Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

WALLACE () (): Deputy Speaker Claydon, like many of my parliamentary colleagues, I congratulate you on your recent elevation to high office.

I rise to object to the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, and I will give my reasons why. But, before I do that, I want to recognise and acknowledge that this is a conscience bill. This is a bill where reasonable minds will differ. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to speak in this place since my demise as Speaker, and a time like this is very important. It makes you recognise and better understand how important it is to be able to speak on matters such as this.

The first thing I want to say is that I implore all members and senators to conduct themselves in a respectful manner in a debate such as this, as I am sure they will do—and I congratulate them on doing so so far. This bill has a fairly innocuous title. In some respects, it is somewhat misleading. The name of the bill relates to restoring the territories' rights effectively to be able to govern themselves. At first blush, that would be difficult to argue against. I accept that. But it's more than that. It is much more than that. Basically it gives the territories the right to determine euthanasia, voluntary assisted dying, and that is the point I rally against. I openly admit that there are many people in Australia who have a different view on this. I accept that. Maybe even many on my own side of the chamber have a different view. But that's the beauty of the democracy in which we live, and it's the beauty of the ability to speak freely on these sorts of conscience votes.

I believe in the sanctity of life. I believe that states should only in the most exceptional of circumstances approve of the killing of a human being—in instances like war or self-defence, to name two. I'm making a lot of concessions here, and one of the concessions is that I've never been in a situation where I've had to watch my mum or my dad die a painful death. I accept readily that I am coming to this view with, some might say, a fairly innocent approach. But belief is belief, and I would like to think that, even if I were faced with that situation, my belief would not change.

Before I go into the merits of the bill, I want to say that I understand that the issue of voluntary assisted dying, or euthanasia, is very much a polarising one. Statistics have already been raised by members of this House that there's support in the order of 80 per cent for voluntary assisted dying. It's clear that voluntary assisted dying in some form or shape has been enacted in all of the states in this country. That is true, but that doesn't make it right. Some people would say, 'You're an elected representative in the federal parliament; you should mirror the views of your constituents and the country.' There is some truth to that, but that is not an absolute. There are some times when we as elected representatives feel so strongly about something that many of us will draw a line in the sand and say: 'No, I'm sorry. I'm not prepared to go past that point.'

Those of us who were in the chamber several years ago will remember when the marriage equality bill came up. I made a commitment to the people in my electorate that I would support marriage equality based on the will of the Australian people, and I did. I honoured that commitment. But we're talking about the lives of Australians. We're talking about the sanctity of life, which is, in my view, absolutely more paramount than me being a federally elected member of parliament. My conscience does not permit me to vote for this bill. Some members will say that this bill doesn't legalise euthanasia. I accept that axiomatically this bill does not automatically mean that euthanasia in the territories will be legal. There would be a process that would have to be gone through in the territories' legislatures. I accept that. But I don't want to be one of those people that effectively authorise that to happen. On that basis, I oppose the passing of this bill.

I want to recognise once again the member for Solomon and the member for Canberra, who kicked off this debate earlier this morning. But on the justification for the passing of this bill as referred to by the member for Solomon—I like the member for Solomon; I think he is a good, decent bloke—on this occasion I think he's been misled, because he started off by saying that this bill is not about euthanasia. But that's exactly what it is about. The member for Canberra, who followed him immediately afterwards, confirmed that—that this bill is absolutely about providing an entitlement for the territories to make laws in relation to euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying. I don't say that as a criticism of the member for Solomon. As I said, I think he is a good and decent man. But I do believe that he's wrong when he says that this is not about voluntary assisted dying.

What those proponents of this bill fail to recognise—they talk about the importance of territory parliaments having some form of similar arrangement to the states. At first blush, that seems like a reasonable proposition, but I would suggest that it is constitutionally incorrect. Section 122 of the Constitution provides for this parliament, the Commonwealth parliament, to effectively have plenary powers over the territories. That is inescapable. Unlike state parliaments, this parliament has the power to pass laws in relation to the territories. The territories are a creature of the Commonwealth parliament. The Commonwealth has admittedly enacted self-government acts for the Northern Territory, for the ACT and also for Norfolk Island. Each of them has their own respective self-government provisions in their acts.

To give some background for anybody who may be listening to this: on 25 May 1995, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of 1995. On 9 September 1996, Kevin Andrews, the then member for Menzies, introduced the Euthanasia Laws Bill. The purpose of the bill was to provide that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, and the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly did not have the power to make laws which would permit that form of intentional killing of another that is called euthanasia or the assisting of another person to terminate his or her own life. The bill passed with amendments following a conscience vote in the House of Representatives on 9 December 1996. It passed the Senate in March 1997. The passing of Kevin Andrews's bill certainly overrode the Northern Territory's right to introduce laws to provide for euthanasia. In my view, it was the right thing to do then because it protects the sanctity of life.

We in this chamber will never get an opportunity to pass laws in relation to voluntary assisted dying in any of the six states. For those in this chamber who believe in the sanctity of life, who believe that our most vulnerable should be protected, this is an opportunity to defend that right, to defend that sanctity of life, because if we give that up today, this week or for however long this debate takes, it's gone forever. I believe, as a community, as a society and as a country, we should be putting more money into things like palliative care to ease the suffering of people who are suffering and who are going to die. But there's a difference between providing palliative care and taking an active role in actually killing someone. I know that this is not just an issue which is open for debate amongst people of faith; this is also an issue which is actively debated by some members within the medical profession who take an oath, the Hippocratic oath—to first do no harm, to look after people. The concept of taking the life of a patient is anathema to many of those medical professionals.

So I encourage respectful debate. I'm sure that that's what will happen, as often happens on these conscience debates. That's as it should be. I respect that this is an issue where fair minds will differ, but this is an opportunity for this parliament, the federal parliament, to stamp its authority and respect the sanctity of life. We won't get many opportunities. This is a very, very important day today.

See this speech in context