Page 2926 - Week 09 - Thursday, 18 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
What is different about those parliaments? Some are bicameral; some are not. Queensland has a single-chamber parliament. You do not hear Mr Hanson arguing that Queensland should not be able to enact a euthanasia law if it wants. It is just a stupid argument.
You then have the claim, “There’s no check on the government.” Since when does the Crown determine what laws are made by parliaments? That is an absurd argument as well. Since when has a governor or a governor-general ever said, “I’m not going to assent to a law made by a duly democratically elected legislature”? There is a reason why it is called the governor-in-council. It is in council; that is, the Crown acts on the advice of its ministers, and those ministers reflect the decisions made by the legislature. So it is an absurd argument as well to suggest that there is some lack of check or balance.
I do not think it is in any way a foregone conclusion that this Assembly would enact a law for euthanasia. I do not think it is a foregone conclusion at all. The questions are complex and difficult. My own personal views have mellowed significantly since the comments I made in the last euthanasia debate that this Assembly was allowed to undertake back in 1997. Whilst I have enormous sympathy for the importance of considering this question, I remain to be convinced about whether or not you could construct a legislative scheme that would provide the appropriate protections needed for vulnerable people.
I am particularly concerned about what it would mean for vulnerable people—the elderly, people with a disability and others—who can be taken advantage of. We know that elder abuse is common in our community, and the law would have to be very strong and very clear to protect against cases of abuse. So I am yet to be convinced about whether or not such a law could be constructed.
But I think this Assembly should be entitled to test those questions. I think this Assembly has a responsibility to consider those questions. I do not accept that simply because of our status as a territory we should be unable to consider them.
That is the purpose of Mr Rattenbury’s motion today. It reasserts that as an Assembly, regardless of our individual views on the question of euthanasia, we assert that first of all it is an issue of legitimate interest to many people in our community, and it will continue to grow as an issue of interest as we face an ever-ageing population.
Also, it says: why should this Assembly, this legislature, be treated differently from others? It is not a question of checks or balances and it is not a question of our relative size; it is a question about whether or not the grant of self-government is meaningful. The grant of self-government says that this Assembly is empowered with all the plenary powers required for the peace, order and good government of the Australian Capital Territory, and that extends to this question.
We do not hear this argument about inadequate checks and balances when this Assembly decides how long someone can be sent to jail for or whether or not a person with mental illness can be detained against their will. There is no argument about insufficient checks and balances then. So why is there on this question? It simply does not make sense.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video