Page 3851 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
dangerous precedent. I know there are others who do not believe that, but that is the school of thought to which I adhere. If you are going to start giving the freedom to choose whether a life should continue or not in relation to a pregnancy, then the logical conclusion is to allow people to decide when or where to end their own life, and I know there are people in this place who think that is a good idea too. The thing that troubles me is that it then becomes a very fine step between when it becomes the choice of the individual and the choice of those around them and we very quickly reach a point where life starts to become dispensable.
We have not had, as far as I know—certainly not in my four years here—the opportunity to consider the question of euthanasia. But if you begin to lessen the emphasis on the right to life, you begin to weaken any argument that exists against the preservation of life at any stage. I was happy some years ago when we had a great public relations exercise in this place—I apologise if I misrepresent her—but I think Ms MacDonald led the charge about capital punishment somewhere in Asia where Australians had been apprehended.
Somebody said, “Well, Mulcahy is on the right. He is all for hanging.” Well, I gave a fairly detailed presentation, having met people on death row in an American prison, and I gave a fairly detailed presentation. It only confirmed my complete loathing for the idea of capital punishment. My guiding principle and my consistent position is that, no matter the crime, I do not believe that taking another life is a solution on any grounds. I know that is a view that is probably shared by most in this place.
I am opposed to euthanasia; I am opposed to abortion, and I do believe that the right to life must be held as paramount. I am disappointed the government has sought, for what I would have to say is a cynical political purpose, to embark on this exercise. I know an election is looming. I know this is probably seen as fair game, but the issues are, in my view, too serious to trivialise.
I was disappointed that the Speaker resorted to personal abuse and attack. I think that you do that when your argument is not strong. I will not respond to that because I am not going to lower myself to that level. I just heard Mr Stefaniak give a compelling argument. He acknowledged the fact that there were people who took issue with him. That is fine, but I think that is a big step away from simply hurling every manner of abuse. It was directed at the opposition leader. He and I have had plenty of differences, but on an issue as serious as life, then I think it is important to respect the fact that people in this place may have different views.
I was intrigued when Mr Corbell read out the voting patterns. I was not aware that Mr Wood and Mr Hargreaves had voted in that direction, I was not then that involved in ACT politics. But I think good on them that they exercised their freedom of choice. I do not think it is appropriate to come into this place and say that if a member has reached a conscience view, that member must be some kind of a religious fanatic or nutcase.
So I take my position. If it costs me my seat, “the best of British luck” to those who come in. I think most people know that when I say I stand for something I believe in, I will not depart from that position. But I think this motion should not have been brought on tonight. I think it serves no good. I am not all that excited by the Liberal amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .