Senate debates
Tuesday, 14 August 2018
Bills
Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015; Second Reading
9:10 pm
Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source
I too will try to keep my remarks brief. I want to recognise three things during my contribution to this debate on the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015.
First of all, I want to recognise the fundamental reality that the peoples of the Northern Territory and of the Australian Capital Territory deserve to have their rights and their voices heard. The Andrews Bill, referred to previously by Senator Watt, was, indeed, an aberration. It stripped hundreds of thousands of Australians of their right to have their voices heard in the legislative process and should now be repealed. I would also like to recognise that this is also a question of many of our individual views of the issue of end-of-life choices, and put clearly on the record that I am a firm supporter of a move, whether at the state or federal level, to grant people under certain circumstances the right to make a choice about how they wish to finish their time on this earth.
My contribution to this debate, however, is unique among the contributions that have been made before mine, in as much as I am the first person with a disability to serve in the Australian Senate. For the disability community, and for at least a significant proportion of it, the question of end-of-life choices has a particularly deep significance. I would like, therefore, to add for the reflection of those participating in the debate tonight some critical context which I believe is very important and which helps illuminate some concerns and fears that are held by those in the disability community. These are not reasons, it is my firm belief, to fail to legislate in this area. They are, in fact, reasons to be kept firmly in mind as we, as legislators, put our minds to work in the crafting of the appropriate legislation.
We here in this place must come to terms with the reality that our society is drenched in toxic ableism. Ableism says that to be disabled is to be broken, is to be shameful and is to be a lesser form of human life. This toxic discriminatory idea pervades our society in the same ways, and deforms it in the same ways, as do sexism, misogyny and homophobia. This demeaning and dark angel of the human nature lies behind so many of the disgraceful circumstances to which disabled Australians are subjected daily. When we are forced to work for a dollar an hour, it is ableism that takes our wage. When we are abused and denied justice, it is ableism that silences us. When a disabled child is told that they can't be educated with the rest of their peers because they just hold their peers back, it is ableism which makes them wonder if they are right. It is this poison of our society which lies at the root of many of the fears of the disability community when it comes to the issue of euthanasia. It is far more prevalent in our society than many of us would like to admit, and it contributes a thought process which, to be blunt, expresses itself most clearly in the statement, 'It would be better to be dead than be disabled.'
It is the reality of modern-day Australia that the four million Australians with disabilities are overwhelmingly denied access to the proper supports and services necessary to live a good life. Although the NDIS is doing much good work in the amelioration of these circumstances, there is still so far to go. Violence, abuse and neglect are still endemic. Human rights are still casually denied. It is into this context that some fear that euthanasia enters. How can it be, some suggest, that this legislature, or any legislature, would seek to make it easier for a disabled person to die when there is still so much work to be done to ensure that we can live? Much concern is also created by often used terms such as 'dignity'. Dignity is, in itself, a very subjective idea. I put it to you that I experience things daily which some would consider undignified but which, in fact, have no inherent indignity. It is these things which we must be cognisant of when legislating in this area to ensure that the rights of disabled Australians and all others are protected and safeguarded.
I must state clearly, for the record, the anger that I feel when these legitimate concerns are taken advantage of by certain unscrupulous religious organisations seeking to abuse them for their own purposes. I sit here as a disabled person who is a passionate advocate of this reform. These are not reasons why we should not move forward in this area. These are not people whose fears and concerns should be played on, nor should they be immediately dismissed. It is clear we must move in this area. The pain, suffering and fear, which is a daily feature of those struggling with this most difficult of decisions, demands action of us. But we must also move cautiously in consultation, with open ears, to ensure that that which we create does no harm and robs none of their rights. I thank the chamber for its time.
No comments