Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. I have listened carefully to the debate, and I will be opposing the passage of the bill.

The arguments in favour of the passage of the bill through the Senate do not find favour with me. The arguments advancing the bill are twofold, as I understand it. Firstly, there is a need to restore to the territories a democratic right to legislate for issues such as legalising euthanasia. Further to that, as the states have chosen to legalise euthanasia, this of itself has created an imperative that the right to access a legislative regime allowing euthanasia should be made available to everybody living in Australia.

A territory is not a state. The Senate and the other place are the democratic chambers that have ultimately been entrusted under our Constitution to make decisions for the people residing within the border of a territory. In my view, it is not possible to abrogate that responsibility. We have an obligation to inform ourselves of the consequences of the passage of this bill and make our own judgements accordingly and in accordance with our own conscience. We cannot seek to avert our gaze as to what will happen should this bill pass.

The positions on euthanasia of Territorian parliamentarians are clear and in the public forum. On the same journey of reasoning, I do not warm to the view that, in voting against this bill, I'm in some way diminishing the franchise of those residing in our territories. This debate is inevitably about the legalisation of the practice of euthanasia. To think otherwise is, I respectfully suggest, being wilfully blind. Further, I do not believe that the states that have passed such legislation should have embarked on that legislative path. If I'd remained in the South Australian parliament I would have voted against the proposition. I therefore do not agree with the assertion that euthanasia is a universal right in Australia and that citizens will be disadvantaged in the event access is not legalised and subsequently facilitated.

My views opposing legalising euthanasia are informed by my work in the law, particularly in the area of securing informed consent, and the communities I've lived, worked and volunteered in, as well as my beliefs and ethical understanding of the meaning and value of human life. I acknowledge that arguments for and against euthanasia are complex, and their articulation has filled books, reports and journals. Nothing I say in this contribution will do this issue justice.

The advocacy for legalising euthanasia is grounded on a value placed on individual autonomy, with any associated risks mitigated by imposed safeguards. My strong view is that parliament should not seek to legislate for the taking of life except in circumstances of collective or individual self-defence. A democracy must always have, as its principal concern, value for the lives of its citizens. Representative bodies should never seek to topple or undermine this fundamental pillar that supports our community compact, or seek to normalise the termination of life.

I quote an old adage: 'An act tends to forms a habit, a habit tends to form a character, and a character tends to form a destiny'. Assisted dying is not a private act; it requires the assistance of others. Legalisation of euthanasia blurs the bright line between intending to kill and intending to heal. Such legalisation creates a new permission which will inevitably lead to a shift in professional and legal standards that will not favour the same respect for the sanctity of life. In a just society, no-one is entitled to act on the opinion that the life of another is not worth living. In preparing my comments, I acknowledge the writings of Professor John Finnis that have assisted me in the deliberations on this bill. I do not support the bill.