Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

In contributing to this debate on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, I want to begin by acknowledging that there is an amendment currently before the chamber which purports to be an amendment for the benefit and protection of disabled people, in relation to a bill that is principally and solely, as Senator Pocock outlined for us, about the repealing of a piece of legislation that prevents the territories from engaging in a democratic discussion about the laws which govern them in relation to voluntary assisted dying.

In responding to the amendment and putting my position to the Senate, I want to tackle, first of all, the reality that many disabled people will be watching the debate tonight. There will be many disabled people across the country who legitimately observe this debate and feel either a sense of concern about voluntary assisted dying or feel support for the amendment offered to the relevant piece of legislation.

I do understand the concerns held by some disabled people in relation to voluntary assisted dying. I had the opportunity a couple of years ago to go with a couple of friends of mine, who are amazing disability activists in Western Australia, to a protest they were holding against a film which had recently then been released, a film by the name of Me Before You. It featured characters one of whom was disabled, and it chronicled the story of an individual who, on becoming disabled, made the decision to fly off to a Swiss suicide clinic and take their own life, because basically they couldn't think of anything worse than living as a disabled person. As a protest to that film, my colleagues were able to obtain permission to rock up in front of the cinema with tables and signs that read, 'Help me go to a Swiss suicide clinic. I am disabled. I don't want to live anymore.' During the course of 2½ hours they were able to raise over $250 from people going in and out of the movie, who not only were willing to give them money to go off to a so-called suicide clinic, but encouraged them to do so and thanked them for their bravery and courage in acknowledging that they were burdens, or were becoming burdens, to their family members.

It's a story that has always stuck with me. I think it reveals the deep ableism that does exist in our community, that is perpetrated by decision-makers and perpetuated by decision-makers in this place. We must acknowledge the realities as we navigate these pieces of legislation. We are doing so in a broader cultural context that often normalises the idea that it is better to be dead than to be disabled. It is important that we acknowledge that.

It is also important to acknowledge that, as has been quoted by other senators during the course of the debate, the UN Special Rapporteur on Disability has made comments to the government in Canada in relation to concerns over the administration of their system and amendments that may be needed to that process. Those things are right and proper to do. What it is not okay to do is to weaponise disabled people's lives and our safety and protection for political purposes. That is not okay.

There are senators in this place who have cited comments given to the Australian government in relation to our compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. They are right to do that. I would remind them also that during the course of the previous government, and the government before that, Australia has been repeatedly told by the special rapporteur that we are in violation of many, many articles of that convention, including, as I will bring to the Senate's attention, the reality that right now in Australia it is legal to forcibly sterilise a disabled person, under the law. The Commonwealth government, under both Labor and Liberal leadership, has repeatedly refused to take action to end that practice. So if we are going to quote human rights recommendations, there is a hell of a lot of work to do in the Australian space when it comes to disability.

I sit here as a disabled person that has many friends who are concerned about voluntary assisted dying. I sit here as a disabled person who will be supporting this piece of legislation, who will be voting soundly in opposition to this amendment. Why? First and foremost, because this bill seeks solely to repeal a preventive legislative measure that is currently preventing the territory from engaging in a conversation around voluntary assisted dying. Once this bill is passed by this chamber it will be up to the ACT legislature, as it has been up to the legislatures of every other state, but not territory, to engage in a consultation process around the safeguard mechanisms which are required. It is incumbent on the ACT assembly that they do this and do this vigorously; in the NT to engage and to do that vigorously; to ensure that there are proper safeguards; and where there are learnings internationally, have them incorporated. Engage the people of the ACT, including disabled people, and of the NT, including disabled people in that conversation, and listen to those concerns. That is the appropriate way to deal with the concerns raised in the amendment.

The proposer talks about the need for consultation. Where was the consultation with disabled people in relation to this amendment? It is totally inappropriate, after the length of this debate, to come in here this evening and propose an amendment basically to block this bill, because it would make it inoperable. That would be the actual effect on this bill. To come in here and masquerade the attempt to block this bill as an attempt to protect disabled people and disabled peoples' lives. It is not okay, and it will not go by tonight without being called out for the cynical political move that it is.