David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation. You have big shoes to fill, and I am certain that you will.

Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge at the outset that many individuals have written to me about the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, on both sides of this. I'd also like to acknowledge the work of my colleagues Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon, and Alicia Payne, the member for Canberra, who have already spoken in this debate. I'd also like to acknowledge my territory colleagues that will follow me in this debate, not just here in the House of Representatives but hopefully in the Senate, particularly Senator Katy Gallagher. I wish to acknowledge my friends in the ACT Legislative Assembly that have raised this issue now for the last three to four years.

At its essence, this bill was about whether citizens living in the territories should have the same right, through their local legislatures, as citizens in the states to make their own laws. In my view, there can be no doubt the answer to that question is yes. The granting of self-government to Australia's two populous territories recognised that the people of the territories deserve the same democratic rights as people living in the states. As the then Minister for Arts and Territories, the Hon. Clyde Holding, put it in introducing the Australian Capital Territory (Self-government) Bill 1988:

The Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Bill 1988, now before the House will establish the A.C.T. as a body politic, with the legislative and executive powers and responsibilities of the States and the Northern Territory. This Bill represents the most significant transfer of power, on a population basis, since Papua New Guinea became independent. It will allow 270,000 people the same democratic rights and social responsibilities as their fellow Australians.

The A.C.T. and the City of Canberra have well and truly come of age. Canberra is the nation's capital. It is the home of many of the symbols of our nationhood—the National Gallery, the High Court, the National Library and of course this magnificent building—the home of the nation's Parliament. But, and this is often overlooked, it is also home for 270,000 people.

270,000 people live in the Australian Capital Territory. They go about the day-to-day business of their lives, working at their jobs, paying their taxes, making decisions about which schools their children will go to, which doctor or hospital will care for them when they are ill—just like every other Australian. However, unlike every other person in this country—where 'a fair go' is the creed by which we live—they cannot elect a member of their own community to their own government. They have no say in the decisions which affect their everyday lives. What an extraordinary admission in a country so committed to democratic ideals, and why? Are these people somehow different from other Australians? Are they second-class citizens in some way? Do they not understand, or have opinions on, the issues that confront them daily? Can they not be trusted with their own destiny? The answer to all these questions is very simple—the only difference between these people and the rest of Australia is that they live in the Australian Capital Territory!

All that is as true today as it was in 1988, except that there are now over 450,000 people living in the ACT.

It should be noted that there exists a greater democratic deficit for Australian citizens living in our external territories—Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Citizens in these territories have a limited form of local government. Norfolk Island are currently in administration, but they have no democratic input into critical areas such as health and education and rely on federal representation more than 1,000 kilometres away. If this is to be a parliament that truly cares about territory rights then it needs to also turn its mind to providing a better voice for our less populous territories as well.

When the ACT Legislative Assembly was established, there were exceptions to the powers of the legislative assembly, but these reflected for the most part either limitations that the Constitution itself placed on the states or matters that the states had agreed should be dealt with by the Commonwealth. For example, the ACT Legislative Assembly was not to have the power to make laws with regard to the raising or maintaining of any naval, military or air force or with regard to the coining of money, despite being home to the Royal Australian Mint. Similarly, the act excluded the power to make laws with respect to the classification of materials for the purposes of censorship, which was already the subject of a national scheme under which classification was the responsibility of the Commonwealth. In each case, common sense dictated that these matters should be solely in the domain of the parliament of Australia. In effect, the ACT was not being placed in a position any different to that of the states.

That leaves two further original exceptions: the acquisition of property other than on just terms and the provision by the AFP of police services in relation to the territory. The first of these was based on a limitation imposed on parliament by the Constitution, while the second reflected the fact that the AFP are under the direction of the Commonwealth minister and policing services in the ACT are the subject of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the territory. That bill was passed with bipartisan support.

While there was some discussion around the detail, the record is clear that, across the political spectrum, there was agreement that the law-making powers of the ACT Legislative Assembly and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly should be equivalent to those of a state parliament. This remained the case until the passage of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, which removed from the ACT Legislative Assembly and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly the power to make laws with respect to euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying. In doing so, that act introduced discrimination in that it remained completely open to any state parliament to pass such laws. The bill before us supports restoring the constitutional position that existed from the time self-government was introduced into each of the territories until the passage of the Euthanasia Laws Act. It will be a matter for each of the territories to decide whether and in what form any laws should be passed in this area, just as it is and always has been for each of the states.

Of course, there are some who may object that the ACT and the Northern Territory are not states and that their legislatures should not have the same powers as state parliaments. Of course it's true that self-government exists only because of acts of this parliament, not by way of constitutional right, and it is within the power of this parliament to amend the self-government acts if it sees fit. However, parliament, having made its decision on the general principle that self-government ought to be granted to the people of the ACT and Northern Territory, would be wrong to pick and choose matters for which we would deny citizens in the territories the rights to govern themselves.

Some of us may be unhappy with the decisions made by the people of the territories, but if we support the principle of self-determination, we accept their decisions and do not seek to substitute our own any more than we would where the same decision was made by a parliament of the state. Former Senator Humphries said in 2006, when he crossed the floor to oppose the Howard government's disallowance of the ACT's Civil Unions Act:

… we may not agree with the ACT's legislative choices, but we have an obligation to respect them where they are democratically made.

I acknowledge that the legislation on euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying is an issue that provokes strong passions, with firmly held opinions from opposing points of view. That's understandable since the issues relate to matters of life and death and pain and suffering and because we have a critical role to ensure we protect the vulnerable.

Between the time that I spoke on these matters in the Senate, two parliaments ago, in the Federation Chamber in the last parliament and now, both of my parents died, and in both cases I was entrusted to be their power of attorney. While I did not have to make any decisions in relation to my father, I did in relation to my mother and I was able to do so in accordance with her wishes and with access to palliative care. That decision made four weeks ago weighs heavily on my shoulders. Not everyone gets access to palliative care in their last days or decent and respectful care in their later years. Addressing these challenges should be a priority for all Australian governments.

My own personal view is not in support of legalisation of euthanasia. However, with all its gravity, this is not something that should be restricted from consideration by the ACT and Northern Territory legislative assemblies.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2016, Canberra man Nebojsa Pavkovic died on his 61st birthday. He was at the end of a five-week hunger strike inside a body which he knew was no longer working. Mr Pavkovic had been suffering from Parkinson's disease for a decade and had come to the decision, speaking with his family, that he wanted to end his life. He was, however, unable to do so through voluntary assisted dying and had to do so through the much more traumatic and painful approach of a five-week hunger strike. As daughter Katarina Knowles said, 'He was really, truly bedridden, and it was just the worst.' I spoke to Katarina a year ago, when I was moving a private member's motion in this place to repeal the Andrews ban to finally allow the ACT and the Northern Territory to have the same rights as the states to legislate over voluntary assisted dying.

We are now in a situation in which this parliament is lagging behind the broader community. Surveys in the 1980s suggested that public support for doctor-led voluntary assisted dying was somewhere in the high sixties, in the 1990s, when the Andrews ban was passed, it was in the mid- to high seventies, and in the past two decades support has been in the eighties, and yet it has not been possible for those in the territories to have the same debate over voluntary assisted dying as those in the states. They have been prevented from doing so by an anachronistic ban put in place 25 years ago.

It's important to remember the state of the world back then. That was a stage in which the Northern Territory had been first in the world in introducing voluntary assisted dying laws and there was a concern that people from states might go to the Northern Territory in order to use those laws. So the Andrews ban overturned the right to the Northern Territory and in so doing the ACT became collateral damage. The ACT hadn't legislated at that time, but the Andrews ban swept up the ACT just because it could.

And, as those who argued for the Andrews Ban put it, the ban was put in place because the territories had moved before the states. Frank Brennan asked the rhetorical question in a submission: 'Should the Commonwealth parliament overturn a territory law?' He answered his own question as follows: 'Only in very rare circumstances where no state has similarly legislated.' We are not now in a situation where no state has similarly legislated. We are in a situation in which every state has similarly legislated. So to hold back the territories is to hold back two jurisdictions from putting in place the very same laws that are in place in every state.

The fact is that just a short drive from this parliament is New South Wales, a place which has enabled voluntary assisted dying. And so the argument has been turned on its head. While the concern might otherwise be that people would travel to the Northern Territory in the mid-nineties to take advantage of those laws, now it is the concern that while the vast majority of Australia has legislated for voluntary assisted dying the territories are carved out. People in the territories who wanted to choose the circumstances of ending their own lives would need to travel now to a state.

I mentioned before the strong community support for voluntary assisted dying. I want to take the House to a few statistics that illustrate quite how strong that support is. According to Vote Compass voluntary assisted dying is now supported by 87 per cent of Australians, 79 per cent of coalition voters, 77 per cent of Catholics, 78 per cent of Protestants. We now have a situation in which many European countries, many states in the United States and the District of Columbia have legalised voluntary assisted dying.

It is also the case that the territory legislatures have grown up. The ACT was an eight-year-old parliament when the Andrews ban took effect. It's now in its 30s and is a debating chamber the equal of any state parliament.

I want to acknowledge the advocacy work of Andrew Denton from Go Gentle; Andrew Barr and Tara Cheyne from the ACT, who were here in the House this morning to hear the members for Solomon and Canberra introduce this private member's bill.

I want to recognise the members for Bean and Lingiari who support this private member's bill and Senators McCarthy and Gallagher in the other place.

I want to note that while Labor territory representatives are united in our support for this bill, around half of those that I've named do not themselves support voluntary assisted dying. They are standing on the principle of territory rights, recognising that they want those parliaments to be able to have the debate, but making the case that in the end they hope those territory assemblies do not go ahead and enact voluntary assisted dying. And so I hope those in this parliament who themselves have personal misgivings about voluntary assisted dying will nonetheless vote for this bill on the basis of territory rights.

I have been pleased to have a range of conversations with those on both sides of the House and on the crossbench about this important bill. In many of those conversations I have noted the commitment to territory rights. I know that many coalition members who are listening to this debate also have misgivings about voluntary assisted dying. Many of them, if they were in state parliaments, would have voted against the legalisation of voluntary assisted dying that has now gone through all of the state parliaments, but the coalition has a strong commitment to federalism. As others have put it, if you want to be in the fight against voluntary assisted dying, run for a territory parliament, because that's where the debate should take place—in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and on the floor of the ACT Legislative Assembly.

It should no longer be the place of this House to hold back the territories from doing what every single state has done. The Andrews's ban was wrong in 1997, but it is utterly ridiculous today for that ban to stay in place. I draw coalition members' attention to the words of then Liberal Chief Minister of the ACT, Kate Carnell. She argued in 1987 against the Andrews's ban, saying that it was 'limiting our self-governing powers' and that 'what is at issue here is nothing less than the democratic rights of the citizens of the ACT'. That principle is one that has been shared by former senator Gary Humphries and by Marshall Perron in the Northern Territory. There is nothing about restoring territories' rights that is inherently a Labor value. It should be supported by those in the coalition too.

For me this has been a long process. In the 45th Parliament I moved a bill to repeal the Andrews's ban. In the 46th Parliament I moved a private member's motion to remove the Andrews's ban. In neither case did the then government bring that debate to the floor. It is to the credit of the Albanese Labor government that this debate has been brought to the floor. I do note that, when the Andrews's ban was debated in this place 25 years ago, the Prime Minister was one of those who personally spoke out against the Andrews's ban. Prime Minister Albanese has been extraordinarily consistent in his support for territory rights, in his recognition that voluntary assisted dying is appropriately an issue to be debated by territory parliaments.

People may well differ on the question of euthanasia and voluntary assisted dying, but they ought to be united on territory rights. I acknowledge the hard work of Senator Leyonhjelm in a previous parliament in trying to get this through the Senate and the fact that that vote came down to just a few votes in the Senate. This time I hope the vote in the Senate will be much stronger, much more overwhelming. When it happens the sky won't fall in. The territories will debate voluntary assisted dying. They may choose to follow the states or they may not, but it's appropriate that those legislatures have that debate. It's appropriate that a conversation about an issue that enjoys the support of nearly nine out of 10 Australians should be debated in the territories, as it was in the states.

I say to any members of the House who are currently unsure of their position on a conscience vote: we don't have conscience votes in this place very often and my door is open if you want to speak about these issues. I would love the opportunity to engage you in that conversation. I would love the opportunity to make the case that so many of my constituents in the electorate of Fenner have made to me—that they should not be second-class democratic citizens; that they should have the very same rights over this issue that people in states currently enjoy. So come and knock on my door. Come and knock on the door of the members for Bean, Lingiari, Solomon or Canberra. We'd be pleased to speak to you about this issue. We respect the diversity of views on the question of voluntary assisted dying, but we call for your support for the fundamental democratic principle of territory rights. I commend the bill to the House.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 is probably one of the more difficult bills that many of us will have to face. I have been given many notes from both sides of the debate on this. They are all well-meaning and all make very valid points. The AMA has reservations about euthanasia, faith leaders have got their reservations, as have many of my constituents. However, that's also balanced by quite a few people who have absolutely no question in their minds about the rights of people to choose to go down that path. Having personally witnessed four to five people slowly dwindle away to diseases such as cancer, I must admit that it's a real conundrum for me as well. In fact, before we came to the first week of parliament, last Sunday I visited a party member who was passing, and he subsequently passed away on the Tuesday. I was able to witness firsthand very recently how awful it is when someone is taken in that slow manner.

But this bill is not about whether euthanasia is right or wrong; it's about restoring the rights to territories to make decisions on this. My only concern there—well, I have a couple of concerns, but one of them is that I just don't believe the territories have the levers and the systems; they're not set up. In other words, they don't have a Senate to debate this properly and handle issues like this. We have those powers federally, and I think that the federal government needs to deal with it here, in this House, and not pass it on to the territories. I suspect, and I hope that I'm not right, that they are passing it over so that they don't have to really confront this tough issue. I hope they're doing it for the right reasons, but I don't know what their motives are. We can deal with it here.

I'm also against it because I am one of those people who would like to see the powers of the states and the territories reduced. I think one thing that the pandemic showed us for sure was that Australians have had a gutful of living in what they called eight countries, with closed borders and different rules in every state when it came to who could go to work, who couldn't go to work, who they could see or who they couldn't see. We had people from Queensland trying to go to work in New South Wales and come back, but they couldn't because they had to quarantine. Yet on their passports they had one common thing, which is that they are all Australian citizens. I might reside in Queensland, but I am an Australian citizen. As such, I and many other Queenslanders and Australians believe we should be able to move within our country and our borders as we see fit. They wanted the federal government to lead when it came to mandates on the pandemic, and we were actually constrained by the Constitution. So I am against anything that gives states and territories more powers.

We need to have a good conversation about the Constitution in this country, and we need to change a few things so that the federal government can take its rightful place and lead when it comes to matters of national crisis and matters of conscience such as euthanasia and other matters, and not hand it to the states. We are supposed to be the highest level of government in this country, and the Constitution prevents us from fulfilling that obligation to the people of this country. So I say: don't support giving the rights back to the territories. Deal with it here federally. Let's ante up. Let's behave like we are supposed to and deal with the big issues and not pass it off to the smaller and lower forms of government.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. This is the first bill I have risen to support in this place, and as a representative of a Northern Territory electorate, I am pleased that it is about supporting territory rights. I am a Territorian born and bred, and I well remember the shock that we felt when the federal government overturned a duly enacted territory statute, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. Even those who did not support that particular piece of legislation were outraged that politicians representing electorates far from the Territory could meet in Canberra and decide to squash a Territory law without the consent of those for whom the law was enacted.

When the Commonwealth parliament passed the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act in 1978, the particular cohort of federal parliamentarians who made up the parliament at the time had the wisdom and empathy to grant to Territorians the power to elect their own politicians. Those Territory politicians would then be authorised to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Northern Territory. The words 'peace, order and good government' make up a standard phrase in constitutional drafting which predates Federation and goes back to the constitutions of some of the pre-existing colonies. They formalise the purpose and scope of what legislators are expected to do. The subject matter of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was naturally and self-evidently within the ambit of peace, order and good government for a governed area and population, and, on that basis, equivalent laws relating to voluntary assisted dying have, in the more recent past, been enacted by state legislators.

There is absolutely no reason why the Territory should be different from any state in this respect, or indeed in regard to any law which could be properly characterised as being for the peace, order and good government of the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory deserves the right to legislate on issues that affect it, just like the states do. There is no defensible rationale for condemning people who live in the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory, which share similar self-government arrangements, to being second-class Australian citizens when it comes to their collective capacity to make laws for themselves in the constitutional space which in other parts of Australia is occupied and actively engaged in by state governments.

The federal government has a history, and in many respects an unmeritorious history, of intervening in the Northern Territory and of imposing ideologically driven policies from Canberra. Those who live in the Territory object to that approach. You need to understand the Territory to create effective policies for the Territory. That is what lies at the heart of this debate. On the issue of voluntary assisted dying, Territorians should be able to have their views and voices heard and acted upon. The Northern Territory's legislative assembly comprises politicians elected by Northern Territory electorates, and it is their job to reflect the views of their constituents in the legislative assembly. It is no part of the job of a federal parliamentarian whose seat is in some other part of Australia to do that.

This bill is a very simple one. In terms of the Northern Territory, it simply repeals one section, section 50A, of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. That section was inserted by the federal government's Euthanasia Law Act 1997. It was a section that prevented the Territory from enacting laws regarding voluntary assisted dying and made the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act inoperative. However—and, in my view, importantly—this bill also ensures that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 is not automatically reinstated. This bill would not make voluntary assisted dying legal, and indeed it shouldn't. Territorians must have the opportunity to debate any euthanasia proposal that might be forthcoming. It is a contentious issue, felt very deeply on both sides.

If proposals are made by the Northern Territory parliamentarians to introduce legislation regarding voluntary assisted dying, I will be calling for a comprehensive and in-depth education campaign. People 25 years old today were newborns when this legislation was passed in the Northern Territory parliament. No-one under the age of 40 has had a chance to learn about the issues, participate in debate or tell their elected representatives what they think. Our Northern Territory society has become much more multicultural since then. We have many more people with different religions or spiritual backgrounds who were not part of that debate the last time. And people out bush, Indigenous people, need the information and the time to become well informed about what voluntary assisted dying means. The reality is that many people on remote communities and outstations do not trust the system. They do not trust the messages that come from the broader society and they are scared about what the implications and consequences of government-sanctioned euthanasia might be. We saw this mistrust with COVID, where many people out bush believed it was a disease to be imposed on them. I saw it with euthanasia in the late nineties, when I was working in the community health sector and saw how the issue impacted Aboriginal people's willingness to come into the health clinics. We cannot allow this to happen if we have another debate. So I am pleased that this bill does not seek to automatically legalise euthanasia in the Northern Territory, and I am absolutely delighted that it restores the power of the territories to make their own laws relating to voluntary assisted dying. I support the passing of this bill.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I tend to agree with the member for Fisher; I thought that was well summed up. I won't be supporting this at all. I've got the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 here in front of me. It's probably the shortest bill that I've ever seen in my nine years in this place. The first two pages are pretty well blank. Then it says:

A Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to the legislative powers of territories, and for related purposes.

…   …   …

This Act is the Restoring Territory Rights Act 2022.

Then at the back, where it says 'Application', it says:

(1) Despite the amendments made by this Schedule, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 of the Northern Territory—

it goes straight to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act—

  (a) continues to have effect as a law of the Territory in relation to any act or thing that was done before 27 March 1997; but

  (b) has no force or effect as a law of the Territory in relation to any act or thing done on or after that day.

(2) Subitem (1) applies subject to a contrary intention in a law of the Northern Territory that is enacted after the commencement of this item.

So that's about it; that's the whole bill.

This bill, contrary to what the member for Solomon was saying earlier, is really about euthanasia and allowing the territories to legalise it. If this bill were a referendum bill to change territories—the ACT and the Northern Territory—to states, then I might support that. But the reality is that the territories are not the same as the states, and the Constitution sets it up that way. It's very clear. All the states have 12 senators in the other place. Tasmania, with 400,000 or 500,000 people, almost the same population as Canberra, have 12 senators. And the ACT get two senators because they're not a state; they're a territory. It's the same with the Northern Territory. They get two senators as well. If you want to become a state, then become a state, but this is really about legalising euthanasia through the back door and parliamentarians in this place trying to override what was done or the current parliament not debating it and putting that in place.

I wasn't really going to speak on this—I wasn't going to support it—but I received a letter from Christopher Prowse, who is the Catholic Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's a good man too.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't met him. I just spoke to his office about whether I could read this letter. It's a very good letter. It says:

Dear Hon Luke Howarth MP,

…   …   …

The Catholic Church has always held that Church and State are properly separate but share the objectives of pursuing the common good and promoting the dignity of the human person. Due to these common goals, I believe it is important to outline a perspective on the anticipated legislation.

The rationale for this proposed legislation is ensuring that Territory Assemblies have equal democratic prerogatives with the States. In my view this argument is flawed and such an outcome is evidently not intended at all.

In fact, the intent of the proposed bill is solely aimed at provision of the capacity of Territories to legislate for state-sanctioned killing through euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying. My view is that a radical change to society's most foundational law, overturning the prohibition on the intentional killing of citizens, is ethically unjustifiable, cannot ensure legal protection of the vulnerable, and would fail to uphold the dignity of the dying.

The purpose of writing to you as a member of the Federal Parliament, at this point in time is to make several observations and to urge your deep reflection on the proposals before you.

The Constitution and the self-government Acts make it clear that Territories are not equivalent to States in nature or in capacities. The Commonwealth retains to itself the capacity to limit the scope of Territory competence and even to disallow Assembly legislation that is contrary to Commonwealth policy. The Constitution ss 53 (i) and 122—

as the member for Fisher outlined—

indicate that the citizens of Territories only have such rights as bestowed by the Commonwealth.

That's exactly what the member for Fisher just said. Section 122 of the Constitution says the Australian parliament has the power to pass laws in relation to the territories. Prowse goes on to say:

2. In light of these provisions, together with public comments that the proposed legislation is exclusively directed at enabling euthanasia/voluntary assisted dying to be enacted in the Territories, it is evident that the Federal Parliament is being asked to take responsibility precisely for legislation enabling the administration of lethal drugs to patients. This is quite a different proposition to the Acts of State Parliaments with similar intent. Through this legislation, the Commonwealth is being asked for the first time to sanction the killing of its most vulnerable citizens in jurisdictions where, Constitutionally, it has direct responsibility.

3. The ACT (Seat of Government) is prevented from establishing its own police force or developing legislation around censorship, yet these are not presented as limitations on democracy in the manner in which provision to legislate to sanction the killing of its own citizens is frequently publicly presented.

Well, that's certainly accurate. The letter goes on:

As a member of the Federal Parliament you have responsibilities for the citizens of your own electorates, States or Territories, but you also have wider responsibilities to work for the common good and the dignity of persons beyond any local dimensions. In exercising a conscience vote as a parliamentarian, you are called on to consider the deepest dimensions of your own humanity and to act in a manner consistent with the good of all Australian citizens.

For example, I note that at the same time there is a call to make euthanasia and assisted suicide available to all, palliative care remains only accessible to some.

And he's right, there; palliative care does need a major overhaul right through the country. He goes on:

Similarly, there is considerable irony that this call has a high degree of traction while the plight of many vulnerable Australians including First Nations people, those who are living with disability or who are aged may be offered this option but not consistently high quality care.

Legislation directly and specifically aimed at enabling lethal injections is difficult to reconcile with your responsibilities to the common good or the dignity of the person.

In presenting these views I are cognisant that

Please be assured of prayerful support in your deliberations as you seek to resolve the challenges before you in this matter and in exercising your civic duties. If you believed it would be appropriate and helpful, I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you about this proposed legislation.

Christopher Prowse

Catholic Archbishop of Canberra Goulburn.

I haven't spoken with him about it. I believe this letter was sent to every member of parliament. I'm not sure if anyone else has read it, but I thought I would put it on record because I thought he summed up fairly well some points there.

The reality is the Territory's fiscal imbalance is at the core of arguments against this. The Northern Territory simply can't raise the funds required to cover its spending responsibilities. The Northern Territory accounts for about a sixth of Australia's total land mass, yet its population is around one-twentieth of Sydney's. What this means is that, if the Northern Territory receives the bulk of its funding from the Commonwealth, it's only fair that the Commonwealth retains some influence over Territory decision-making. I believe that this bill is not about the Territory wanting more territory rights, so to speak, but is purely about enacting euthanasia through the territories, which is not their responsibility. It rests with the Commonwealth parliament, as we have the opportunity to pass laws in relation to territories. So I will be voting no.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In March of last year voluntary assisted dying legislation passed both houses of the Tasmanian parliament, becoming the third state in Australia at that time to legislate voluntary assisted dying. It was the fourth time assisted dying laws had come before the Tasmanian parliament since 2009, and after a number of years of advocacy from Independent legislative councillor Mike Gaffney, who put forward the bill, and months of careful consultation with the community from MPs and MLCs of all sides, all members had a conscience vote and the bill passed the Tasmanian Legislative Council unanimously, with MPs in the lower house voting 16 to six in favour.

As with all social issues, the issue of voluntary assisted dying was contentious. But, regardless of how an individual may feel on the issue, the fact that the issue could be considered by Tasmanian parliamentarians is a right that our fellow citizens in the Northern Territory and the ACT are denied. For a territory to be denied the ability to make a decision on such a critical issue and one deemed important by many in their communities, no matter which side of the argument they fall on, is to deny the right of each and every citizen to participate in what is a democratic process simply because of where they live.

So how do we find ourselves here, having this very debate? Over 25 years ago, the Northern Territory were leading the world with their groundbreaking laws on medically assisted dying. On 25 May 1995, the then Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, introduced the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, allowing for someone in their last months of life to apply for a medically assisted death. The law came into effect on 1 July 1996. Still, the road for those seeking to put the law into practice was not easy. Taxi driver Max Bell, who was suffering from stomach cancer, became well known for driving 3,000 kilometres from Broken Hill to Darwin to use the Territory's euthanasia law. He was unable to carry out his wishes after medical and psychiatric professionals in the Northern Territory refused to provide the required information necessary as part of the process and he eventually returned back to Broken Hill. Bell eventually succumbed to stomach cancer, and the media coverage of his case sparked greater cooperation from medical professionals and paved the way for a 66-year-old carpenter, Bob Dent, who was suffering from prostate cancer, to become the first person in the world to take his own life under legally sanctioned voluntary euthanasia laws. For Bob's wife, Judy, there was comfort in Bob leaving the world on his own terms after watching him battle his terminal illness. She said:

The worst thing about looking after somebody who is very ill and in pain is that you can't do anything about it …

I would have taken some of his pain for him if I could have, but I was even afraid to hug him.

Tests had shown his bones were ready to crumble because the cancer had moved into his bones, so hearty hugs were not in the picture anymore.

She told the Guardian Australia in 2016:

Naturally I didn't want him to die but I didn't want him to live the way he was having to live …

When he got his paperwork signed, the palliative effect was greater than everything everybody else had been trying to do for him. The mental anguish was gone …

Just nine months later, the former member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews, introduced a private member's bill successfully overturning the Northern Territory law while also amending legislation to prevent the Territory reintroducing it. The bill was supported across political lines, including by the now member for Watson, then director of the Euthanasia No! group. Dent was one of only four Territorians who were able to undertake voluntary euthanasia before the law was overturned. Judy, like so many Territorians, saw the federal government intervention as treating them like second-class citizens. Indeed, by overturning the law, it's hard to argue that the message is that democratically elected legislators of the territories cannot be trusted to make laws responsibly and appropriately.

I don't stand here and seek to criticise either the former member for Menzies or the current member for Watson, or anyone in this House for their views on euthanasia. It is a deeply complex and sometimes deeply personal and sensitive issue that holds many shades of grey. However, I agree with the member for Solomon that although this legislation should be about the sole issue that territory rights should be the same as people living in every state across Australia, for many this issue is tied to that of euthanasia. However, it is also the job of an elected representative to consult and advocate and ultimately vote on issues in line with community expectations. And the point that must be made is that the majority of us making a decision on this legislation do not represent these communities and, as such, should not have the power to stop the territories making a decision that's right for their own community.

We've come a long way as a society since the Northern Territory laws were first enacted in 1996. The act caused an uproar nationally and internationally, from politicians to healthcare professionals, religious groups, pro-life and pro-choice pressure groups, academics, the media and members of the general public. But as pointed out by Go Gentle Australia, surveys show that around 85 per cent of Australians support the legislation of voluntary assisted dying to allow for a better choice at the end of life.

As mentioned previously, in Tasmania the End of Life Choices (Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill passed last year—the fourth attempt at passing such a law after previous efforts in 2009, 2013 and 2017 failed. Each and every attempt saw passionate advocacy from both sides of the issue, but, year after year, community expectations have changed. And thanks to the tireless work of Independent MLC Mike Gaffney, Tasmania has laws now that, by and large, meet the community's expectations. As pointed out by Mr Gaffney, the end result is a good indication of how parliament should work. The legislation will allow people who are suffering from advanced, incurable and irreversible conditions, which are expected to cause their death within six months, to end their own lives. The law will come into effect in October, and I hope will bring relief and peace for those who may seek to exercise this right.

Should it pass, the proposed legislation before us today rightly gives the territories their democratic powers back, which were taken from them 25 years ago, allowing them to consider the issue of voluntary assisted dying in their respective jurisdictions. While not reinstating the Northern Territory euthanasia laws that were previously in force, this bill, at its core, allows territory parliaments and their communities to decide what is right for them, just as Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia have the legislative powers to do. I note that the Northern Territory Attorney-General has stated that their current voluntary dying legislation does need to be rewritten and modernised to meet best practice standards.

Every elected representative, whether local, state or federal, is elected to represent the views and wishes of their community on a whole range of issues, and to be denied the opportunity to carry out that role on such a significant issue is, in my view, undemocratic and inequitable.

Efforts to overturn the 1997 federal government legislation have failed twice in recent years. A 2018 bill introduced in the Senate by former senator David Leyonhjelm saw a number of senators on both sides vote against it. In 2021, former Northern Territory coalition senator Sam McMahon attempted to introduce a territory rights bill to restore euthanasia powers in the Northern Territory, but it did not come to a vote. So the time is now. With this legislation we have a chance to deliver to the territories what is rightly theirs. The Commonwealth must ensure those in the territories are not treated as second-class citizens, and must step out of the way by handing these legislative powers back. Territorians deserve the right to the same self-determination as all other individuals across the country, and I wholeheartedly support this bill.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier this sitting, debate is adjourned, the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting and the bill is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.