Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

RICE () (): This bill has challenged my thinking very deeply. I've come to this parliament to consider every piece of legislation that comes before us, and it is my obligation to the people of this country to pursue a deeper level of understanding of argument for and against each piece of legislation, never taking anything for granted, especially on an issue as serious as permitting society the ability to end human life.

I've heard very shallow arguments from my fellow federal Labor colleagues from the Northern Territory and our very own Northern Territory Labor Attorney-General, who claimed: 'This is purely about giving Territorians rights, and anyone who opposes this is effectively denying our rights as Territorians to make our own decisions.' In my opinion, taking a human life is far more serious an issue, deserving profound consideration, as opposed to political pointscoring or gaslighting to elicit a supporting vote.

Given our Northern Territory Attorney-General, Chansey Paech, our Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, and the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, are of Aboriginal heritage, I would have hoped that they would consider the possible consequences for, and the current deeply held concerns of, the Territory's Aboriginal population, who are some of our most marginalised Australians. The Northern Territory has the highest proportion of Aboriginal Australians in the country, at 30 per cent of our population. The majority of this population consists of those whose first language is not English and who experience the lowest levels of education, the highest levels of unemployment and welfare dependency, the lowest life expectancy, the highest rates of domestic and family violence and the greatest health challenges in the nation. Voluntary assisted dying is incompatible with the Closing the Gap health and wellbeing targets of closing the gap in life expectancy within a generation by 2031, and significant and sustained reduction in suicide of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people towards zero.

The Northern Territory government are also charged with the responsibility of protecting the lives of Territorians, but have recently acted contrary to this duty, instead using human rights as the basis for their argument to allow alcohol to be consumed again in remote communities. They've argued that an alcoholic should have the right to drink themselves to death. And if that alcoholic is also a violent perpetrator, their potential to commit violence has been prioritised by this Territory government over the rights of the perpetrator's victims to live a life free from all forms of violence. It is a human right for every man, woman and child to live a life free from any form of violence, including alcohol related violence.

Despite desperate pleas from vulnerable community members and leading Aboriginal health and legal services, this Northern Territory Labor government, who now seek the right to debate voluntary assisted dying, completely ignored these pleas. I now field distressing calls on a regular basis from people who are experiencing the immediate consequences of the Northern Territory government's actions. These individuals and their communities are retraumatised by the alcohol fuelled violence that has returned to their communities. In two communities in central Australia, families have fled due to feuds. Children's lives are disrupted, as are the lives of those now being displaced. This is contributing to the gangs of children now back on the streets of my hometown, who are not attending school and who have no adult supervision. So you can forgive me for having no faith or confidence that this current Northern Territory Labor government is capable of determining legislation that lends itself to ending the lives of human beings.

My other concern speaks to cases I have come to learn of in other countries like Canada, where laws allowing assisted dying have seen individuals who have been misdiagnosed with a terminal illness end their lives wrongfully; or cases where a prognosis has been delivered to a patient estimating they only have months to live, when, in fact, they have had years left, but the consequences of the initial prognosis has brought their lives to an end prematurely. There is the mental capacity of individuals seeking assisted dying to be considered. There have been cases of individuals who have ended their lives without involvement of family members, who sadly learned only after their loved ones had passed away that they had sought assisted dying. The mental capacity of these individuals was not known or considered by treating doctors, yet if family had known they still would not have been able to challenge their loved ones' request due to the legislation's determinations.

I have a niece in her early 30s whose kidneys collapsed some years ago. She has two children in their early teens. She decided recently that she no longer wanted to live, and ceased attending her dialysis appointments. It was deeply concerning to us as a family that she had come to this conclusion. It was very likely the fact that the increased level of toxins in her blood due to avoiding dialysis was contributing to her inability to make sound decisions about her health. As her family, we did everything in our power to keep her alive. We had her committed to care and arranged counselling for her to better understand the need for her to keep fighting for her life and continue to be dialysed. Her children needed their mother. This is why I fight for better life outcomes and a better quality of life for all Australians, especially our most marginalised—to respect the sanctity of life by fighting to save lives.

While I acknowledge that the other 70 per cent of the Northern Territory is not Aboriginal, I have a responsibility to all of our Territorians. The proposed repeal of Kevin Andrews's bill does not create equality between states and territories, as the following points show. First, territories and states are fundamentally different. The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978, or NTA, is an act of the Commonwealth parliament and can be changed as parliament sees fit. State constitutions subsist under section 106 of the Constitution and are protected by it—they cannot be changed by the Commonwealth parliament. Second, the Commonwealth parliament has plenary power over the territories under section 122 of the Constitution. That can't be changed, save by referendum. By contrast, the Commonwealth parliament may legislate in matters affecting states only within the powers granted to it by section 51 of the Constitution or exclusive powers like defence. Third, the administrator of the Northern Territory is appointed by the Governor-General; state governors are appointed by the Queen. Fourth, by virtue of subsection 53(5) of the NTA, the Northern Territory parliament does not have power to confer on courts or tribunals powers to resolve employment disputes. That restriction remains. Finally, and importantly, under section 72 of the NTA the Commonwealth indemnifies the Territory in relation to any claim for damages which, but for the NTA, could have been brought against the Commonwealth. That means that the Northern Territory does not stand on its own two feet but is supported by the Commonwealth.

Therefore, the Constitution demands that every one of us, the elected members of federal parliament, take greater responsibility for the territories within our nation than for our states—whether we like it or not. But if this bill is to pass, because of my very grave concerns I would urge any Northern Territory government that wishes to debate legislation for voluntary assisted dying to undergo thorough consultation with Territorians of all backgrounds—especially our most vulnerable constituents. I would also especially urge those who argue this bill is about supporting only the rights of Territorians that once you've determined the legislation you put it to the vote of the people of the Northern Territory so that it may truly reflect their wishes and rights.