. But the first point is: What of the expense? The Chief Minister was talking of $400,000 or $500,000. Absolute nonsense! The last referendum we had cost us $180,000, with very close to 180,000 people on the electoral roll voting. We could expect that this referendum would cost $200,000 at the outside, or less than the cost of buying the Canberra Times that morning. That is the sort of cost we are talking about. For that, we will understand what the people's view is; we will understand whether or not people are appalled by the actions of the Federal Parliament; and we can send them a clear message.

"What will it achieve?", says Mr Osborne. First of all, we will be sending the Federal Parliament a message. Secondly, one of the reasons that I foreshadowed that there will be other legislation on voluntary active euthanasia introduced into this Assembly is that it will show you, Mr Osborne, that, in fact, we do still have the power to legislate in some ways; and that will be an enticement and encouragement for people in this Assembly to vote in accordance with the way people view the issue. I know, Mr Osborne, that, no matter what the people say - even if 95 per cent of the people were to have the opposite view - you would still vote against this; and I respect that. I do not respect your interrupting all the time, but I do respect that. If I believe in something strongly enough and I am out of kilter with the people, I will vote for it and answer to the people at the next election. I just warn you, Mr Osborne, that, if it is 95 per cent, you are in strife. But it is not, and I understand that position.

Why is it that you would resist a referendum on an issue that clearly is important to so many people? I will tell you why you resist it, Mr Osborne: You are frightened of the results, because you know exactly what the results will be. You know there will be overwhelming support; you know there is overwhelming support for - - -

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