Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to be able to speak on this motion, put forward by the member for Fenner. As he knows, I share in the spirit of the sentiment of the motion, not just in the philosophy, though I do, but also in the practice, which I also do. Let me outline the basis upon which I do so. I believe that government should be as close to the people it seeks to serve as humanly possible. I do not want monopoly Canberra, because government by its nature ultimately bullies people. It does not matter who's in government. It does not matter the nature or the intent or the spirit. In the end that is what it does, because it is based on coercion and force. If you are to have coercion and force, you must make sure that control of government is as close to people as possible, because that enables people to be in the best position to change the outcome if they do not like how that force is being utilised.

It is upon this basis that I am a staunch federalist, and one of the things that disturbs me most—again, regardless of who's in power—is how much of a tendency there has been to centralise into this place, this chamber and this city, at the expense of citizens. While I am sure the member for Canberra and member for Fenner like to wax lyrical, in the end the Labor Party is a critical part of this drift of power away from citizens, families and communities—and even away from state capitals—and to Canberra. I agree: we need to take it back. And we need to take it back every step of the way and fight for it every step of the way, because, in practice, that's what this resolution is about. A territory is not a state, but the people who live in the ACT are sovereign and able to determine their own lives and their own destinies. While the Commonwealth may, under the Constitution, have the power to override it, this should not be in a framework of competition of laws which gives citizens choice about where they live.

Of course, this issue is one of many that the federal parliament has overruled. The reality is that it is not correct that, as the member for Canberra outlined, the fastest way to marriage equality was to allow the ACT the power to legislate; they don't have that power to legislate. We know full well the High Court actually overruled them and found that to be a misgiving or a misdeed. The reality is that it was a decision of the federal parliament, and the fastest way to marriage equality was actually for the opposition to stop blocking a pathway, taken to an election, for people to have their say. That was then respected by the parliament of this country. So we can effect any outline we want; that is the reality.

Regardless, we're not talking about that issue; we're talking about the right of the people of the Australian Capital Territory to decide their own destiny. As I've said already, I took it to my preselection. When I was asked what my view was of people's right to die with dignity, I said I was in favour of it. When I have been asked in the community what my view is, it has been consistent and exactly the same. The question to me has only ever been about the safeguards and the mechanisms by which it is achieved, and that is not a decision for this parliament; it is a decision for the Australian Capital Territory, whether or not I agree with their legislation. If their legislation is wrong, it is their decision to fix it, not our job to override it. I make no bones about that.

Just to continue on with the point of this not being just a philosophy but in practice, I will share a speech from the member for Mornington, David Morris, that was made in the debate in the Victorian parliament. It reflects the sentiment and the attitude that I believe. In the discussion on 18 October 2017 on their voluntary assisted dying bill, he said:

If the bill actually proposed a legal framework for suicide — suicide on demand, as some people have characterised it — then I would dismiss the bill out of hand. But that is not what is proposed.

What is proposed is that terminally ill patients — patients who will, without question, die within months, potentially suffer enormous pain and suffer undoubted indignities — be given the choice to depart this world on their own terms and in their own time. Should the bill pass the second-reading stage there will be ample opportunity to consider the minutiae, but in this debate I think there is one central decision to be made: to what extent does the Parliament believe an individual should be able to determine their own destiny?

I believe in freedom of the individual. I believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech, free assembly, freedom of the press and, of course, free markets. I also believe that it is not tenable to claim to support individual freedoms and then to presume to impose through the law your own moral and ethical code. Those are matters for the individual, not for the Parliament.

Paternalism once had its place in this state—

meaning Victoria. It should not in the future.

See this speech in context