Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have thought more deeply about this issue than any other issue I have thought about in this place. I have changed my view from a past time, when I may have taken a more classically liberal approach with respect to matters such as this, to one where I reflect deeply on the threat to the most vulnerable in our community in relation to the passage of this legislation.

If this bill, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, was only about the rights of territorians, it would not be a conscience vote. Recognition of this as a conscience vote includes a recognition that it is about something more than just the rights of territorians. I do not believe that the ends justify the means, nor do I believe that you should focus entirely on the means and disregard the ends, or the results of what happens. Hence, when I come into this place and consider an issue such as this, I consider it in terms of protecting the vulnerable. I consider the consultations with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, our First Nations people. I consider the unintended consequences of this legislation. I consider all of those issues. And in terms of those safeguards, in terms of consideration given to those issues, I see there is barely a page of consideration to those matters.

The reality is that the Constitution of Australia places an obligation on us to consider whether or not the legislation that was introduced by a previous parliament should be repealed. We have the power therefore we have the responsibility, and it's up to each and every one of us to determine how we discharge that responsibility. And I pay tribute to Senator Nampijinpa Price with regard to her position, her ethical position. It would not have been an easy thing to do that, being a senator from the Northern Territory, and it has echoes of the great Edmund Burke who, when he had to speak to his constituents in Bristol in that famous speech, he said: 'When I come to parliament I'm not just here as your cypher, I bring with me my own conscience. I have to apply my own wisdom to that which is before me.' I really do congratulate Senator Nampijinpa Price on that speech. I have material concerns in respect of voluntary assisted dying, and the more I look into it—and I have looked deeply—the more concerned I am across a number of bases. I think Senator Nampijinpa Price, her comments in respect of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are very, very important to consider, and I'll be making some comments in that respect as well.

The first point I want to make is that voluntary assisted dying is not entirely a private act. This is not like freedom of speech or freedom of religion because, by its very nature, in terms of the processes initiated through voluntary assisted dying, if you choose to go down that path you are involving others. You're involving the medical profession. You're involving the state, which has to have checks and balances to try to assess whether or not a person's consent is valid or invalid. You're placing obligations on a whole range of people. It is not just a single private act; this is broader than that. I will seek to bring that into stark relief shortly.

It also has national significance. We have international human rights obligations, which we have entered into, including in respect of the disabled that have been entered into by our country on a national level. We are the provider of the NDIS, which we hope provides services to our disabled such that they never get into a position where, because they haven't received adequate services, they are forced to choose—a Hobson's choice that the only way they can end the suffering because they haven't been provided adequate services is to go down the voluntary assisted dying route.

We're the provider of health services. Palliative Care Australia, after the most recent election, wrote to the new government and said, 'Congratulations'—as they should do, as each association would do—'we hope you look at the shortage of palliative care services in this country.' So we are all put on put on notice. Everyone in this place is put on notice that there are inadequate palliative care services in this country at this point in time. What if a person is in that invidious position of trying to get access to palliative care services, concerned, scared of the pain, scared of the suffering when they haven't got access to that service? I say to you: we should make sure they've got access to those palliative care services first. That should be our primary responsibility.

I'm going to read to you from a very disturbing article from Canada, a First World country that in many ways is very similar to Australia. I make this point first. In Canada's annual report on medical assistance in dying, they give the statistics for the rates of medically assisted dying in Canada between its introduction in 2016 and 2021. The number of people accessing voluntary assisted dying in Canada has increased from 1,018 in 2016 to 10,064 in 2021, a tenfold increase. So let's have a look to see what is actually happening Canada. I quote from a very recent article by Maria Cheng, a medical writer with Associated Press:

TORONTO (AP)—Alan Nichols had a history of depression and other medical issues, but none were life-threatening. When the 61-year-old Canadian was hospitalized in June 2019 over fears he might be suicidal, he asked his brother to "bust him out" as soon as possible.

Within a month, Nichols submitted a request to be euthanized and he was killed, despite concerns raised by his family and a nurse practitioner.

They've got all the safeguards in Canada. We can have pages and pages of safeguards in legislation, but we have to ask ourselves: what is the practical reality? The article continues:

Nichols' family reported the case to police and health authorities, arguing that he lacked the capacity to understand the process and was not suffering unbearably—among the requirements for euthanasia. They say he was not taking needed medication, wasn't using the cochlear implant that helped him hear, and that hospital staffers improperly helped him request euthanasia.

"Alan was basically put to death," his brother Gary Nichols said.

This is happening in Canada, a First World country, at this point in time. I'll give you another example from this article on what is actually happening on the ground in Canada:

Before being euthanized in August 2019 at age 41, Sean Tagert struggled to get the 24-hour-a-day care he needed.

Sound familiar? Is that happening in Australia? Of course it is.

The government provided Tagert, who had Lou Gehrig's disease, with 16 hours of daily care at his home in Powell River, British Columbia. He spent about 264 Canadian dollars … a day to pay coverage during the other eight hours.

Health authorities proposed that Tagert move to an institution, but he refused, saying he would be too far from his young son. He called the suggestion "a death sentence" … Before his death—

through voluntary euthanasia—

Tagert had raised more than CA$16,000 … to buy specialized medical equipment he needed to live at home with caretakers. But it still wasn't enough.

"I know I'm asking for change," Tagert wrote in a Facebook post before his death. "I just didn't realize that was an unacceptable thing to do."

In light of what is happening on the ground, the United Nations has written to the Canadian government raising concerns that its law breaches the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is in Canada. Here's another example, perhaps even more horrifying, from the same article:

Roger Foley, who has a degenerative brain disorder and is hospitalized in London, Ontario, was so alarmed by staffers mentioning euthanasia that he began secretly recording some of their conversations.

This is someone suffering from a deeply difficult disease, in hospital, being so disturbed by the conversations that health professionals in a First World country were having with him that he started recording them. This is what we found:

In one recording obtained by the AP, the hospital's director of ethics—

of all things—

told Foley that for him to remain in the hospital, it would cost "north of $1,500 a day." Foley replied that mentioning fees felt like coercion and asked what plan there was for his long-term care.

"Roger, this is not my show," the ethicist responded. "My piece of this was to talk to you, (to see) if you had an interest in assisted dying."

That's what's happening in Canada. It's an article from August—just last month.

In relation to the position in the Northern Territory and our First Nations People—I'm not a member of our First Nations people, but when the concerns were raised in that regard I felt a moral obligation to do what research I could in relation to what the experience was in the Northern Territory and I came across this article. It's entitled 'Euthanasia: Right legislation: wrong jurisdiction?'

It contains an extract from a written statement by Chips Mackinolty to the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs' inquiry into euthanasia. Chips Mackinolty was charged by the Northern Territory with the obligation to go around to different Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and consult with them in relation to the legislation which had been imposed or brought into effect in the Northern Territory. Following that consultation, even though personally he supported euthanasia, he was desperately concerned that voluntary assisted dying was inappropriate in the Northern Territory context. He was desperately concerned.

He found that out of the 900 First Nations people he consulted with only two gave any support to voluntary assisted dying. What was most troubling was the fact that he believed it could be totally counterproductive and that Aboriginal people may not attend at health clinics because they'd be concerned with respect to what was associated with the health clinics. It could actually lead to that sort of additional dysfunction in that context. I'll quote:

However, for reasons I will explain, I am not convinced that acquiring objective knowledge of the contents of the… legislation had any significant impact on Aboriginal knowledge and perceptions of sickness and health, life and death. For this reason, it is my personal view that the existence of the… legislation presents—

Listen to this very, very, very carefully—

The… legislation presents a continuing threat to the health and wellbeing of many Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.

This is someone who believed in the philosophy of voluntary assisted dying, but, after he travelled across all those communities, came to that view.

Here's another quote I'd like to give from that article:

It is worth noting, in this context, that private Aboriginal owned clinics have demanded, and received, written undertakings from staff that they will not participate in euthanasia so as to reassure patients that these clinics are 'safe' to attend. Legal and other reasons preclude this occurring in government clinics, and an attempt to amend the… legislation to exempt Aboriginal community clinics from participating in euthanasia failed to pass the NT Legislative Assembly.

Again, another quote:

I personally support my having access to euthanasia—but not in the Northern Territory. It is arguably the right legislation—but certainly the wrong jurisdiction. My reasons for this are both simple and complex.

I suggest to everyone that they read that article, and if this legislation goes through—it's likely to—that, in particular, the Northern Territory legislatures pay close regard to the words of Chips Mackinolty in that respect. It's very, very important.

This is a very, very difficult issue, an extraordinarily difficult issue, but having read extensively into the most recent experiences of what is occurring in first world jurisdictions, countries like our own—in Canada—and seeing how those experiences could translate into an Australian context, I simply cannot support legislation where the only safeguards we're given are no safeguards. There's just a page of legislation. In good conscience I simply cannot support this legislation.