David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise to support passage of the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, a private senator's bill I introduced late last year.

In 1997, Kevin Andrews succeeded in pushing a private member's bill through federal parliament. It overturned the first legislation permitting assisted suicide in Australia, enacted in the Northern Territory.

Since then, not only does assisting someone to commit suicide remain a serious crime in all states, it is also a crime in the territories. Three states have life imprisonment as the maximum penalty, while in others the maximum penalty varies from five to 25 years.

This is extraordinarily cruel. The denial of the right to die at a time of our choosing can result in a lingering, painful death. It is also at odds with the fact that we have both a fundamental and legal right to choose whether we wish to continue living.

It is important to state this clearly, because people often forget suicide was once illegal and failed attempts frequently led to prosecution.

In medieval England, suicides were denied a Christian burial. Instead, they were carried to a crossroads in the dead of night and dumped in a pit, a wooden stake hammered through the body to pin it in place. There were no clergy or mourners, and no prayers were offered.

But punishment did not end with death. The deceased's family were stripped of their belongings, which were handed to the Crown.

This remained the case until 1822. Michael MacDonald and Terence Murphy, in Sleepless Souls: Suicide in Early Modern England, wrote: 'The suicide of an adult male could reduce his survivors to pauperism.'

This did not change because of a significant campaign for a change in suicide legislation. Instead, there was a gradual realisation that the laws of the day were at odds with society's view, and that care, not prosecution, was needed.

Dr David Wright, co-author of the book Histories of Suicide: International Perspectives on Self-Destruction in the Modern World, wrote:

From the middle of the 18th Century to the mid-20th Century there was growing tolerance and a softening of public attitudes towards suicide which was a reflection of, among other things, the secularisation of society and the emergence of the medical profession.

This freedom is now mostly well accepted. While suicide is often an occasion for sadness, there is also a recognition that people do not belong to their families or to the government.

An individual may have good reasons to take his or her own life. But even if they do not, it is still their decision to make.

But there is a catch. The law says we are only permitted to die by our own hand, without assistance. Indeed, in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and the ACT, reasonable force can still be used to stop a person from committing suicide. And if we are too weak or incapacitated to end our lives ourselves, we are condemned to suffer until nature takes its course. It is a serious offence for anyone to either help us die, at our instruction, or even to tell us how to do it ourselves.

One of the consequences of this is that it can compel people to end their lives sooner than they would like. Understandably, people prefer to avoid the risk that they will become incapable of committing suicide themselves, doomed to live out the remainder of their lives in pain and helplessness.

Most fair-minded people accept that painlessly ending animal suffering is an act of compassion. As a veterinarian, I have often had the decision to put an animal to sleep because animals are not people and cannot give consent. However, for us humans, even when we give consent and beg for help, the law prohibits the same compassion.

There is no better marker of individual freedom than the ability to decide what to do with our own body.

If the law prevents us from making free choices about it, then we are not really free at all; our bodies are not our own but are under the control of someone else who tells us what we can and cannot do with it. In reality, this is the state.

Yet bodily autonomy is well-recognised in other areas. Nothing prevents us from getting tattoos, dying our hair purple—if we happen to have hair—or sporting multiple studs and pierces. We are just not allowed the ultimate autonomy.

Legalisation of assisted suicide in Australia is long overdue. Opinion polls show that more than 80 per cent of Australians are in favour, across all political parties. It is high time governments accepted that on this deeply personal matter, their intrusion is not warranted.

Now, I turn to the inevitable objections.

Despite what some people think, this is not about bumping off granny to inherit the house. Assisted suicide is simply helping someone to do something that they would do for themselves, if they were not so ill or feeble.

The absolutely essential element is genuine, active consent. This is emphatically not merely implied consent or acquiescence. Ending someone's life when they have not given consent is murder. Nobody wants that.

Moreover, this is not about living wills or withdrawing medical assistance. Those are different issues.

Equally, those contemplating suicide should be made aware of the availability of palliative care to make their last days less agonising and should have treatment options in the case of mental illness. Indeed, the decision to die, with or without assistance, should be rational and well informed in all cases, including an awareness of the attitudes of loved ones left behind.

And of course, consent must be verified. I do not believe medical practitioners are any better qualified than anyone else to confirm this, but obviously the decision must be genuine. It is essential to ensure that the choice is made without coercion or pressure.

In the short term at least, the easiest approach to facilitate the path to legalising assisted suicide would be repeal of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997—the 'Andrews bill' I referred to earlier. It removed the power of each of the territories to legalise assisted suicide, with a specific focus on repeal of the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

While it is too late to simply reinstate the Northern Territory act, repeal of the Andrews bill would send a signal to states and territories that their legislatures may now turn their attention to this issue. As a bonus, it would support federalism in law making. For too long, the Commonwealth has waded into areas that are properly the business of the states.

Allowing the states and territories control over their own affairs—which is the point of federalism—also allows innovation in law-making. During hearings for the Senate 'nanny state' inquiry—of which I am chair—I learnt that the Northern Territory does not require cyclists to wear bicycle helmets on cycle paths or footpaths.

As a result, the Northern Territory has high cycling participation rates. And despite having the worst road accident injury rate in Australia, when it comes to cyclists the Northern Territory's serious injury rate is the same as the national average and better than several states where helmet use remains mandatory.

In other words, small jurisdictions can be innovative, and this should be recognised by the Commonwealth. Indeed, I suspect that in response to passage of this bill the territories will come up with better assisted suicide legislation than the Northern Territory's original Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

Whatever we might think of the decisions others make about their lives, it is their decision, not ours. The law should respect their right to make their own choices. Whether as legislators or private citizens, our approval is neither necessary nor relevant.

And the permission of the government should not be required, just as it is no longer required with respect to suicide.

Passage of my bill will set the territories free.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remarked to one of my colleagues somewhat earlier that I think this is probably the fourth or fifth time that I have managed to speak on a very similar bill which purports to restore the rights of the Northern Territory and the ACT or to give them rights to which they are simply not entitled. They are constitutional arrangements. The Northern Territory and the ACT are not states. In fact, the Northern Territory rejected what was seen as a fait accompli to become a state and chose to still be subject to federal intervention and the ability of the federal parliament to override the state and territory laws. I think the people of the Northern Territory have rendered their verdict, and they are absolutely delighted with their current state of play. So this is not really about our constitutional arrangements, because that would be a matter for the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory. It is not really about states' rights, because the two jurisdictions we are talking about are not states.

The Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 is just another vehicle to change how we treat and value life in this country. It is an ideological crusade for people who support euthanasia. I am not one of them. I respect that others have different views. We are going to hear them from some of my colleagues on my side of the chamber and the other side of the chamber. At its essence, this is about euthanasia.

Of course, Senator Leyonhjelm and others in this case always refer to the polls and how much widespread support there is for euthanasia. I can understand that, at any sort of superficial level, when people ask, 'Should you be able to relieve yourself or get assistance in relieving yourself of a terrible death or pain?' the instinctive answer from people is, 'Yes, yes, we should be able to do that.' But it is the same principle that applies if you ask people: should the death penalty apply in this country? Something like 70 or 80 per cent of the Australian people go, 'Yes, it should.' I am opposed to that as well. I think there is a serious and significant problem when we start asking the state to endorse the ability of individuals to take the life of other individuals in these sorts of circumstances.

In the case in point, when this was allowed in the Northern Territory, we had individuals who died who were not terminally ill. They were suffering from depressive illness maybe, but they certainly did not have a disease that was going to take their life. So we have a circumstance where, no matter what is said, the only evidence we have in this country is that it does not only apply to those who are terminally ill. In the only instance, which is in the Northern Territory, we found that a lady who had no significant illness was killed with the assistance of a medical practitioner. That, I think, proves the point that you cannot have absolute safeguards in introducing euthanasia into this country.

It strikes me as a little incongruous because I look at the example, say, of the Netherlands. The Netherlands was one of the first countries, if not the first country, in the world to introduce euthanasia. I think it was in 2001 that it was introduced. Of course, there were appropriate promises of safeguards then as well. There was never going to be any abuse of the system. It was only going to apply to those people who were truly terminally ill. Theo Boer, who was one of the advocates for it—in fact, he was a professor, I think, of ethics—in 2007 wrote:

… there doesn't need to be a slippery slope when it comes to euthanasia. A good euthanasia law, in combination with the euthanasia review procedure, provides the warrants for a stable and relatively low number of euthanasia.

Many of his colleagues drew a very similar conclusion. Indeed, for the first five years after it became law, physician induced deaths remained level. They even fell in some years. But Mr Boer went on to say how wrong he was—how terribly wrong he was—and that the stabilisation in numbers was 'a temporary pause'. In 2008, the number of cases started to grow and grow and grow. We now have circumstances in the Netherlands whereby children can request to be euthanased.

I find this quite extraordinary. There is no slippery slope, of course! We are told again and again and again that there are always going to be safeguards. We spend tens of millions of dollars dealing with mental illnesses and suicidal thoughts, preventing young people and adults and older people from committing suicide, helping them with treatment, and yet, in the place where physician assisted suicide was introduced in 2001, we now have circumstances where children can request to be euthanased.

It is strange that those who often are the strongest advocates for the intervention programs to prevent suicide in young people and adults are the same ones who are saying we should be allowing individuals to determine when they want to die. I just find that extraordinary. It is a duality that is not consistent. The evidence demonstrates, overseas, the slippery slope that does eventuate. As soon as you put a framework and a parameter around the ability for one individual to say, 'I have the right to die, and I want someone to help me die,' the boundaries upon which that is levelled are going to be continually challenged until we have circumstances, as has been demonstrated, like in the Netherlands, where children can be killed because they view a few people and say: 'I feel like killing myself. I don't want to live. I'm depressed. I'm ill.' We have circumstances where it is no longer physician assisted suicide; it is conducted, sometimes without reference to the patient, by nurses. The cases of that are legion.

I would say that, no matter what is implemented, euthanasia or any assisted suicide legislation can never be made safe from abuse. I note that Senator Leyonhjelm made the point that this is not about knocking granny off to get the family home or anything else, but it can place undue pressure on the elderly, who may feel they are a burden on their families and who may feel that they do not have a contribution to make anymore to society. I reject that in its entirety, but that is how some people may feel. They may feel despondent. They may feel that age has denied them of some faculties and they would prefer to die as a result. Do we really think it is right?

There was a case of 45-year-old twins in Belgium I think who were advised that they were going to go blind. They decided that they would rather die instead. If it is okay for 45-year-olds who are going blind to say, 'I don't want to live any more,' and die, what is the difference with a 30-year-old, a 25-year-old or a 22-year-old? Shall we continue down that path? When is it? Is it only 18-year-olds? Why then in the Netherlands are children allowed to make these requests?

The challenge for those who advocate in this space is to demonstrate that the slippery slope does not exist. The challenge for them is to explain to the Australian people why there is a divergence of approach. At what point does one have the right to die and at what point does society have a responsibility to help people get through whatever the issues are that are causing them to want to take their own lives? We need to protect the vulnerable. This suggestion, dressed up as territory rights legislation, does not protect the vulnerable. It makes them even more vulnerable—vulnerable to external pressures and vulnerable to their own weaknesses and health issues. It virtually says, 'We don't value your life because it may be impaired in some way, shape or form.' I think that is absolutely wrong because we can all be vulnerable.

We know that people's mental health issues can come and go. They can receive treatment and recover. We have seen that so many times. It is wonderful that we have the medical and psychiatric care and appropriate medications and we can help people through counselling. Yet what we are basically saying through legislation like this is: 'That might be too hard. It might not work.' At what point do we say, 'We are not going to try it'? Is it because the individual says, 'No, I don't want any help'? With mental health issues, depression and things like that you cannot help how you feel. If you feel like you want to die, it is up to us to help you through that and to try to stop that from happening because every person has a contribution to make and we should value their life just as we value our own.

I also make the point that this sort of legislation built around euthanasia causes an extreme mindset change for medical professionals. I am not a medical professional. I have tremendous respect for their integrity. I know there are many medical professionals who feel that being part of an assisted suicide program for an individual is something that compromises their medical ethics, and there would be others of course who have a different view. For the state to enlist the help of medical professionals whose Hippocratic oath is to do no harm and assist others, particularly in trying to help them recover from illness, is I think a direct challenge to what that profession has always been.

Medical professionals make many judgements, particularly when it comes to palliative care, where the treatment can often result in the death of the patient but it is done under the auspices of relieving pain and suffering. There are always opportunities. As palliative care has increased in its effectiveness I think a case for euthanasia is entirely unnecessarily and, quite frankly, dangerous over the course of time. The dangers are abundant for anyone who really wants to become aware of them. We have seen circumstance after circumstance where euthanasia has been applied under circumstances which would never be envisaged by this parliament.

A 44-year-old woman was euthanased because she had anorexia. We spend huge amounts of money on intervention programs to save people from anorexia. It is a debilitating illness. It is something you can recover from. We spend an enormous amount of support, time, love and compassion trying to help people recover from this. If a 44-year-old woman can be euthanased because she has anorexia, do you make the case for a 19-year-old, an 18-year-old or a 15-year-old if they have the same rights? This is the sort of slippery slope that comes on in.

In 2014 the Belgian Chamber of Representatives voted 86 to 44 to allow for children to be euthanased. Remember it was never going to happen. Go back to all the debates—'It is never going to happen. We are never going to allow this to happen.' But now it has happened. In Belgium, the number of euthanasia cases in 2012 increased by 25 per cent, and that was only after it was legislated and legalised in 2002. Seventy-five per cent of euthanasia cases in the 2011 to 2013 time period in Belgium were for cancer, seven per cent were for progressive neuromuscular disorders—Parkinson's disease et cetera—and 18 per cent were for other conditions. It sort of opens up a dystopian world view—'I've got an other condition.' It could be depression. It could be any other mental health issue—not feeling good, or, 'I've got anorexia.' They are other conditions.

So it was not just for terminally ill patients, just as it was not in the Northern Territory when euthanasia was legalised there. Sixty-nine per cent of euthanasia was performed on patients aged from 40 to 79 years, so only about 30 per cent was for that truly latter-stage demographic, the plus-79s—the 80-year-plus age group. So people aged from 40 to 79 were the bulk of them. A hundred and ninety-four cases over those two years, which is about nine per cent, involved patients whose deaths were not foreseeable in the short term, and two per cent of cases involved unconscious patients who had earlier signed advance directives. It is very easy to sign an advance directive and say, 'Well, if I'm unconscious I don't want to live,' until you are not given that choice anymore. Circumstances change. What happens if you have signed it 10 years before? Is there a time limit on it? What if your mental health condition is different from when you have signed those sorts of things?

When this debate is opened up—and it is a perennial debate that is going to continue, I am sure, many times—I am continually struck by the inconsistencies that are applied to the right to die but then to society's obligation to protect people from their wish to die, because they want to have it both ways here, and it does not work. I happen to believe, and quite passionately, that every life is precious. I think that we have an obligation to help people through troubled times, and I think we have an obligation to provide people with the best possible palliative care that we can. It is not through any cruelty. It is not through any wish to see people suffer. It is simply an awareness that, once we open this Pandora's box, we do not know what is going to come out of it. The examples internationally are there for all of us to see, and there is yet to be any definitive legislative instrument anywhere in the world that can safeguard against the progression of this sort of demand.

What strikes me is that when I was a young man—or younger, I should say—I used to see a show called Logan's Run, and it was about a society where people, when they got to 30, were deemed unnecessary and not worthwhile anymore, and their lives were terminated. Logan was the chap who managed to escape and run away, and they went hunting him and everything else. That is science fiction. It is a futuristic thing. It probably has no basis in reality, but the reality is that, if we start to say that just because you feel bad at a certain age or you might be a burden on the community or you feel you are a burden on the family and you feel, 'I want to die,' that sets the benchmark. We are never going to extend that benchmark. We are never going to make it harder to reach. History demonstrates again and again and again that, once you draw a line in the sand, there are always demands for that line to be moved, and it never makes it harder to reach that line; it always become easier and easier and easier.

That is the problem. That is the risk with human nature. People think they are doing the right thing by assisting someone and making the claim that it is only going to be nonagenarians or whatever that will be availing themselves of this, but it is not. It might start that way, but then we do not know where it is going to end. But the examples overseas provide us with a very clear indication of the types of risks we face: people not even consenting to euthanasia being killed by nurses, without reference to a doctor, and cases involving children, people with anorexia and people with depressive illnesses. Just because you say, 'I don't feel like living anymore,' the response is, 'Yes, it's okay; you've got the right to get someone else to kill you.' I just find that extraordinary, and yet that is the absolute lived example. It cannot be denied by those here. They might say it will not happen here, but they cannot provide any safeguards for it whatsoever.

So once again we are debating the merits of this bill. I understand that there may be these compassionate views, however they want to dress them up. They can say this is about states' rights for the territories, but the territories are not states, and the reason the states have not enacted this sort of legislation is that they know there is no protection for it. We have to protect the vulnerable people in our community.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, and I would also like to acknowledge at the outset Senator Leyonhjelm and his office for the work that they have done in bringing this bill to this chamber. I speak in support of this bill both as an ACT senator and as a former Chief Minister of the ACT. My support for this bill relates to my concern at the level of interference the so-called Andrews bill represents as to the appropriate level of responsibility which should be afforded to both territories in relation to their capacity to legislate on behalf of their constituents.

I believe the focus of the debate on this bill should and must be the restoration of the democratic rights of the territories to pass laws in the best interests of their citizens, which were trammelled so thoroughly in 1997 when the original Euthanasia Laws Act was passed by the federal parliament. I note that it is almost 20 years since this legislation was passed. In that time, both territory parliaments have continued to legislate as mature jurisdictions in our nation. There are some 630,000 people that live in the ACT and the Northern Territory, and their governments are responsible for running hospitals, schools, child protection, jails and multimillion-dollar economies. Much is made of the promise of northern development and the knowledge economy of the ACT, but at the moment both jurisdictions are barred from debating or legislating for the rights of the terminally ill. This is wrong in my view, and it is timely that we revisit this legislation. We now have the opportunity to reflect with the benefit of 20 years hindsight on what has changed in relation to our view of the democratic rights of the territories and hopefully come to a view that it is time to remove the constraints embedded in the Andrews bill, for the right to debate and legislate on an equal basis with the states.

The objectives of the bill are fourfold. Firstly, it will reduce the extent of Commonwealth interference with the laws of the ACT and the Northern Territory. Secondly, it will contribute to competitive federalism by encouraging states and territories to legislate and refine and improve law-making. Thirdly, it will recognise the right of the ACT and the Northern Territory to legislate on euthanasia in their respective jurisdictions. Finally, it will also allow the Northern Territory parliament to revisit, at a time of its own choosing, new legislation which addresses, in a similar vein, the rights of the terminally ill as originally contemplated in the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995.

This bill is about restoring democratic rights to both the ACT and the Northern Territory parliaments to legislate in relation to euthanasia on their terms, in their words and on behalf of their citizens. It does not compel these parliaments to legislate; it merely restores the right to do so. It is up to them to legislate, not the federal parliament on their behalf. In supporting this bill, I am merely recognising that these two jurisdictions should and must have the right to legislate on their own behalf.

I also challenge senators who believe this legislation should be opposed because it could lead to either or both territories legislating to allow euthanasia to stop and consider what I believe is the overriding argument in favour of supporting this bill. The people of the Northern Territory and the ACT should have the same rights as every other Australian citizen, whether they live in Alice Springs, Tuggeranong, Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide. I suggest that if you vote against this bill you are in effect saying to all territorians, whether they are an SES officer in Forrest or a stockman in Katherine: they are, in your view, second-class citizens; the federal parliament wants to continue to treat them in a paternalistic way; they are not full citizens; and we know best what to let them and their elected representatives do in regard to the rights of the terminally ill. Or is your argument that we federal parliamentarians trust and respect the individual citizens of each territory but not their politicians or the maturity of their parliaments? On what basis and evidence would any of you come to that conclusion?

In asking you to stick to the big picture and to put aside the highly emotive issue of euthanasia laws, I am not being deliberately naive about either the emotional or the ideological baggage which comes with this kind of debate. Supporting this bill is not about whether or not you support the rights of the terminally ill to die in dignity and at a time of their choosing. I would contend that is a completely separate issue to the one we are debating today. Today is simply about the right of each territory parliament to legislate as they see fit in this regard. Surely, the debate about the rights of the terminally ill should be had in the jurisdiction which contemplates introducing laws to allow for some form of euthanasia. Given the seriousness of the debate around the right to die in dignity, we should expect a vigorous and exacting debate in each and every jurisdiction which contemplates legislating in this regard. Our citizens deserve and demand community consultation, debate and careful elaboration of the implications of the rights and protections which would be afforded to them in such legislation. But that is not what we are here to do today. Today we are debating whether or not to repeal an undemocratic law which restricts the rights of two parliaments of Australia and to restore those rights to citizens of the ACT and the Northern Territory, through their parliaments, to legislate as they see fit in this regard.

When you look at some of the material that was prepared for the Andrews bill in 1996, there was a current issues brief prepared for parliamentarians seeking to understand the issues raised by the Andrews bill. It outlines the impact of the bill, including the overturning of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, together with the impact on the territories' powers to pass other kinds of laws. The issues brief says:

These laws may include 'refusal of medical treatment' legislation of the kind that already exists in the Northern Territory and in the Australian Capital Territory, and legislation that clarifies the legal position of a doctor who administers palliative care that hastens a patient's death.

It goes on to explain the Constitutional effects:

Section 122 of the Australian Constitution confers a power on the Commonwealth to make laws for the government of any Territory. This is a plenary power, unlimited by subject matter. The Federal Parliament therefore clearly has the constitutional power to enact a law that has the effect of overturning the RTI Act. There may be some doubt, however, as to whether the way in which the Andrews Bill seeks to bring about this result is within the scope of the Commonwealth's powers under section 122.

The digest also points out:

The central constitutional question raised by the Andrews Bill is, however, political rather than legal. That question is whether or not it is acceptable politically for the Commonwealth to take back part of the legislative powers it conferred on the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and Norfolk Island at self-government.

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills reported on the Andrews bill on 18 September 1996. As senators would be aware, part of the watching brief of the scrutiny committee is to examine whether legislation breaches certain principles, including whether or not a bill trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties. According to the bills digest, the following matters were raised by the scrutiny committee in relation to the Andrews bill:

It goes on to say:

The final point was:

The committee also commented that the bill's provisions 'may be considered to trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties', in breach of principle 1A(i) of the committee's terms of reference.

In April 2012, in my role as Chief Minister of the ACT, I made a submission on behalf of my government to the ACT Legislative Assembly's Standing Committee on Administration and Procedure's review of the ACT (Self-Government) Act. In my submission to the review, I drew attention to the comments of Professor Halligan's review of the application of the Latimer principles within the ACT:

The ACT remains in some respects a stunted system of governance that has been constrained by another level of government and lack of agreement on key strategic issues. The single most significant constraint on good governance in the ACT, apart from scale and resourcing relative to its responsibilities as a state and municipal entity, has been the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, which has imposed severe limitations on the autonomy and power of the jurisdiction. The right of a federal government, whether by legislation or ministerial fiat, to veto territory laws has reduced the status of the ACT to that of a protectorate.

At the time, I argued that a preamble should be inserted into the ACT (Self-Government) Act which outlined the principle of the territory's democratic self-determination and explicitly set out the Commonwealth's legitimate interests and powers in relation to ACT, including reference to the fact that the people of the ACT give the assembly its political mandate to govern the territory. Pertinent to the debate today, I also noted that sections 23(1A) and 23(1B) of the self-government act prevent the ACT from making a law with respect to euthanasia. I argued that this constraint on the ACT's legislative power should be removed and that the government viewed its inclusion as an unnecessary constraint on ACT policy choice—a constraint that is not possible in the states.

Senators might also note the comments of well-regarded constitutional expert Professor George Williams of the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law, who commented in his submission to this review of the ACT (Self-Government) Act, of the conditions imposed by the Commonwealth:

This left the ACT system of government with several features more akin to a nineteenth century colonial possession than a modern Australian Territory.

Professor Williams recommended:

… provisions could simply deleted were they are obsolete or inappropriate—

including restrictions on the power of the legislative assembly in section 23.

In the final report of the review of the self-government act, a majority of the assembly's committee members voted to recommend that subsections 23(1A) and 23(1B) be removed.

In summary, it is clear that, in the ACT's recent review of the self-government act, expert witnesses identified subsections 23(1A) and 23(1B) as unnecessary constraints on the ACT's legislative powers, which the properly constituted parliamentary committee and government strongly supported.

It should also be noted that amendments made to the act in 2011 did not preclude the Commonwealth from involvement in ACT legislative processes. I am talking here about what existed prior to 2011, the executive veto power, which was used to overturn the ACT Civil Unions Act back in 2006. Of course, the executive veto provision no longer applies after legislation passed the Commonwealth parliament in 2011 which requires a vote by both houses of federal parliament before a territory law can be overturned. That reform added a refreshing element of transparency to the process in requiring that intervention be subject at least to debate in the upper and lower houses of federal parliament, rather than by just the swipe of a minister's pen.

When I was doing research for this debate, it was interesting to go back and look at the history of the Rights of the Terminal Ill Bill that came before the parliament of the Northern Territory. On 22 February 1995, the then Chief Minister of the Northern Territory introduced the bill into the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly as a private member's bill. The bill was immediately referred to a select committee, which reported some months later. The committee received over a thousand submissions, took oral evidence and conducted hearings in Darwin, regional centres and a number of Aboriginal communities. The Bills Digest notes, of the committee:

Its report contained recommendations in relation to the Bill but made no recommendation on euthanasia per se.

In the Legislative Assembly, the vote was 13 to 12 that the Bill be read a second time. In the Committee stage of debate, 50 amendments were introduced. On 25 May 1995, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act … by 15 votes to 10.

As it goes on to say, that act provided a statutory regime which made lawful, in certain circumstances, physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia.

There were several subsequent attempts to repeal the act which were not successful. An amendment bill was passed in February 1996 which included an increase in the number of doctors required to examine and certify that a patient met the statutory criteria under the act, from two to three. The amending act also clarified the qualifications that doctors had to possess and amended the interpreter provisions. It was not until six months later, in June 1996, that Mr Kevin Andrews foreshadowed that he would introduce a private member's bill into the federal parliament to override that act, which had been democratically passed by the Northern Territory parliament.

The reason I reflected on that for a moment was to show that there was a process, a thorough process which surrounded the legislation in the Northern Territory—the opportunity for consultation, debate, amendment and, finally, the passage of that act. It was the Northern Territory parliament operating in exactly the way it was established to do. However, that act did offend some members of the federal parliament, and a legislative sledgehammer was brought down on that act and has remained in place for the last 20 years. It has certainly constrained the ability of the ACT and Northern Territory parliaments not just to pass legislation but even to debate it or have that conversation with their communities. Here in the ACT we are in a ridiculous position. If you live in Queanbeyan, your government at the state level is allowed to have that debate and that discussion, but if you live on the other side of the border, even three minutes away, you are not allowed to. That is the inconsistency that applies across the country.

It was sobering to remind myself when I was thinking through the issues raised by this bill that the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation was a world first. No wonder its passage and the subsequent reaction by opponents of this issue looked to federal parliament to block its path. What I am hoping for in this debate today, some 20 years on, is that time has helped us all to see a little clearer and better understand what was good and bad in the way our federal parliament approached the challenges thrown up by the Northern Territory parliament's groundbreaking legislation, and that we have all learned lessons about how we deal with such a matter in a way which could respect the rights of all of our citizens and that we are prepared to legislate to restore rights and act in a way which does not unduly interfere with the parliamentary processes of any other jurisdiction. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like any piece of legislation, the sensible place to start is with the facts, the definitions. What is euthanasia? What is not euthanasia? Herein, I believe, lies great confusion in the community, particularly when asked to consider opinion polls. Before considering what euthanasia is, let us begin with defining what euthanasia is not. The Australian Medical Association policy on euthanasia spells out what euthanasia is not. None of the following is euthanasia: not initiating life-prolonging measures, for example, using a heart defibrillator; not continuing life-support measures, such as turning off life-support equipment; not offering futile care, such as ceasing prescription medication; the administration of treatment or other action intended to relieve symptoms which may have a secondary consequence of hastening death, commonly known as the doctrine of double effect, such as the administration of strong morphine dosage.

Almost every Australian knows of a usually elderly relative, or perhaps even a close relative, who has died and the difficulty in seeing them die. That most likely informs their view on euthanasia. But no poll seeks to explain to them properly what euthanasia is and is not. People who are polled are also dismissive because they are not faced, at that moment, with an end-of-life decision. Lawyers tell me that, when preparing what are now known as 'advanced care directives', clients are, before proper advice, quite dismissive about their care options. 'Just flick the switch', they say. But when they or a loved one are faced with a situation it is not that simple.

The poll we so often hear is that 70 or 80 per cent of people support dying with dignity. Yet I wonder what the result would be if a different question were asked. For example, faced with a terminal illness, should we care for the patient, or kill the patient? I wonder what the result of that question would be? Progress can never be achieved if you are travelling down the wrong road. If this bill is successful, the nation will begin the long march. We will be moving forward but away from the truth. We will be moving into deeper error with every step.

Euthanasia is presented in many shapes and forms, but it is united in a single idea: the intentional, premature ending of life. Over the years this has been cloaked with many euphemisms—the 'right to die', 'mercy killing', 'dying with dignity', 'aid in dying' and so on. Yet behind this curtain is an increasing appeal to self-determination and autonomy. Around the world more and more people are asserting their libertarian freedom: 'I am the captain of my own ship and master of my own destiny', and 'If you have a right to life, then you have a right to determine when to end that life.' Although all euthanasia laws are introduced with supposedly rigorous safeguards, the reason they never hold is that, eventually, those safeguards are considered unfair, restrictive and even paternalistic.

Terminally ill people are overwhelmed, often depressed, easily influenced and extremely vulnerable. In truth, they have far less autonomy during this time than at any other time in their lives. It is very likely that they will require their families and friends to routinely assist in their care. Tending to the needs of sick loved ones and sticking with them to the end is a dignified display of love and selflessness. Most importantly, it is a witness to outsiders of sacrificial love and familial obligation. For those who do the caring it forges a character of resilience, enabling them to persevere in times of trial. For those who do the dying opportunities develop to reconsider past hurts and biases and for reconciliation and making peace. End-of-life moments can be the most powerful healing moments for the dying person and their loved ones.

Assisted dying offers an alternative—of evasion and abandonment. Family and friends cannot face the emotional investment or the painful reality of suffering. Even in the most loving of families, there are requests for doctors to refrain from dragging things out. It is often not the dying person but the family member who wants the suffering to end. In worst cases, there are ulterior motives for wanting the death of a relative. We are only beginning to understand the extent of elder abuse. We have to realise that in some cases what began as a well-intentioned exercise in being a carer for another person can become such a burden that dark thoughts and schemes develop, particularly where money is involved—be it real estate, funds, or the proceeds of a life insurance policy or policies. No matter how many safeguards, checks or balances you have, the hunger for power, revenge or money can steer its way around many hurdles.

Perseverance and patience have become scarce in our culture of rights. The emerging moral vacuum favours permissiveness before forbearance. Burdens are now felt as intolerable intrusions into one's life and happiness. Worldwide, doctors are feeling the pressure to conform to these new expectations. They are placed in an impossible situation, forced to reconcile their Hippocratic oath with a new-found directive to euthanise. Their great skill, developed over years of effort towards treatment, is now twisted by assisting death—or, more properly, killing.

As with many other emerging rights, conscience exemptions are reluctantly granted or refused altogether. A few years ago, the Royal Dutch Medical Association declared it a professional duty to euthanise by killing those who legally qualify or by referring them to another physician who will. Theo Boer, a Dutch professor of healthcare ethics, recently admitted that his country had got it wrong. He said:

Whereas assisted dying in the beginning was the odd exception, accepted by many — including myself — as a last resort … Public opinion has shifted dramatically toward considering assisted dying a patient's right and a physician's duty. … Pressure on doctors to conform to patients' or relatives' wishes can be intense.

Your complicity or your career. Enough is never ever enough. Perhaps that is why to date medical professional bodies' policies have been hesitant to endorse euthanasia. Why breach centuries of medical ethics?

There are alternatives to prematurely ending a patient's life, such as improving our already excellent palliative care. In fact, a greater presence of such care may have made the Northern Territory euthanasia bill of 1995 unnecessary. During an inquiry in 2009, Professor Ray Lowenthal said:

It is no coincidence that the previous Northern Territory euthanasia legislation was set up at a time the NT had no palliative care services whatever. The instigator of that legislation, Mr Marshall Perron, has even been quoted as admitting that when he introduced the legislation into the parliament he had never heard of palliative care.

Now that such care is widely available, the former act should stay where it is—dead and buried.

But it is too late for victims elsewhere. Both Belgium and the Netherlands started with compassionate intentions and supposedly rigorous safeguards when crafting their euthanasia laws. Like all nations travelling the wrong path, these assurances were proven all but false. Gradually, they have gone off the rails. In the modern and regrettable climate of censorship, it is virtually forbidden to raise concerns about slippery slopes. Following ideas to their logical conclusion is dismissed as fearmongering, exaggeration or cheap scare tactics. But we are not dealing with hypotheticals here. The gate has flung open and all of the so-called safeguards have been trampled under the weight of progress. Belgium has recently approved a request to die from a 24-year-old woman with mental health problems. Known only as 'Laura', her suicidal thoughts led her to declare: 'Life; that's not for me.' Despite all of the unknowns of the future, a negative prognosis has been given to her remaining decades. Hopelessness has been given the green light.

How does euthanasia interface with preventing suicide? If legislatures say it is acceptable for one person whose life has become unbearable to end their life, how does the suicidal person respond? In Oregon in the USA, where euthanasia is legal, the suicide rate has risen. And here is the great paradox in our community. On the one hand, we all applaud suicide prevention programs. Now, we applaud and facilitate assisted suicide. So at what age does a person no longer qualify for the suicide prevention program and enter into the suicide facilitation program? At what age? How do we define a person?

When does a person qualify or no longer qualify for support and assistance with suicide prevention and then get shunted off into the suicide facilitation program?

It is a perversion of the word 'treatment' to 'cure' a young woman's suicidal thoughts by ending her life. Since when was killing treatment? No matter how qualified, assisted death is now a state endorsed remedy for emotional and psychological hardship. And this is far from an isolated case. I quote once again Professor Boer:

Whereas in the first years after 2002 hardly any patients with psychiatric illnesses or dementia appear in reports, these numbers are now sharply on the rise. Cases have been reported in which a large part of the suffering of those given euthanasia or assisted suicide consisted in being aged, lonely or bereaved.

They were the symptoms that they suffered from: they suffered from being old, they suffered from being lonely and they suffered from bereavement. Are these the people who no longer qualify for suicide prevention program assistance? Are these the people we now move into the suicide facilitation program?

'Laura' is just one of the five people killed each day under Belgium's assisted dying laws. Further studies have revealed cracks appearing around consent safeguards. Professor Cohen-Almagor of Hull University discovered that life-ending drugs were administered to 30 Belgians in 2013 without—I repeat, without—explicit consent. Involuntary euthanasia appears to be emerging, despite strict provisions that were supposed to guarantee voluntary euthanasia. Tragically, even children are becoming caught up in cultures transformed by these laws. The Netherlands, for example, permits children as young as 12 to be killed, and there is public support growing to include those under the age of 11. Belgium has no age restrictions whatsoever.

The writing is on the wall: so-called 'safeguards' have not prevented a comprehensive weakening of medical and legal standards. What was intended for the elderly has now become available to all ages, including children. What was intended for physical illness is now for mental illness. What was intended for terminal illness is now for serious illness. What was intended to be consensual is now nonconsensual. Soon, euthanasia will be available for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all.

The weight of evidence is an embarrassing rebuke to advocates of so-called 'safeguards'. There are none. No safeguards are safe, nor are they guards; they have more holes than a Swiss cheese. The law will not stand still for very long. Once people have adjusted to a so-called 'new normal' the safeguards will be continually reviewed and seen as intolerant, dispassionate and cruel, and as something that should also be removed. We do not have to turn to other nations to see this in action. It has happened in our own country. Some of the people euthanised under the Northern Territory bill from 1995 were not even terminally ill. That is a shambles, considering there were only four in total.

I pause for a moment when speaking of the Northern Territory, to highlight its higher percentage of Aboriginal people—many of whom do not live near hospitals. The Aboriginal population is not fond of euthanasia at all, and legislating it will create an environment where they are disinclined to seek health treatment for fear of involuntary euthanasia. Many people believe in supernatural healing. For some, euthanasia is sorcery and against customary law. Submissions from Aboriginal people to the Northern Territory Select Committee on Euthanasia were overwhelmingly against euthanasia. One submission from a Yolngu woman stated:

We were and are nomads, hunters, food gatherers, ceremonial and cultural people who just, and will give, comfort and tender loving care to our terminally ill relatives.

I will say that again, 'We will give comfort and tender loving care to our terminally ill relatives.' She continues:

Because our terminally ill relatives know that they are dying they usually always want songs to be sung, they want to hear the last sound of their traditional songs and the sound of the didgeridoo and clapsticks.

In conclusion, euthanasia is more likely to reduce health improvements in the Northern Territory Aboriginal communities as they stay away from a euthanasia environment.

It is fashionable, I know, to talk of a dignified death. But death itself is a wholly undignified and tragic reality. It is a very personal reality, one that cannot be resolved by its acceleration. To burden our doctors— (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Restoring Territory Rights (Assistant Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015 covers a range of reasonably complex issues that are not really related. I just want to give my thoughts on the separate issues that arise in this bill.

I listened with interest to Senator Day's speech. I have heard those sorts of comments before, at an inquiry which the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee conducted into a similar bill—a dying with dignity bill—some time ago. I also heard the other side of the story. At that committee hearing we had evidence from a youngish man, who was supported at the hearing by his wife and young children and who clearly indicated his wish to be able to get medical assistance to terminate his life when things got to a stage where his cancer was just intolerable.

I am a reasonable human being, I think. Hopefully it will never happen to me, but, if I do get to the stage that I have seen many of my relatives, I would want the right to make my own decision on how long I stay on this earth in absolute agony, without any friends and without any relatives—sitting there and more or less just waiting for the days to pass until I die. I would like to have the ability to make my own decision. In spite of what Senator Day and others have said, the bills that we looked at all had safeguards. It is not a matter of people killing people—and there was a lot of emphasis on the word 'kill'. It is about those who are able to make a decision getting a medical practitioner to assist with the termination of life without the medical practitioner being legally responsible for a crime.

If I did want to terminate my life, I would not need legislation and I really do not need a doctor. I do not need anything. There are lots of ways: you can slit your wrists; you can steal a gun and blow your brains out. You can do many things. This only applies to people who can make the decision. It does not apply to children or people who are of unsound or infirm minds. It is only where you can make the decision yourself. Some of the bills we looked at required one or two psychiatrists to certify that you were capable of making the decision. As I say, anyone can terminate their life, but, when that time comes, you would hope that you might be able to get some medical help to do it in a reasonably dignified way.

My views are of course my own, but they are reinforced by the instance of my mother, who was a wonderful person. She was a very Christian lady and was very helpful to her family and everyone else in the community. She had a stroke and one side of her body was paralysed. She could not speak and could not write, but she learnt to say a few words and learnt to write left-handed. She spent eight years in hospital fighting it. She got to a stage, though, where all she wanted to do was get out of this life, and she could not. It was almost funny: she would play hide and seek with the nurses. They would keep giving her pills every day and she would put them in her mouth until the nurse went away and then she would take them out of her mouth and throw them under the bed. Every week the nurses would do a search of her room and would find a little cache of pills that she was supposed to be taking to keep her alive. They beat her at that. She eventually starved herself to death, and that is not a nice way to go. She did not have any money and the family were all supportive, but she wanted to go and the only way she could do it in the end was by refusing to eat food, and that was an awful way to go.

In the last year I saw the same situation with my sister. I spent as much time with her as I could. She would often say to me, 'Ian, if only I could go; if only I could leave.' I used to encourage her the other way, but she wanted to go. I saw her go through this over a period of six or more months. I often said to my wife as we were going home from visiting my sister, 'We wouldn't do this to our cat.' In fact, we had a cat and we were very attached to the cat. The cat had very difficult diseases and we spent a fortune at the vet. Eventually we paid the vet to come and do a home visit. We sat with the cat on my knee while the vet terminated its life. We just could not bear to see the cat go through that sort of agony, and yet when it comes to people we tolerate it.

Everyone will have their own views on this. When this matter came before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, the only recommendation of the committee, apart from some technical legal things, was that, if this matter ever came to a vote in the parliament, party leaders should allow it to be a conscience vote. That was as far as the committee would want to go. For these reasons—and I have mentioned them in these sorts of debates before—I would favour some sort of legal medically assisted termination of a life with all of the safeguards. I do not share Senator Day's horrible thoughts about humanity and all of the issues: people wanting to 'kill', in his words, because they would get the property quicker or they would get the money quicker and they would not have to bother. I do not think most people are like that. I am sure there would be some like that in this world, but I think most people in the world would not fit that category.

I want to briefly go to the other aspect of this bill, which again causes some complexity. I think I was territories minister when the last referendum came forward for the Northern Territory. I think a lot of people in the Northern Territory wanted statehood, but I have to say that the government at the time—which was a government of my persuasion, and I think they confess this—completely messed up the process and, as a result, the referendum went down. So I have a bit of a feel for the Northern Territory. I would like to think that they could become a state and be like everyone else, but the total population of the Northern Territory is about 250,000, which is about the same size as the regional city in which my office is. Townsville has about 250,000 people. Can the Northern Territory afford to run a state? Can it afford to pay its own way? I doubt it. If that is the case and they continue to rely on Commonwealth finance, what is the purpose of it? There is talk that it would give them greater representation in the federal parliament. Instead of having two lower house members they might have more. Instead of having only two senators, they might have 12. It would be a state with 250,000 people having 12 senators. My town of Townsville shares 12 with the rest of the state and only has one based in the city, which is me. If it is going to happen in the Northern Territory, perhaps we should get 12 senators in Townsville as well. Whilst that is a ridiculous proposition, it does show the difficulties. On balance, I would be happy enough with the Northern Territory becoming a state, I guess, but I do not think it is really practical and I am not sure that in the end it is a result that most Northern Territorians would seriously want.

With the ACT I have a different view, and it is not the colour of the government I might hasten to add. I do think the ACT is the seat of the national capital of Australia. I do think that the Australian parliament should retain some sort of ability to oversight what happens in this city-state, city-territory, which is really not a state but a Commonwealth, a federal, institution which is the national capital. Of course, the founding fathers of the country in those early days thought long and hard about where the capital should be. Should it be in Sydney or Melbourne? Well, that could not happen. A lot of thought was put into where and how the capital of the nation should operate. That is why I always think that the federal parliament must retain some influence over where the governance of this territory is. I am very conscious that many Canberrans did not even want self-government. When you look around I can understand why because they used to get the taxes from the rest of Australia to pay for the building of infrastructure in Canberra. So, if you are Canberran, why would you want to take that on yourself? Canberra is a very favoured city. It is a very lovely life living here. It is a beautiful city built by the taxes of everybody else, not just taxes of Canberrans.

I do think there needs to be some Commonwealth oversight over the national capital. I remember the first election. I think there were three candidates elected, who were from the No Self-Government Party. I think there was a fourth who had a similar view. I have always thought that, in retrospect, perhaps the best idea for Canberra would have been to have a local government with some additional powers, but with the Commonwealth retaining a big influence in what happens in what is, effectively, the city of all Australians, not just of Canberrans.

With those few words—and I am conscious other people want to speak on this debate—that is the way I see this particular bill and other bills that have been similar to this. I guess it is a debate which will continue for a long, long, period of time into the future.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate the remaining few words I have in my speech into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

agents of healing and life—by forcing them to participate in premature death, in killing, is a distortion of their vocation. Worse still, forcing them to do so against their conscience is a dangerous path indeed.

The law is a teacher. Returning Australia to assisted suicide will only serve to dull our collective conscience. Australia is not a special case. We are not immune from dehumanising cultural forces.

Far from trivialising the existence of pain and suffering, our institutions and laws need to be united in an affirmation of life. This affirmation is a powerful force for good; preserved by the sacred, immutable truth of human dignity. To conclude with the words of G K Chesterton,

"Think of all those ages through which men have had the courage to die, and then remember that we have actually fallen to talking about having the courage to live."

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I never thought that I would ever stand up in this place and say that I agree with most of what Senator Macdonald outlined in his contribution. I also tend to agree with Senator Leyonhjelm with the issues that he raised, but probably not from the same philosophical basis.

Certainly, with this issue of restoring the territory rights, let me go first to the issue that Senator Macdonald finished on, which is the rights of the territories. I think what happened with the removal and the intervention by the Howard government into what was an issue that was debated democratically in the Northern Territory was not an act of democracy. It really was an act of ideological and some religious approaches on the legislation that was determined in the Northern Territory.

I think the territories should have rights. They should have rights to certainly deal with this issue of euthanasia. I note the name of the bill that Senator Leyonhjelm put up is the 'assisted suicide legislation'. I have some argument with that because I think there is a difference between suicide and euthanasia. Suicide, as I understand it, is the act of intentionally taking one's life. The definition of euthanasia, as I understand it, is the deliberate ending of the life of a person suffering from an incurable disease, so I think there are two completely different propositions here. Apart from the inclusion of suicide in this bill, I think it is a bill that should be supported.

I want to also indicate my strong support for palliative care. People are dying and we are spending money to assist people to die with some dignity through palliative care, which is appropriate. But I think you end up getting into a situation where there is some difference between the argument of positive or active euthanasia and negative or passive euthanasia. Palliative care does end up, in many cases, in euthanasia. That is the reality. It then becomes an issue of timing. How much pain and how much suffering should an individual go through?

I do not think you can take away this other argument about the effects on family of a person dying. It is quite horrendous to watch a loved one die a long, painful death. I have been unfortunate enough, as most people have, to witness loved ones and friends die long, excruciatingly painful deaths. I will not name names, but I had a very close friend of mine who died. He was a senior union official who had a full life ahead of him. He was about six foot two, weighed about 18 stone and was full of life. He was a great guy and he ended up with mesothelioma. Anyone who has ever seen someone die of mesothelioma would, I think, understand why I say there has to be some way of dealing with this agonising death that people go through. I spoke to him the day before he died. The bravery of people in this situation is unbelievable, but the death is so excruciatingly bad for people in that position. I witnessed this. He was a friend of mine who came to Australia from Scotland a couple of months after I did. I served my apprenticeship with this guy. He was not someone who I ever thought I would witness lying in Saint Vincent's Hospital in Sydney in a nappy, not knowing where he was and having no control of his bowels or anything. He was dosed up on morphine and still in pain. His family watched this day after day. I just do not think it is what humanity should be about.

Senator Day talked about sacrificial love. People here would know I am not religious. I am an atheist. But I do not think the concept of sacrificial love means that you should stand by and watch excruciating pain, excruciating agony and a death that does no good for either the individual who is dying or their family around them. I want to indicate that, if that is what people are arguing that it is about, from my concept and understanding of religion, I do not think that is what religion should be about. Senator Day argued that people comfort people with tender loving care. It does not matter if you are religious or nonreligious; surely, comfort and tender loving care is something you provide to your family or to anyone who you see in this terrible situation.

I do not think assisted death or euthanasia is killing in the concept that has been proposed here. I just do not believe that for a minute. I think every life is precious. You do not have to be religious to understand how precious it is to be alive. I accept that, but I think there is an argument and a proven proposition that you can relieve suffering and allow people to die with dignity. Senator Day dismissed this concept of dying with dignity. I think it is a very strong concept. I think it is a very powerful concept. I certainly would not like to die a death like three of my friends have done—one from pancreatic cancer and two from mesothelioma—and go through what they and their families did. That is why I support a proposition that under certain circumstances with appropriate checks and balances there is a way the suffering of individuals and their families can be alleviated through euthanasia.

I will not go through all the details of the law in Belgium or the laws in some states in the United States. Suffice it to say that there are checks and balances on this. I do not see that this would be about money-grubbing families out to put their parents down so that they can get access to the family fortune. I just think that is an overstated and naive proposition.

We need to be a community that cares about each other. If we are a community that cares about each other, we should care about how people die. We should care about the suffering of people who have mesothelioma, pancreatic cancer, other cancers or other diseases.

An issue was raised about a young woman in Belgium being killed—I think that was the word that was used—because she had anorexia. I have had a quick look at that. The Belgian law says that a minor can request euthanasia for a terminal illness. If they are an unemancipated minor—that means they still rely on their parents—then their parents have a say in what happens. They have to be suffering from an unbearable and untreatable somatic and psychiatric disorder for this request to be granted. These are not psychiatric disorders on their own; they are psychiatric disorders that arise from the unbearable death that the individual is going through. So I think we need to be careful when we run these arguments up.

I strongly support the legislation. I will be arguing strongly in the future, if I get an opportunity, that people should have the right to determine a dignified death and not be lying in a nappy with no control over their body and no understanding of what is happening to them. If someone says they want to put an end to that then they should be allowed to put an end to that under certain controlled circumstances. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.