Page 3056 - Week 08 - Thursday, 16 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
very different view from others in their party room, from others in this chamber and from others in the community; of course that is entirely their right—one would hope that we could unite on a fundamental democratic principle that this parliament and this community can be trusted to debate this issue.
To say to our fellow Canberrans that their views cannot be considered and that we do not trust them in electing people to this place is a very sad day for our territory’s democracy. If we are so far out of step with public opinion on this issue, then we will not be returned to this legislature at a forthcoming election. That is the democratic process that operates in this territory, one that has operated successfully for nearly 30 years now.
I would argue that, across Australia’s states and territories, this parliament has been a shining light in Australian democracy, that our system of proportional representation has ensured all views across the community are represented in this chamber, both within major political parties and across the crossbench, over three decades, and that this parliament has proven itself able to consider the most significant issues that confront the people of the Australian Capital Territory and, three decades into self-government, is certainly able to consider issues around end of life. We have a very robust committee process and we have a very practical example at this very moment of that robust committee process taking a wide range of evidence and considering a wide range of issues associated with the end of life.
We should have enough respect for our own citizens, for our own democracy and for ourselves to be able to have this debate in this chamber. If you happen to live 15 minutes from here, across the border in Queanbeyan, your state parliament and your local MP can consider this issue, can debate it and the New South Wales parliament can reach a conclusion, as the Victorian parliament has done.
The simple point I make is that if the territories are to continue to be excluded from considering these issues then either the commonwealth parliament needs to pass laws in this regard or we will see over time more Australian states passing laws and potentially the ACT being an island within the state of New South Wales where we are unable to debate legislation, where New South Wales may have moved on this issue. The ACT does not seek to be the first jurisdiction to move on this issue. The Northern Territory was the first, in the 1990s. Victoria became the first state in more recent times. There will be other states that will enact legislation. This is inevitable. The Australian community are very clear on their view on this matter.
It has all the hallmarks of the debate on marriage equality in this country, where Australian parliaments are lagging well behind the views of the Australian people. In any democracy you will see parliaments catch up, and catch up quickly, and I am absolutely certain that other Australian states will consider and pass voluntary assisted dying legislation in time. And that will render the situation we have at the moment, where territory parliaments cannot consider these issues, even more absurd. It was absurd in 1996. It is absolutely absurd since the state of Victoria passed legislation. It will become even more absurd as other states move on this question.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video