Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Hansard source

Before I start my contribution on this particularly important bill before the chamber, can I just correct something that Senator Gallacher asserted during his contribution. He made the assertion that the government had allocated precious government business time in the Senate on this bill as part of a deal. This assertion has been made by previous contributors today, and it is not correct. The reason that this bill is currently being debated is that the Labor Party, the Greens and enough of the crossbenchers voted in favour of a motion to make this happen. I'd now like to move onto the substantive part of my contribution.

Before us today are two very serious concerns: one of great emotional divide and the other in pursuit of legality and federalism. It conflates the two issues of assisted suicide legislation and recognising the autonomy of the territories. I fear it is too simplistic to be debating this proposed legislation as it is. These are concerns that warrant full and frank discussion, whereas the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 concurrently discusses multiple matters at once. Some have said it's not about territory issues, while others have said it's not about euthanasia. In the same vein, others have said this legislation before us goes to the rights of territories to make decisions for themselves and contend it does not ask senators to give a view approving or disapproving of euthanasia. Are we discussing territory rights or human rights? Are we discussing social issues, ethical issues, jurisdiction issues or constitutional issues?

The message falls flat on what is actually before the Senate. In my opinion, there are two intrinsically unique matters, each of which unfortunately masks the other. Before us currently, the legal inquiry cannot ignore the philosophical question, but, with equal merit, the philosophical concerns cannot navigate its legality. The two are individually separate, yet the very title of this bill binds them together.

There should be other means through which we can have a full and frank territory rights debate. Similarly, this is not the setting for an assisted suicide debate, with external motives potentially roadblocking a serious policy discussion that can touch the lives of all Australians. This bill purports to encourage competitive federalism. Territories have a distinct role within our federal parliamentary system—they always have—but the existence of the powers retained by the Commonwealth under section 122 of the Constitution can suggest that the debate before us is to be determined by political means, not legislative ones at the hands of local assemblies. The Commonwealth is the supreme law-making body and, as it stands, the Commonwealth can retain legislative oversight for the government of a territory.

In acknowledging the intentions of this bill, it confirms that the Howard government's Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 successfully repealed the Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. To this end, the proposed legislation recognises the respective roles and powers of the territories and the federal parliament in acknowledging that the federal parliament is the body that is ultimately responsible for the laws of the territories. To ignore this important function without considerable consultation and dialogue could be ill-advised, and I'm not sure whether this discussion is rightly placed against this issue.

However, in saying that, I'm a strong supporter of the inalienable rights and freedoms of all people, underpinned by the most minimal government intrusion in their private lives as possible. Individuals are almost always best positioned to make their own choices. To this end, I appreciate Senator Leyonhjelm's pursuit. However, the inextricable linking of the two issues in this bill makes it impossible to separate the discussion. I firmly believe that these two distinct issues must be debated separately. Euthanasia and territory rights are not one and the same. By binding them together, we overlook their respective significance and unconsciously belittle their inherent worth. I deeply respect the views and opinions of all who have participated in this debate. However, I find myself unable to support all aspects of this bill.