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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3654 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

The second question is:

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.

Whilst the Bill is in pursuit of a noble cause, it has been demonstrated already that the outcome is hopeless.

Members will recall that we passed a motion in this Assembly - I think unanimously, on my recollection of it - in which we were highly critical of the Federal Parliament's action in moving to take away the power of the ACT Legislative Assembly in respect of euthanasia. The Chief Minister, I and others attended a ceremony which, I think, was called a remonstrance or a remonstration or something like that.

Mr Humphries: It was not a demonstration, was it?

MR BERRY: No; beginning with an "r". It really was not as exciting as a demonstration. It was a rather more formal affair where a message was brought from the Northern Territory Parliament, supported by the Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister and other members, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Halverson, to make clear to him our view in relation to these matters. We also, I think, took it to the President of the Senate, Margaret Reid. It was not received that well by the Federal houses; in fact, it was totally ignored.

That raises the question of what would happen if we were to have an expensive and time-wasting referendum here in the ACT. I expect that there would be an overwhelming majority that would say yes to the first question, and I suspect the answer to the second question would be yes too. But I think it would make about as much difference as the remonstrance made when we took it to both houses of parliament last time. We were opposed to what they were about to do. They knew that we were opposed. They knew that the people elected by the ACT community had unanimously expressed a view, and it did not even feature in the debate. It was not something which was supported by sufficient members on either side of the houses of parliament on the southern side of the lake, and I suspect the same would happen in respect of this.

The other issue that arises is that this Bill seems to suggest to the community of the ACT that there is some hope if we pass this referendum. I think there is no hope. I think that has been demonstrated. The numbers have not changed sufficiently. I think it would be wrong to build up false expectations in the community, which would inevitably be the case no matter how much effort you put into a campaign to advise people that this is a waste of time but we would like them to make a contribution anyway. Mr Speaker, I am opposed to the Euthanasia Referendum Bill. Whilst, as I say, it pursues a noble cause, it is not something that will take us anywhere, so far as the ACT is concerned, because of the Andrews Bill and the no change situation, as far as I can see anyway, in either of the houses on the southern side of the lake. I will be opposing that Bill.

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