Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make but a very brief contribution on the debate the Senate is currently considering. Of course, this is a very important issue for many people right across the country, people who have very different views and opposing views. It is something that evokes a great deal of emotion. Some of the contributions today and tonight have highlighted a lot of that, including Senator Georgiou's contribution just then about his own personal experience, which I very much appreciate him sharing with the chamber.

I myself won't be supporting the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. I think it is important at the outset to note that this bill doesn't actually deal with the issue of assisted suicide, euthanasia, or voluntary assisted dying—it's known by many different names in a number of different jurisdictions. It's not about formulating how the territories should legislate, what the laws would look like, what sorts of policies would be in place and, most importantly, as a number of contributions have outlined, what sorts of safeguards would be in place. It's not about that. It's about granting the right to two jurisdictions in our federation to make laws with regard to this particular issue—two jurisdictions which, by virtue of the constitutional make-up of our nation, don't currently have that right. They are different to states; they are territories. That is just the nature of territories versus states.

In my mind, I am concerned that this bill is about, in effect, writing a blank cheque for two jurisdictions to go and legislate something that we have no oversight over, no recourse to consider and no input on. I think it's important to divide the two issues up. It is also important, I believe, to note that the two jurisdictions we're talking about, the ACT and the Northern Territory, both have unicameral parliaments. The chambers that will be debating these very important and sensitive issues don't have a second chamber to check off exactly what they're debating. I think many of us can point to many examples over time where single-chamber parliaments have passed legislation which is less than satisfactory. Where there's no recourse, there's no involvement and there's no capacity for this parliament to be involved in the policymaking, I am just concerned that here, by passing this bill, we'd be looking at something like a blank cheque.

It is also important to point out that we're focusing on one issue here. There's the broader issue around powers and rights to be conferred on the territories that they don't currently have. It's a singular issue. There are a number of areas where the territories don't have the rights of states and, if we're serious about issues like constitutional reform, perhaps a broader conversation should be had. But I don't think the piecemeal approach of picking a certain issue and dealing with that and then dealing with another is the way to do that. And, as I understand it, if this bill were to pass, then what would happen in the Northern Territory, for instance, is that the laws that were in place before the Andrews bill came into effect would be automatically reinstated—that is: tomorrow, those laws would be in place and euthanasia could be undertaken on individuals under those laws that are over 20 years old, with all their loopholes and with all the dangers and risks that we don't know about. We just don't know what risks to the public that would present.

So, as I say, we're presented with a bill, which, in my view, means we are writing a blank cheque for two jurisdictions who haven't tabled what they intend to do. There is the situation whereby previous legislation is re-enacted by virtue of the passage of this bill. There are risks to the community, and I don't think it's right for this parliament to support that. I won't be supporting it. I'm not a supporter of euthanasia generally, so I won't be supporting the bill.