Page 5292 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
should not and must not accept any underhand efforts by politicians in the other chambers in this city who seek to use the marriage law changes to provide a licence to entrench and extend discrimination against groups of Australians.
As a community and as a representative Assembly, we are here to make decisions about a range of important rights and protections for Canberrans. We enact laws in this place to prevent discrimination. We make decisions about criminal sentences and rights to a fair trial. We elect members to make those decisions on behalf of the people of the ACT. This Assembly is capable of tackling complex issues and not shying away from them.
In fact, I would argue that, through our strong and rigorous committee system and through the very nature of the electoral system that elects members to this place, we see the widest diversity of views. Maybe the Australian Senate goes close at times, but we in this chamber have the widest diversity of views perhaps of any parliament in this country. We have both hardline conservative Liberals—we have quite a few of them, actually, on that side—and the occasional progressive Liberal, and I will acknowledge one who is in the chamber now: Mr Hanson. Then across the spectrum of those on the progressive side of politics we have the full range of views as well. So this chamber is very representative of the broad range of views in this city. It is roughly in proportion, obviously, to the views of the community, as they elect quite a broad range of people, representing different political parties, with different backgrounds and different outlooks on various issues.
It has been demonstrated time and again that this Assembly has the capability, and has had the track record over a long time now, to tackle complex and important issues. After nearly 30 years of self-government I think the time has come for the commonwealth parliament to respect the maturity of this jurisdiction and the right of this territory to make its own laws. It is pertinent in the context of discrimination legislation and, in light of the decisions of the Victorian parliament over the last few weeks, it is going to become increasingly pertinent in the context of voluntary assisted dying legislation. I have said on the public record, and I repeat here today, that it is now absurd that the Andrews bill that was passed by the commonwealth parliament restricts territories and only territories from considering euthanasia laws, when an Australian state, Victoria, has now passed such laws. It is absurd.
So the broader issues contained within Mr Steel’s motion, particularly around respecting the democratically constituted Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory and, through the Assembly, the self-determination of the people of the Australian Capital Territory, must be honoured in all fields. The time will come, and I am pleased to see that a number of federal members and senators from across the political divide, not just in the Labor or Greens parties, recognise the absurdity of some of the existing laws at the commonwealth level that prevent the ACT from considering euthanasia. That, however, is a debate that we will have more fully tomorrow and into the future.
For today I want to commend Mr Steel for bringing this motion forward. I note the importance of continued advocacy, particularly in the next few weeks but also extending into 2018, with the Ruddock-chaired committee looking at various religious
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video