Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

BROCKMAN () (): I rise today to make a short contribution on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. Matters of conscience are always those in this chamber where we do hear very heartfelt contributions. Certainly, as I have considered whether or not to speak on this bill, I have read the contributions from colleagues right around the chambers. There is obviously a depth of feeling about this issue that reveals why it is a matter of conscience, and I think it's important that we do put our positions on the record in matters of conscience.

To me, this very much comes down to a question of the structure of our Constitution, the roles and responsibilities of various levels of government and the way in which this parliament should deal with such matters, particularly in relation to the territories. It is important when considering matters—particularly matters of life and death—that we do consider the structure of the Constitution and the responsibilities that that gives to states on the one hand and territories on another.

Territories do fall into a different category in our constitutional arrangements. That is for a very particular reason, and it is something that we in this place cannot, and should not, ignore. When we are considering legislation that involves life or death, states obviously have the capacity to make those decisions under our Constitution, and no-one in this place has tried to alter the arrangements, say, in my home state of Western Australia or in other states around Australia, on issues such as euthanasia. However, with the territories, we are in a different category. Territories are smaller jurisdictions; they send a different number of members to this place, for example. The arrangements are different and are reflected differently.

The Northern Territory considered the matter of statehood at a point in the past and rejected it. There may come a point in the future when statehood is desired by either the Northern Territory or perhaps even the Australian Capital Territory, in which case the pathway would be open to a different set of powers and responsibilities. But in that case—and with all due respect to my friends in Queensland—if statehood were embraced, we would want to see a much more robust, democratic framework. I personally am a believer in two houses of parliament: a lower house and an upper house, like the Senate or the upper houses in most of the other states, which provide the checks and balances. In territory jurisdictions, we do not see the same level of democracy operating.

This is not to take anything away from the self-governing rights of the Northern Territory or the ACT. However, what we have here is a piece of legislation already on the books at Commonwealth level. The history of the bill has been addressed a number of times, and I'm not going to traverse that area again, but we now, in all good conscience, have to make a decision on whether we will change those current arrangements that are in place. In all conscience, and looking at the situation around the world and in Australia where these laws—whether you want to call them euthanasia laws or voluntary assisted dying laws—have been put in place, we cannot guarantee that mistakes are not made. As a parliament and as a chamber, we have to consider that fact in moving to change the current arrangements. That is why I will not be supporting this bill.