David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise to support passage of the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, a private senator's bill I introduced late last year.

In 1997, Kevin Andrews succeeded in pushing a private member's bill through federal parliament. It overturned the first legislation permitting assisted suicide in Australia, enacted in the Northern Territory.

Since then, not only does assisting someone to commit suicide remain a serious crime in all states, it is also a crime in the territories. Three states have life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, while in others the maximum penalty varies from five to 25 years.

This is extraordinarily cruel. The denial of the right to die at a time of our choosing can result in a lingering, painful death. It is also at odds with the fact that we have both a fundamental and legal right to choose whether we wish to continue living.

It is important to state this clearly, because people often forget suicide was once illegal and failed attempts frequently led to prosecution.

In medieval England, suicides were denied a Christian burial. Instead, they were carried to a crossroads in the dead of night and dumped in a pit, a wooden stake hammered through the body to pin it in place. There were no clergy or mourners, and no prayers were offered.

But punishment did not end with death. The deceased's family were stripped of their belongings, which were handed to the Crown.

This remained the case until 1822. Michael MacDonald and Terence Murphy, in Sleepless Souls: Suicide in Early Modern England, wrote: 'The suicide of an adult male could reduce his survivors to pauperism.'

This did not change because of a significant campaign for a change in suicide legislation. Instead, there was a gradual realisation that the laws of the day were at odds with society's view, and that care, not prosecution, was needed.

Dr David Wright, co-author of the book Histories of Suicide: International Perspectives on Self-Destruction in the Modern World, wrote:

From the middle of the 18th Century to the mid-20th Century there was growing tolerance and a softening of public attitudes towards suicide which was a reflection of, among other things, the secularisation of society and the emergence of the medical profession.

This freedom is now mostly well accepted. While suicide is often an occasion for sadness, there is also a recognition that people do not belong to their families or to the government.

An individual may have good reasons to take his or her own life. But even if they do not, it is still their decision to make.

But there is a catch. The law says we are only permitted to die by our own hand, without assistance. Indeed, in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and the ACT, reasonable force can still be used to stop a person from committing suicide. And if we are too weak or incapacitated to end our lives ourselves, we are condemned to suffer until nature takes its course. It is a serious offence for anyone to either help us die, at our instruction, or even to tell us how to do it ourselves.

One of the consequences of this is that it can compel people to end their lives sooner than they would like. Understandably, people prefer to avoid the risk that they will become incapable of committing suicide themselves, doomed to live out the remainder of their lives in pain and helplessness.

Most fair-minded people accept that painlessly ending animal suffering is an act of compassion. As a veterinarian, I have often had the decision to put an animal to sleep because animals are not people and cannot give consent. However, for us humans, even when we give consent and beg for help, the law prohibits the same compassion.

There is no better marker of individual freedom than the ability to decide what to do with our own body.

If the law prevents us from making free choices about it, then we are not really free at all; our bodies are not our own but are under the control of someone else who tells us what we can and cannot do with it. In reality, this is the state.

Yet bodily autonomy is well-recognised in other areas. Nothing prevents us from getting tattoos, dying our hair purple—if we happen to have hair—or sporting multiple studs and pierces. We are just not allowed the ultimate autonomy.

Legalisation of assisted suicide in Australia is long overdue. Opinion polls show that more than 80 per cent of Australians are in favour, across all political parties. It is high time governments accepted that on this deeply personal matter, their intrusion is not warranted.

Now, I turn to the inevitable objections.

Despite what some people think, this is not about bumping off granny to inherit the house. Assisted suicide is simply helping someone to do something that they would do for themselves, if they were not so ill or feeble.

The absolutely essential element is genuine, active consent. This is emphatically not merely implied consent or acquiescence. Ending someone's life when they have not given consent is murder. Nobody wants that.

Moreover, this is not about living wills or withdrawing medical assistance. Those are different issues.

Equally, those contemplating suicide should be made aware of the availability of palliative care to make their last days less agonising and should have treatment options in the case of mental illness. Indeed, the decision to die, with or without assistance, should be rational and well informed in all cases, including an awareness of the attitudes of loved ones left behind.

And of course, consent must be verified. I do not believe medical practitioners are any better qualified than anyone else to confirm this, but obviously the decision must be genuine. It is essential to ensure that the choice is made without coercion or pressure.

In the short term at least, the easiest approach to facilitate the path to legalising assisted suicide would be repeal of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997—the 'Andrews bill' I referred to earlier. It removed the power of each of the territories to legalise assisted suicide, with a specific focus on repeal of the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

While it is too late to simply reinstate the Northern Territory act, repeal of the Andrews bill would send a signal to states and territories that their legislatures may now turn their attention to this issue. As a bonus, it would support federalism in law making. For too long, the Commonwealth has waded into areas that are properly the business of the states.

Allowing the states and territories control over their own affairs—which is the point of federalism—also allows innovation in law-making. During hearings for the Senate 'nanny state' inquiry—of which I am chair—I learnt that the Northern Territory does not require cyclists to wear bicycle helmets on cycle paths or footpaths.

As a result, the Northern Territory has high cycling participation rates. And despite having the worst road accident injury rate in Australia, when it comes to cyclists the Northern Territory's serious injury rate is the same as the national average and better than several states where helmet use remains mandatory.

In other words, small jurisdictions can be innovative, and this should be recognised by the Commonwealth. Indeed, I suspect that in response to passage of this bill the territories will come up with better assisted suicide legislation than the Northern Territory's original Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

Whatever we might think of the decisions others make about their lives, it is their decision, not ours. The law should respect their right to make their own choices. Whether as legislators or private citizens, our approval is neither necessary nor relevant.

And the permission of the government should not be required, just as it is no longer required with respect to suicide.

Passage of my bill will set the territories free.

I commend the bill to the Senate.