Page 497 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
do not allow that diversity of view in the Greens. Just as we have seen in the Labor Party, increasingly there is a singular view; it is the one view that you must all agree to.
In the Liberal Party, we welcome the fact that we are a broad church. We welcome the fact that, on a number of issues, we have diversity of opinion. Frankly, I do not know the views of all my members on these issues, whichever view they hold. I know some of them. Whichever view it is that they hold, I respect it. I personally will not support euthanasia laws. That is my personal view. But regardless, I do not think it should be down to this Assembly, for those reasons that I have articulated in this debate and others, to make that decision, which essentially would be a decision then made for the rest of Australia which would significantly change the cultural fabric of our nation.
We would support the motion if it were amended to remove section 2(e), which is about repealing the commonwealth Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, which essentially does not allow voluntary euthanasia debate laws to be passed by this place. In many ways, I would like it if, when we did have these debates in this place, we could separate those two issues—that Ms Porter brought forward motions that we could deal with unanimously with regard to our desire to improve end-of-life issues as opposed to the debate that we disagree on, which is actually debate about euthanasia laws. But so be it; we must deal with what we have before us. As such, I move:
Omit “paragraph (2)(e)”.
Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 12.22 to 2.30 pm.
Questions without notice
Government—office accommodation
MR HANSON: My question is to the Chief Minister. On 25 January this year, you announced that your government will lease a building for ACT public servants on London Circuit car park next to the Legislative Assembly. Cbus Property, controlled by the CFMEU, has already expressed interest in building a new Canberra office. Chief Minister, has the union-linked company Cbus expressed interest in building this proposed ACT government building?
MR BARR: I understand Cbus was one of about a dozen different parties who have put an expression of interest in for the project, yes.
MADAM SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: Chief Minister, have you, your staff or any directorate staff had discussions with Cbus or any other union-linked funding organisation concerning this building?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video