Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I'll say at the outset, to make it clear, that I support the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 and will be voting in favour of it. There's a lot of reference in this debate to this being a conscience vote. I'd like to think we exercise our consciences pretty much all the time in this place in considering our decisions and actions on a whole range of issues. I don't think the issue of euthanasia should somehow be considered in some magic bubble disconnected from all of the other policy issues that we consider, that we vote on and that we promote or oppose. Even though it is labelled as a conscience vote, I will say that it is explicitly Queensland Greens' policy. It's quite explicit, clear-cut and simple that we support the right of people with severe and incurable disease to choose to die with dignity—and I am voting in accordance with that policy.

I do want to put some other comments on the record. At its core, this legislation, as we've just heard very eloquently from Senator McCarthy, seeks to restore the rights of the parliaments of the ACT and the Northern Territory to consider the issue of euthanasia. If this bill should pass, it's pretty unlikely that the federal parliament will ever again be considering a euthanasia model directly in terms of a national approach. I expect it will proceed to continue to be considered by state and territory parliaments, as they have done a number of times—sometimes in great depth with significant committee inquiries and with very close votes. So, in that sense, by voting in favour of this bill, we are handing over the decision-making power on this issue to the parliaments of the ACT and the Northern Territory, should they choose to consider any proposal for euthanasia laws. The reason that I want to comment on it is that I do think the issues around euthanasia and end-of-life issues more broadly, as Senator Bilyk said, do need to be discussed and considered more, and the language that we use and the issues that arise do need to be taken into account.

It's also been mentioned a couple of times in this debate that there are just four people here who were in this Senate chamber when the Andrews bill, as it is known, was voted on—Senators Abetz, Collins, Carr and Ian Macdonald. I was actually here in this chamber, but I wasn't a senator at the time; I was in the public gallery and I remember it very well—it was packed. I was working at the time for one of the Democrat senators, John Woodley—who was actually the only Democrat to vote in favour of the Andrews bill—and I was heavily involved as a staffer following the Senate committee inquiries and issues that were being considered at that time.

There are a few points I'd like to make. Firstly, a lot has changed in 20 years. The fundamental issues, philosophies and complexities and the personal nature of people's end-of-life experiences will always continue on, long after all of us are gone. The fact that we will all die is one of the few absolutely shared experiences that we all, as humans, have in common. In that sense, I sometimes find the term 'right to die' a bit of a strange one. We're going to die whether we like it or not. The issue is the nature of that death and also the life that people have not just in that final period but throughout their life. Again, I think the issue of euthanasia can't, or shouldn't, be considered in isolation from all of the other things we can do to make people's lives better right through until that final period.

I note and agree with the concern about using the term 'assisted suicide'. Senator Di Natale has an amendment to change that in this bill. We'll be supporting it anyway, regardless of whether that amendment goes through. But I actually think it's a significant matter. The term 'euthanasia' literally means 'good death'. The other terms that people use to describe this seek to reflect that idea of making the final moments of as many people as possible as good an experience as possible. When we think of suicide, in our community, in our cultures, we do not think of it as a good death; we usually think of it as one of the worst deaths. I don't think it's a good thing to equate those terms when we're talking about the issues involved here.

I have always supported the principle of the right of people to access a good death and to choose that. The challenge, of course, is to ensure that principle is applied safely and not misused, and that's always the dilemma. That's why I have sometimes been equivocal in my support for euthanasia laws. But we're not debating the laws here; we're simply debating whether or not to hand that power back to the territories to consider. I will simply say that my views have evolved over time because of the fact that this has been debated and explored a number of times in state parliaments. I will put on the record the consistent leadership role that the Greens have played in pretty much all of those debates and in leading the charge in terms of introducing legislation, through former senator Bob Brown, as early as 1997 to reverse the Andrews bill.

As was mentioned, in Tasmania the euthanasia bill came within one vote of being adopted. In the New South Wales upper house, it was lost by one vote. In the Victorian parliament, as we know, it has now been adopted. So we now have a model to look at and see how it works in practice. Looking at the evidence from many of those parliamentary debates and committee inquiries has really been the tipping point for me. I don't think you can ever design any legislative regime where you can 100 per cent guarantee that a mistake won't be made, but when you see all the evidence about the reality of what happens now—the immense suffering that so many people go through that we know we could prevent—and the fact that, as Senator McKim reflected on and as was detailed quite clearly in the evidence to the Victorian parliamentary committee, it is already happening now in so many ways, in a completely unregulated way, though almost always, I am sure, with good intent. What is happening right now is that people are committing suicide, having horrible deaths and traumatising their family because they have no other alternative. So we will likely see, with good euthanasia laws, a reduction in traumatic suicides of people in extreme, unrelenting pain who see no other way out.

In the Victorian parliamentary inquiry, there were reports that doctors practise—with the best will—unlawful assisted dying, despite its prohibition and despite prospective liability for serious crimes. That is happening without regulation, often without proper support and without transparency and accountability. So, if we want to minimise the chances of putting an end to someone's life inappropriately, we need to put a regulatory regime around it, because it's happening now already to a degree that we don't really know, because it's underground. The best way to minimise the chance of misuse of power is by putting a regulatory framework around it.

I think we need to recognise that, whilst we all support the principle of choice, choice is not always equal, because power situations are not always equal. It is fine for people who are relatively wealthy, have access to good-quality health services, have family supports around them, have trusted medical professionals and are in positions of power and privilege to engage with some of these processes. But it is different if you're a person in poverty, if you have significant mental health issues, if you are a person with a different cultural background or with language differences, or if you are a person with direct experience of the systemic racism that still exists in the delivery of our services. A point that is made by those in the disability advocacy community who raise issues with the euthanasia laws is the very systemic ableism that is built into so many aspects of our society and our health system so deeply that we are often not conscious of it. We need to be aware that ableism, systemic racism, innate discrimination and power differentials will continue to be there under a regulated regime. But the fact is that they exist already under a non-regulated regime, and I think it is far better to be able to at least have a regime where you can monitor what is happening and try to protect those people who have more direct experience with language barriers or with cultural and racial discrimination.

I know from the debate 20 years ago—and this was a point that was raised by one of the opponents of this bill—the fears of the Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory about what it might mean to them. Senator McCarthy reflected in her contribution on the different views there amongst Aboriginal communities in the Territory. Given even the little I know—and I know Senator McCarthy would know far more than I do—about some terrible, terrible experiences that Aboriginal people have had with very direct and blatant racism through the health system, you wouldn't blame them for being fearful of engaging with it. But you don't address that by just saying, 'Well, we won't address these issues.' You address that by addressing and acknowledging the systemic racism.

We have heard from all sides of this debate often about the inherent value of every life, including some of those most opposed to euthanasia because of the inherent value of every life. I want to reiterate the point that, if we want to adopt that principle—and I certainly do—we can do a hell of a lot more to give value to people's lives throughout their lives. I spoke just last night in this place about the very direct evidence that the inadequate funding for maternity services in rural communities in Queensland is almost certainly leading to higher infant mortality in those rural communities compared to those rural communities that do have basic maternity services and midwife services. That's literally right at the very start. That is an uncomfortable fact, but it's true. Babies are missing out on the entire opportunity of life because we're not adequately funding that. We need to do so much more, and I support the campaigns of the Nursing and Midwifery Federation with regard to aged-care ratios and nursing ratios and the Our Turn to Care campaign. We need to do so much more to fund and provide support in aged-care facilities. There is often no magic tipping point when you suddenly become worried. It's a situation that we all know we're going to face at some stage, and people need support at all stages through their life process.

The ironic part—maybe 'ironic' is not the right word—is that, despite the concerns that some raise about all the situations this might apply to, the Victorian model is only for people who are explicitly diagnosed as having a terminal illness with less than 12 months life expectancy left.

There are a whole lot of other people in excruciating, unbelievable suffering, and sometimes mental health fits into that circumstance as well. They are not covered by the laws. They all need support. People are concerned about addressing people. People are concerned folks might make not the best decisions because of their depression or mental health situation. What about more funding for mental health? It is not adequately funded. We all know that. The support services are not there for so many people in the community. What about better funding for housing? What about not forcing people into poverty? Those are all just as much about the inherent value of every life.

That is the context in which euthanasia law regimes operate. They come into play in a circumstance where we have our society governed so much by market based principles, the profit motive and all of the other neoliberal principles that are put on the top, even for not-for-profit providers. So these laws will operate in that context. I certainly believe we all need to continue to attack and eliminate those neoliberal principles, those market-first principles, from anything to do with ensuring basic care for people throughout their life in times of need. And those times of need can happen when you're quite young as well as when you're elderly.

So, in supporting the rights of territories to consider euthanasia legislation and supporting all of the state parliaments to continue to explore these issues—it has been put forward and examined, certainly, in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, WA and Tasmania. I'm not sure that it's happened in Queensland yet, but I think I can be quite confident, now there is a Greens MP in the Queensland parliament, that he is keen to progress this issue and have the debate in Queensland as well. We can all learn, not just from the models in Victoria. From the time since that first legislation was passed in the Northern Territory, laws have been in place in Oregon, in the US, for nearly 20 years. We have examples in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in many states in the US and elsewhere in the world that we can now look at to see the best models to draw on. I think we're in a much better place now to be confident that these debates can be informed. But I think they need to be holistic, and that's why I'm keen that the whole issue of euthanasia is not be seen as some separate conscience issue that's disconnected from all of the other policy issues that we deal with in this place.

With that, I would also like to say that there is a real significance in how we talk about these issues and, as part of that, in recognising the challenges in how we deal with some of the issues, like people with dementia and people with severe and sometimes, sadly, untreatable mental health. I've talked about my own circumstances a bit before. I won't do that tonight because of the time, but I will say that some of the strongest people are those who work through those challenges, but there's still not always a cure, and proper support for those people is important. One of the potential flow-on benefits of having a pathway for people, knowing that there are others who can work with them about end-of-life situations and what they see as their future, is having a regulatory regime in place. Your natural tendency when you're in a bad place is to go inwards and isolate, but having a regulatory regime means that you have a pathway you are encouraged to engage with. But those pathways have got to be properly funded. They need to be comprehensive, they need to include palliative care, they need to include aged care, they need to include mental health support and they need to keep listening to the people who are going through the experience so the choice is a genuine one.