Page 3096 - Week 08 - Thursday, 16 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
amount of time left. It was at that moment that my feelings on euthanasia were well and truly cemented.
But that is a side issue to what we are here to debate. It is a minor component of it. It is subsidiary to the first and foremost issue, the rights of territorians. This is a debate about our rights as a territory, a debate about the content of the self-government act. It is a debate about whether the federal parliament should demean the ACT Legislative Assembly.
I, for one, find it bizarre watching senators from all across Australia, senators who probably know only the road from the airport to Parliament House, claim to know what is best for the residents of the ACT. It is incredible watching senators who talk about states’ rights and individual liberty exercise their powers to stop small jurisdictions doing things they do not like.
There is a very famous saying about freedom of speech by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, often unfairly attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It is worth mentioning, as we have this debate, that the federal parliament may disapprove of what territories legislate, but they should defend our right to do it. If you believe in self-government for the territories, you do not get to half-do it; you either believe in self-determination or you do not.
I have watched a few of the previous speakers. I was not planning to speak, but I have taken exception to a recurring argument, that this topic is worthy of federal intervention. I get that this is a tough and difficult debate for all of us to have, and we each come at it with different experiences. But if we allow this issue to undermine our self-determination, what will be next?
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Minister for Planning and Land Management and Minister for Urban Renewal) (3.40): I rise to make a few remarks in this very important debate. As colleagues have remarked, this debate has been conducted in a respectful and thoughtful manner. I think we all should reflect on this and attempt to undertake all of our deliberations in a similar fashion.
There have been many eloquent contributions from members on all sides of this place in support of the proposition the Chief Minister has put. I am not sure I can be any more eloquent than the Attorney-General or the Minister for Health and Wellbeing, that I can be any more considered than Ms Cody, or that I can bring the passion that Ms Cheyne and Mr Steel have brought to this debate. But I do want to say a few words about the constitution and the history of this place.
The constitution was created in a time gone past. Federation occurred to provide efficiencies in trade, travel and defence, but with an intent to maintain power within the respective parliaments of the colonies. At Federation, power was placed in the hands of legislatures of state parliaments, thereby making the people of each state responsible for their own destinies. I doubt that it was envisaged at Federation that the territories would have their own parliaments, but they do exist.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video