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

Perhaps I can jump ahead of Senator McMahon and speak first, and that will allow her time to come to the chamber. I don't understand what's going on here. Senator McMahon was just in the chamber.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have the call.

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

Thank you very much. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021. I would have preferred to have spoken second, because I understand that Senator McMahon is planning on moving amendments to her bill that would significantly amend it, and I would welcome those amendments. So my comments would be basically have been made following the amendments to her bill.

But I will say that to get to this point it has been an extraordinary process. This bill was tabled by Senator McMahon some months ago. She attempted to debate it last week. Her own government refused to allow it to be listed and instead listed a One Nation bill in its place, and we've had some difficulty getting to this point today. We thought it was important that Senator McMahon be allowed to debate her bill. She is leaving the Senate at the next election, as I understand it, and the debate on this bill this morning was to provide her with the only opportunity she had to have that debate heard. Labor is happy to facilitate that; in fact, we have given up our spot on our own bill this morning to allow Senator McMahon's bill to be debated.

As a territory senator, I am very keen to see passage of legislation in both chambers of this parliament that would allow citizens of the territories to enjoy the same democratic rights as any other Australian. At the moment, in my neck of the woods, a person who lives in Queanbeyan has greater democratic rights than a person who resides in the ACT. That is fundamentally unfair. We don't see it in other areas of law, only in this area. Whilst there may be mixed views about voluntary assisted dying and the laws that surround it, once Senator McMahon has this bill amended, it would allow the overturning of a law made almost 25 years ago that extinguished the rights of Territorians to debate end-of-life matters in their parliaments.

The legislation has remained on the statute book because the federal parliament has been unable to resolve it. As a territorian, as a senator and as someone who has served in the ACT Legislative Assembly, I believe that is fundamentally unfair. There have been bills in this place similar to what Senator McMahon's amended bill will progress, and they failed very narrowly by two votes the last time this was tested. I believe, if it gets to the point where there is a vote on this bill and that is a matter of a conscience vote for people in the Labor Party, that it is a vote that the parliament should support.

Times have moved on. In 1997, even though I didn't agree with it at the time, legislation passed this parliament that put in place this discriminatory regime. However, since then, there has been significant international and national progress on laws around euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying. In fact, in every single state or territory there has been progress on this, either with the passage of legislation or legislation waiting to be voted upon, as is the case in New South Wales.

There has been enormous change regarding voluntary assisted dying. We know that, if you ask, people believe they should have greater rights when it comes to end-of-life decision-making and control over their own care. Yes, there have to be protections alongside this, but we leave those matters to state and territory parliaments to pursue, which is the right place for those matters to be debated. They represent and engage with their community as they're shaping those laws. However, the federal parliament could overturn the ban on territory parliaments, allowing them to debate this. The crazy situation we are now in is that the rights of hundreds of thousands of Australians are different because of where they live; that's the only reason. Because they decide to live, work and bring up their families in a territory, they do not have the ability to debate end-of-life decision-making or voluntary assisted dying laws through their local parliament. It is crazy. We wouldn't stand for it in any other area of lawmaking, in terms of the role of the federal parliament. It is something that has existed for 24 years and it is something that should be overturned. That is all this bill—given the amendments that I understand Senator McMahon will move—will allow to occur. It won't put in place any laws around voluntary assisted dying. It won't impose any restrictions. It won't change anything for people in the territories immediately, but it will allow for legislation to be brought forward in those parliaments and for people to have the debate.

This is an area in which I have advocated for my entire time in politics—that we should enjoy the same democratic rights as anyone else, and just because we live in the ACT shouldn't affect that—but unfortunately it's not something that Senator Seselja has chosen to support. We are in an extraordinary situation where we have a senator for the ACT, representing the people of the ACT, actually saying that his constituents should not have the same democratic rights as anybody else. He's actually saying that his constituents should have fewer democratic rights than the people who live over the border or in Tasmania, WA, South Australia or Queensland. That is the extraordinary position we are in here.

We have every federal member, other than Senator Seselja, supportive of the overturning of these laws. We have every member of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly supporting this, even though those members of the legislative assembly, as I know from experience, would not all back voluntary assisted dying legislation. They wouldn't, and that is their right. I completely accept that every individual member of parliament and every individual member of the community form their own views on this. They will change and they will be different, and there will be disagreement, but allowing the debate to occur is the important thing.

Senator Seselja won't even allow this debate to occur in the legislative assembly, a parliament that he was also a member of. We know this, because we've been written to by every member of the legislative assembly, including the Canberra Liberals—all of them—who have petitioned their federal representatives, saying, 'Please allow us to have this debate in our parliament.' They've actually written to us asking for that, through the Speaker of the assembly, and we're still in the position where Senator Seselja remains a roadblock to this reform. It is important because it would change things if you had a conservative member of the parliament, someone who has strong views around voluntary assisted dying, standing with his colleagues representing the same constituents just to allow the debate to occur.

It's not like we would see the Andrews legislation overturned and then automatically something would happen in the assembly. That is not how it would happen. These are mature parliaments. We give the ACT and Northern Territory parliaments the right to legislate and represent their constituents on every other matter that the states are allowed. They run the emergency services, they run the health system, they run the justice system, they run the education system and they run—in the ACT's case—all of the municipal services and all of the infrastructure. They run a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars every year. The parliament's been in place since 1989 in the ACT. They've managed to look after the community very well. Both sides of politics have managed in government, and yet for some reason we still have this paternalistic view that the territories can't be trusted when it comes to matters around euthanasia.

This is another example where the community moves faster than the parliament. We've seen it in other areas. We saw it on marriage equality where the community wondered what all the fuss was about here. It's a similar thing on voluntary assisted dying. It is an emotional issue. It is a serious issue. There can really be no more serious an issue than matters of life and death. I accept that, and I accept that people will bring their own views to the debate. I support that.

I'm not even sure if I would support the legislation that the assembly might look at. Both my parents passed away from cancer in very, very difficult circumstances. I watched both of them pass away. I nursed them.

I understand that these are incredible difficult issues for people—for families, for loved ones and for individuals themselves. But, at the moment, to anyone in the ACT who is considering the end of life due to a terminal illness or the end of life of one of their loved ones: bad luck. You can lobby your local government all you like but, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter, because the parliament that you elected, your assembly, is not allowed to debate this matter, which might be the most important thing to you. You can debate everything else on the floor of that parliament, but you're not allowed to debate end-of-life matters.

It is absolutely unfair. It is outrageous that it has remained on the statute books for this long—for a quarter of a century. As community views have changed, as debates have raged and been won and lost, as laws have been passed and as millions of people have died, the territories have been unable to represent their citizens and advocate their points of view in their parliament because of this outdated, paternalistic law that the government seems intent on not dealing with.

A Labor government, if elected, will deal with it. We understand that there will be mixed views on the Labor side about end-of-life decision-making, but one thing that we have from Mr Albanese is a commitment that, if elected, he would allow a private member's or private senator's bill to be put to this chamber and the other chamber, because he recognises the right to debate it in this place and the rights of those parliaments, if legislation were to be passed in these chambers, to debate end-of-life decision-making too.

This is important. I thank Senator McMahon for bringing this bill, which I welcome, to the chamber. I think it is right that she be given the opportunity to put this bill. She's worked hard on it. She has sought to engage others in it. I understand she will move amendments that take out certain parts of the bill that Labor was not able to agree with. If those amendments were moved and put, it would change the nature of the bill, and, whilst Labor had a position to oppose the bill, this would allow us to move to a conscience vote on the remaining elements of the bill. If we got to that point, as an ACT senator, I would certainly vote in favour of the McMahon bill with an amendment to incorporate the ACT. If that were in the remaining provisions of the bill—that the Northern Territory and the ACT were allowed to debate voluntary assisted dying legislation, with a complete repeal of the Andrews bill—then I would absolutely support that, as I have supported other bills in this place.

I would hope that the Senate, despite people's own views about end-of-life care and voluntary assisted dying, would at least allow every Australian citizen to enjoy the same democratic rights as those citizens who live in the states. At the moment, that isn't what happens. It's not fair, it's outdated and it's paternalistic, and we should believe that these state governments, which have run our pandemic response and done everything else, can be responsible in how they embark on a discussion with their community about voluntary assisted dying legislation. Frankly, the federal parliament should get out of the way. (Time expired)

Sam McMahon (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to Senator Gallagher. Thank you for acknowledging the work that I have done, and I thank all of my colleagues in the Senate for hearing me out on this issue and for granting me the opportunity to bring this legislation, the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021—my private senator's bill—to the Senate and to debate it. It is important.

The Northern Territory is, I believe, a very unique place. Everybody probably believes that about where they live. They probably believe that it's special, it's unique and it's the best place in the world. But the Northern Territory is unique. It's a huge landmass. We've got over 1.4 million square kilometres. We don't have many people. We have a very large Indigenous population. We have a great deal of difference in our socioeconomic areas. You've got Darwin, which is quite a metropolitan, cosmopolitan city, and many people live there, as in inner-city Melbourne or inner-city Sydney. Then we have the smaller towns. Katherine is where I'm from. Katherine is the fourth-largest town in the Northern Territory, with a population of about 10,000 people—so it would count as quite a small country town in the rest of Australia.

Our Indigenous communities are spread throughout the Northern Territory, often in some very beautiful but inaccessible locations. A lot of these places are not well serviced by roads, and the people live out there in very small communities and with quite a traditional lifestyle. We have our cattle stations, isolated farms, isolated properties. For some people on some of these properties, it might be an 800-kilometre trip one-way to go shopping. So it is quite sparsely populated, and a unique and different place. Some of our places are not even accessible by road for most of the year. They have to get their supplies brought in by barge or by small plane.

Having such a small population, we are a territory, the same as the ACT, although the ACT is obviously geographically very small. But we are capable of making our own laws. We are capable of governing our people and making our own decisions and deciding what is best for Territorians. I've just described a little bit of the uniqueness of the place. Now, how can you expect someone who lives in Melbourne or Sydney or Canberra to understand what makes the place and the people tick and to know what is best for those people. Only those who live in that environment, who live with those people, can truly know what is the best thing for Territorians.

The Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction in the world to legalise voluntary assisted dying, or voluntary euthanasia, laws. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill was introduced into the parliament by then Chief Minister and member for Fannie Bay Marshall Perron on 22 February 1995. Mr Perron actually resigned his Chief Ministership; that's how important this issue was to him. To introduce this private member's bill, he resigned his Chief Ministership so as not to influence his colleagues by the weight of his office. That is a pretty big decision to take and it just shows you the conviction that he had in introducing these laws for Territorians. Mr Perron said at the time:

This bill is based on a relatively simple principle: if there are terminally ill patients who wish to end their suffering by accelerating inevitable death, and there are sympathetic doctors who are willing to help them die with dignity, then the law should not forbid it. There are such patients, and there are such doctors, and the law does forbid it.

Mr Perron recognised that, with the laws forbidding this from occurring, you were taking away people's right to die without suffering and to die with dignity. is Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill was passed by the Northern Territory's Legislative Assembly on 25 May 1995. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 entered into law on 1 July 1996—25 years ago.

The following year the Commonwealth parliament intervened to overturn this act. Section 50A was added to the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 to prohibit the Northern Territory from making laws in respect of voluntary assisted dying. In June 1996, Mr Kevin Andrews, the member for Menzies, in the Commonwealth House of Representatives announced his intention to introduce a private members bill to override the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. On 9 September 1996 he introduced the bill entitled Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 in the House. On 7 November 1996, while debate on the bill continued in the House of Representatives, the Senate Selection of Bills Committee recommended, and the Senate agreed, that the provisions of the bill be referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry. The report was tabled in the House in March 1997. On 9 December 1996, the House of Representatives agreed to the bill with amendments.

The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in the Northern Territory was in force for nine months, during which time four people died by medically assisted procedures. At the time, the overturning of this legislation by the Commonwealth was seen by the Northern Territory as taking away the rights of Territorians to legislate for themselves. Now I understand it. I get it. At the time we were the first jurisdiction in the world to do this, so I understand that people in this place said: 'Clearly they're all mad. They can't make decisions for themselves. They've lost the plot. They can't govern responsibly, so we're going to step in and we're going to look after those poor people up there in the Northern Territory whose government has quite clearly lost the plot.' I get that, but that was 25 years ago. Time has moved on and the world has moved on.

The world is a very different place, and there are now many, many jurisdictions that have legislation around voluntary assisted dying—including most states of Australia. They can make those laws. The states can make those laws. The territories can't. The territories are still prohibited from legislating for their people. In this way, Northern Territorians are being treated as second-class citizens, and so are the residents of the ACT. The residents of the territories are being treated as though they can't govern for themselves. As we've heard, the territories have multi-billion-dollar budgets. They look after everything else. They legislate for everything else that affects their citizens, but they can't do this one thing that all the states are saying we need to do for the people.

I get that 25 years ago the Northern Territory was ahead of its time. History has proved that. We weren't crazy back then. We were not crazy; we were just ahead of our time. The fact that almost every other jurisdiction in Australia has passed or is considering these laws shows that. We've been vindicated. We weren't mad. We were just ahead of our time. You might say about the Northern Territory, 'You're just a small place. You don't have many people. How could that be?' Well, maybe that's why. Maybe it's because we are a small, tight-knit community and we look after each other because we are isolated up there, because we've grown up having to look after ourselves and each other. Maybe that is why we were ahead of the game? Maybe that's why we were ahead of our time? We got together, we saw what was happening, we saw what people wanted and our Legislative Assembly at the time had the fortitude to pass voluntary assisted dying laws for the people of the Northern Territory. I'm not here to debate what those laws might look like or the attributes or otherwise of voluntary assisted dying, because that's a matter for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. They are best placed to debate those laws and bring them into effect if they want to—they can't currently but they could. That is not for me to debate.

I am an advocate for voluntary assisted dying. I'm a veterinarian. I see what effect the relief of pain and suffering has on animals and their loved ones all the time, but that's not the purpose here today. This is not to make laws about voluntary assisted dying or assisted euthanasia; this is to empower the people of the Northern Territory to enjoy the same representation and power to make their own laws that almost everyone else around Australia has. The two territories are cut out of this. They can't even have this debate, but everyone else in Australia can.

Is it fair? Is it right? Is it just that, because you happen to live in the ACT or the Northern Territory, you don't have the right to have the same governance that someone who lives in New South Wales, Western Australia or Tasmania has? Is it right that territorians don't enjoy the same freedom of having their government pass laws for them? That is my argument. That is not right; that is not just.

The Commonwealth stands back in every other argument saying: 'It's up to the states to decide if they want to have biosecurity in place. It's up to the states to decide about quarantine. It's up to the states to decide this.' However, in this area, the Commonwealth government is still saying: 'No, you can't. We're going to stop you. We're going to override your right to make fair, just and needed laws for your people.' That is absolutely not right; it is not fair. It is time for the Commonwealth to pull back from this argument and say to the territories: 'We got it wrong 25 years ago. We thought you were mad. We thought you were nuts. We thought you'd lost the plot, but we were actually wrong: you hadn't. It turns out you were ahead of the game, and we will give you back the right to make laws, if you so desire, around this very sensitive topic. It is sensitive. It is emotive, and there are different points of view; however, we give you the right to have that debate and that discussion with your people if they want to pass laws around voluntary assisted dying and that is what you decide is right for your people.'

It is time for the Commonwealth to get out of the way of the territories and let them make laws around this issue, the way they let them make laws around everything else that governs everything from economic policy to life-and-death decisions that affect peoples' everyday lives. Let them make laws around voluntary assisted dying, if they so desire, that will have an effect on peoples' lives. Territorians no longer want, and certainly don't need, voluntary assisted decision-making. Thank you.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021. I'll flag that it's very interesting that we are debating this bill this morning. This is private members' time, and normally we'd be debating a Labor bill. There was a big stoush over the weekend when this bill was sought to be listed, and the government have now caved because they'd rather avoid losing another vote on the floor of the parliament. I just want to flag that this government has now lost control of both chambers, and it's caved in and listed this bill because it was going to lose the vote and this bill was going to come on anyway. That's my first point, an observation for those watching this debate.

The other observation I have before I talk to the substance of this bill is the hypocrisy of this government. They are desperate to shed powers to the states when it comes to environmental protection. They've been trying to give away their powers to approve developments that would have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance since Mr Tony Abbott was Prime Minister. They've been desperate to get rid of those powers and, of course, they've taken a hands-off approach to building quarantine facilities in a global pandemic. They tried to say that that wasn't their responsibility and that was up to the states. Yet, on matters of ideology, they want to tell the states and territories what they can and can't do. Take the religious discrimination bill, for example. It would seek to override states' protections in certain antidiscrimination laws. What an absolute farce. The other thing, which happened overnight, is the federal government has told Queensland and Victoria that it can't sign on to an international pledge to try to limit global warming to less than two degrees. This government is being highly selective on when it wants to flex its powers. When it suits them and when it suits their ideologies they want to tell the states what to do, but when it doesn't suit their ideology then they're happy for the states to do the heavy lifting.

Today, we have this bill to give rights to the Territory. As the bill is currently drafted it's just to give rights to the Northern Territory, and I understand there's an amendment to include the Australian Capital Territory within the bill, which the Greens would support. We now have this bill for territories' rights. We strongly support the territories having these rights; in fact, the Australian Greens passed a bill in 2011 in this very chamber to ensure that territories had those rights. Naturally, the bill unfortunately did not pass the House, but we passed the Territories Self-Government Legislation Amendment (Disallowance and Amendment of Laws) Act 2011, which would have removed federal powers to overturn the laws passed by the legislative assemblies of the territories. We have always been strong supporters of territories' rights and we support this bill with the amendments, both those flagged by Senator McMahon and those just circulated by the Labor Party, I understand.

Why should people in the territories have fewer rights than the rest of Australia? Why should those legislative assemblies be restricted in what they can even discuss? I'll be very interested to hear what Senator Seselja has to say. I understand he's next on the speakers list. I'll keep my comments short because another senator from the Territory, Senator McCarthy, is also listed to make a contribution and I want to make sure that those folk have the chance to make a contribution. My understanding is that Senator Seselja is the lone person in his party in the ACT that doesn't want this bill to pass. I understand that Canberra Liberals have been begging him to support this bill, so I can't wait to hear what he's got to say about why he wants his very voters to have fewer rights. I would suggest that, in fact, the ACT in this coming election has the chance to elect a Green in place of Senator Seselja, fabulous First Nations woman Dr Tjanara Goreng Goreng, who would back territories' rights and back climate action and action on wealth inequality, for that matter.

I'll return to the substance of this bill. We have always advocated for the rights of elected assemblies in the Territory, in Norfolk Island and in the ACT to legislate in the interests of their citizens, including on the crucial issue of dying with dignity. We have long advocated for the repeal of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, as voluntary assisted dying is an issue that affects countless families, medical professionals and healthcare and aged-care workers across Australia. I want to flag that recent polling found that 76 per cent of Australians support voluntary assisted dying and they support the Commonwealth removing restrictions on the territory governments to enact voluntary assisted dying laws. In fact, essentially every credible opinion poll over the last two decades has shown that similar level of support for the concept of dying with dignity, and the number of passionate submissions to the inquiry on this bill is testament to the significance of this issue.

Since the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 overturned the historic 1995 Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (NT), which would've allowed euthanasia in the Northern Territory, many of the states have now in fact passed voluntary assisted dying laws—Victoria, WA, Tassie, South Australia and, most recently, Queensland—and I understand New South Wales is now well on the way. There's no compelling rationale for citizens of the Northern Territory and the ACT to be denied the opportunity to engage in similar debates, particularly in light of the Northern Territory having led the way on voluntary assisted dying all those decades ago.

Given the importance of dying with dignity to so many Australians, all Australians should have at the very least the right to have their elected representatives debate the issue and to make laws for voluntary assisted dying if they have the majority of those votes on the floor. I acknowledge many people have said that perhaps they wouldn't support the substance of voluntary assisted dying laws but that they would support the ability of territories to at least have the debate. The Greens support both, but we absolutely think that there should be no restriction on what the legislative assemblies can even debate.

Citizens in the Northern Territory and citizens in the ACT deserve these rights; they want to have this conversation. This bill from this backbencher would provide those rights, and this government won't let the bill come to a vote because it doesn't want to lose another vote on the floor. It's all about politics with this government. It's not about the rights of people. It's not about the rights of territorians. It's about making sure the Prime Minister isn't left with egg on his face once again, after losing a vote on the floor of the House last week. It's all about politics, never about the right thing, what's good for the community or what's good for the planet. So bring on the election and let's turf out this awful mob.

The Greens support the intention of this bill. We support the amendments to remove some of the objectionable provisions and we would support the amendments circulated by the opposition to include the ACT in this bill. I'll conclude my remarks early so that we can hear from the two territorian representatives.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for opportunity to speak on this bill, the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021. I have to start by responding to some of the contribution by Senator Gallagher, who right throughout this debate, I think, has sought to make it a personality issue, and particularly some of the mistruths and untruths she has peddled in relation to where we are today.

The very fact that we are debating this bill today undermines one of the key arguments that Senator Gallagher has been making throughout this time, and that is that somehow I have been blocking debate on this bill in the Senate. It's not true, and the fact that it was able to be brought on today is another example of that. Senator Gallagher has been making the argument that she has been committed to this issue and fighting for this issue. But you wonder how much she wants to use it as a political wedge rather than progress the issue, because there have been a lot of Labor slots for private senator's business in the last three years, and I'm not aware that, during all of that time, Senator Katy Gallagher, as Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, took even one of those slots to introduce her own bill or to bring on another bill and to have a debate. If you were fair dinkum about this, after we dealt with this issue in 2018, you may have actually brought forward your own bill. Senator Gallagher and I have both been very clear about our positions on this issue, but she has not sought to progress the issue; what she has sought to do instead is misrepresent my position and, indeed, misrepresent Senator McMahon's position in quite a deliberate way.

I note the petition which I think was tabled the other day by Senator Gallagher, and it contained clear falsehoods—falsehoods that she was alerted to well before she tabled the petition. In the petition, she claimed that I was deliberately blocking one of my own coalition colleagues from including the ACT in a private senator's bill to restore Territory rights. That's untrue. If she was in any doubt about whether that was untrue, Senator McMahon actually wrote to her, soon after Senator Gallagher had made public that petition, to alert her to the fact that it was incorrect. She ignored it and she tabled a false petition, which she knew to be false. Senator McMahon wrote to Senator Gallagher on 19 July in relation to the issue of euthanasia, amongst other things, and said: 'In your public commentary, as well as in a petition you have launched, you claim that Senator Zed Seselja deliberately blocked me from including the ACT in my proposed legislation. I wish to clarify to you that your assertions are completely false, baseless and incorrect.'

She goes on to emphatically state that what Senator Gallagher is putting in her petition to the people of the ACT—getting them to sign on to a false petition—is incorrect. She completely misrepresents me and also Senator McMahon and seeks to use her as a wedge for her political argument here in the ACT. As I say, not only has she had the opportunity over the last three years to bring forward a bill on this for the Senate to debate and hasn't devoted one minute to it, but she then goes on to misrepresent me and Senator McMahon in relation to the nature of Senator McMahon's bill. The very fact that we are having this debate puts a lie to it, but the fact that Senator Gallagher has only sought to bring on debate right at the last minute, not having used the last three years, demonstrates the political motivations.

The other point I would make is that, for a long time, when I have got up and said I have a position against euthanasia, I've been told, 'These bills are not about euthanasia; they are about territory rights.' That's what we've consistently been told. When Senator McMahon brought forward a bill that actually dealt with issues—including euthanasia but also other issues—of territory rights, what did the Labor Party say in relation to that? The Labor Party said they would not be supporting that bill. Let's just be clear: the Labor Party's position is not to support territory rights; it's to support euthanasia. If that's the case, bring that debate on—and that's part of the debate we're going to be having—but don't pretend that you actually care about territory rights. When Senator McMahon sought to broaden the issues and deal with other issues that she felt needed to be dealt with for the Northern Territory, the Labor Party, including Northern Territory Labor senators, said they wouldn't support it. Do you support territory rights, or do you just support voluntary euthanasia? If the latter is the case, that's fine, but let's be clear about what debate we're having. There needs to be some honesty when we're having these discussions. Senator McMahon brought forward her bill in good faith. Now we understand it's going to be amended, and that will bring forward a conscience vote where we deal with the issue of euthanasia.

I've put a lot of things on the record, including in the lead-up to the last election. This was last debated in the Senate in 2018, I believe, a few months out from the 2019 election. I won't repeat all of the words that I used and all of the points that I made during that debate, but there are a number of important points as we look at this issue. Just finally on the issue of territory rights, the Labor Party not only wouldn't support Senator McMahon's bill but also, in the past, have voted directly to overturn Northern Territory bills on mandatory sentencing. When it comes to issues that they don't support, they have been very happy to utilise the Commonwealth constitutional powers in relation to territories to override a law of the Northern Territory. That has been the Labor Party's view, and I believe even the current Leader of the Opposition was part of the opposition that actually voted for that.

Senator Gallagher says, 'In the ACT, if you go over to Queanbeyan, they have more rights.' Let's be clear on what Senator Gallagher and others are arguing for for the ACT. They are actually arguing for 13 members of the territory assembly to have more rights than those in New South Wales. What happens in New South Wales is that they have this thing called an upper house, which is a check and balance on the power of the lower house. That is something that we don't have in the ACT or indeed in the Northern Territory. When she says she wants to have the same rights, actually she wants 13 members of the Labor-Greens government to have far more power than the New South Wales government has. If it were to pass in New South Wales in the lower house, it would go through the detailed inquiry and scrutiny of an upper house. We don't have that for the territories, and the only check on territory power is the Commonwealth parliament. We exercise that intervention very rarely, it must be said—very rarely. But it came together in a conscience vote many years ago, and it was tested again in a conscience vote. We saw Labor members, Liberal members, Nationals members and crossbenchers voting not to overturn the Andrews legislation in 2018.

There are another couple of important points I'd like to make on the issue more broadly. When we look at the issue of assisted suicide and whether or not we can trust the 13 members of the ACT Legislative Assembly to deliver fair and just laws in relation to assisted suicide, I would just point members of the Senate to the performance of the ACT government and its health system. The management of the health system under this government has been an absolute disgrace. They've underinvested in palliative care and have some of the longest waiting times for elective surgery in the country. If they were to pass these types of laws in the ACT unchecked—and, make no mistake, they would be the most extreme, unchecked euthanasia laws in the country, by far—would that improve the situation for those who are doing it tough and going through the health system, those experiencing palliative care? Would we see more investment compared to the underinvestment in palliative care from the ACT government? Would there be an incentive for them to do that? We heard from Dr Michael Chapman, Canberra Hospital's director of palliative medicine, who said:

… a pressing priority to provide optimal end of life choices in the ACT requires people to have real access to quality palliative care, which is currently not always the case for many and not always the case when they need it. People often receive too little, too late, or no services at all.

Dr Chapman's evidence to the inquiry into end-of-life choices in the ACT confirmed that there are just four full-time equivalent palliative medicine specialists operating in the territory, half the number required for the size of the population. Given that the territory treats many patients from the surrounding regions, this number again falls short. John Watkins, the chair of the board of Canberra's Calvary Hospital, also notes:

… rather than weakening current protections we should instead be talking about how we best support the dignity and personal needs of those reaching the end of their life in addition to their families and make sure that care is available and accessible to all.

It's also significant to note that the 2016 review of the National Palliative Care Strategy found that there remain significant barriers to access to palliative care services for a number of people within the population, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and:

… there is work to be done in developing culturally specific activities to address the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to help improve access for those who need it.

Indeed, Senator Pat Dodson spoke to this issue when we debated a similar bill in the Senate in 2018:

Where First Nations people are already overrepresented at every stage of our health system, it is irresponsible to vote in favour of another avenue to death. Paving the way for euthanasia and assisted suicide leaves First Nations people even more vulnerable, when our focus should be on working collectively to create laws that help prolong life and restore their right to enjoy a healthy life.

Senator Dodson makes an important point. I just note that Senator Gallagher seeks to make it about my position, which has been on the record for many years, including ahead of the last election, when the Labor Party sought to make this an issue at the election and they encouraged people, as is their right, to vote against me because of my views on issues including euthanasia. But, when she seeks to make it simply about my vote—as one of the 39 senators who voted against the bill last time—it's also a criticism of her colleagues, including Senator Dodson, who happen to have a different view.

As I said at the outset, when Senator Gallagher and others try and claim that it's not about euthanasia and is actually about territory rights, the lie to that has been put by the way they have treated Senator McMahon's bill. If it were not about the issue of euthanasia, if it were simply about the issue of territory rights, then why wouldn't you support all aspects of Senator McMahon's bill? Why wouldn't you simply be removing any restrictions on the Northern Territory to legislate in exactly the same way as a state? Well, it doesn't have that same right, and, if this bill in its amended form were to pass, it would continue to not have those same rights. So we are brought back to this conscience issue, which I know that people in this chamber and across the country have different views on. I've put my views on that issue on the record, but to try and misrepresent them in the way that Senator Gallagher has throughout this debate, to misrepresent—it's incorrect that I, in any way, tried to block Senator McMahon from bringing this bill forward. It's absolutely incorrect. The fact that you have got to misrepresent the situation in terms of making your argument—we had the embarrassing situation where the ACT assembly wrote to all senators and repeated that falsehood that Senator Gallagher had put in her petition. We had the embarrassing situation of an assembly—arguing to have more rights, to have more power to deliver laws—that couldn't even deliver an honest statement. They had to have a complete misrepresentation, in terms of making its argument, which I think undermines those arguments.

Finally, former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating has had significant things to say about this. He talked about what happens with the further liberalisation of these types of laws, that when you pass euthanasia legislation what you see is further liberalisation. We have seen that in Europe. We've seen extreme versions of that in Europe. I would put to the Senate that, in fact, even in the parliaments in Australia that have passed it—in Victoria we saw significant restrictions and significant safeguards when it was passed. We have seen less in WA and less again in Queensland. I would put to it you that should we see the ACT legislating on this issue what we will see are laws with the least safeguards in the country. We do still have some Constitutional responsibilities here. We can choose to exercise those. We do it very rarely. We do it on some of the most significant issues. In terms of this bill, as it's going to be amended—as understand it will be a conscience vote—I won't be supporting it.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to stand and support Senator McMahon's Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021 for territory rights for the people of the Northern Territory and for the people of the ACT. I'll just put on the record though what a load of rubbish some of the words that came from Senator Seselja were.

Senator McMahon's bill would not have come before the Senate if it had not been for the Australian Labor Party pushing for it to come before the Senate. Why? Because the federal government, the coalition government, the Prime Minister himself, has intervened to stop Senator McMahon from being able to bring anything to this Senate, which is absolutely outrageous. It is systemic of this government to bully, to intimidate, to antagonise and to stop the rights of people having their democratic say—in particular here in the parliament of Australia to be able to have their rights to speak in the House, to speak here in the Senate.

Senator McMahon brought this bill on with great sincerity on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory. This bill should've been listed well before this government was forced to bring it in five minutes before the bells rang this morning. Why did they do that? They did it because they had no choice. They knew that there was support for Senator McMahon's bill because in the Northern Territory parliament and the ACT parliament we want to see the ability for those members in those parliaments to debate these laws. Why is it that the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT are second-class citizens? Why is it that nearly every other state parliament in this country can debate laws for end of days? Why are we afraid to enable the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT to do exactly that?

For me personally, I don't support voluntary assisted dying. It is not something that I would want to see. But I support very much the right of the people of the Northern Territory and, indeed, the Northern Territory parliament to debate itself—the democratic right where they can argue, where they can speak passionately about issues impacting or possibly affecting their very own constituents who put them in there. Why do we think we have to be the big brother or the big sister, stopping the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory being able to debate what happens at the end of life for their families—their brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers—and them being able to speak to the medical fraternity, being able to speak to the aged-care providers and being able to talk to the churches? Why are we afraid to enable them to do that?

We expect the people of those territories to do everything else this parliament says. As Senator Gallagher pointed out, the Prime Minister keeps throwing everything back to the state and territory premiers: 'You're responsible for quarantining. You're responsible for putting people in hotels.' It's interesting, isn't it? I think Senator Waters raised that point. This parliament likes to dictate what can and can't be done in the territories. Here we have a very courageous government backbench senator who has not only stood up to her colleagues in both the Nationals and the Liberals for the people of the Northern Territory on this bill coming forward today but also fought with me to save the seat of Lingiari so that we could have two seats in the Northern Territory and not revert to one.

The bullying and harassment that went on to prevent Senator McMahon from even doing that is absolutely outrageous. These are the reasons people do not stand for politics. These are the reasons why women in particular think twice about standing for politics. It's an absolute disgrace that members on that side have not given the Territory senator for the Country Liberal Party the support she needed to get this bill here in the Senate and the support, respect and dignity to be able to speak.

There are only two of us, for goodness sake. There are 12 senators in every state, all bullying one on your side. Is that an indication of what you think of the people of the territories? That's the only thing we can take away from that. If this is how you treat your senator then it's no wonder the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT think they don't matter and that their voice is not important. That is the only image you give when you do that not only to this bill but to the senator who has tried to bring it forward. I commend Senator McMahon for doing this.

As I've said, I do not support voluntary assisted dying. I have my personal reasons for that. I will fight vehemently for the rights of the Northern Territory and the ACT parliaments to be able to debate it most passionately, with great maturity and with great compassion. I urge senators here today to realise the significance of this moment in this parliament this year and the fact that the Labor opposition had to force this private senator's bill to the floor this morning.

Next year it will be 100 years since the Northern Territory was able to have its first member in the Australian parliament. That was one seat. We've got only two seats—Solomon and Lingiari—so our voices have not grown significantly at all. Do not diminish us just because you can. Do not silence us just because you can. Do not bully us just because you think you can, because that will not be tolerated.

With the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021, we'd certainly like to see the amendments come forward in terms of the two aspects that Labor does not support. That is not because we don't support a Territory rights bill. We have had this discussion with the senator opposite. The Australian Labor Party has concerns about the fair work rights aspect of it and obviously the aspects around the land. I understand that when Senator McMahon does move those two amendments we will absolutely be supporting this bill wholeheartedly. Certainly Senator Katy Gallagher will be moving to include the ACT.

I think it's really interesting to observe Senator Seselja's comments around this. Senator Katy Gallagher was in no way at all reluctant to see this bill come forward. In fact, it's her private senators' bill that's been removed completely from today's debate. We are not sure when we'll get it back on again. Are we coming back after these parliamentary sittings? Will we be here before the next election? Who knows? But Senator Gallagher has willingly given up her spot on her very important senators' bill to enable this debate to take place. Whatever Senator Seselja has to say on it really gives little comfort at all, if any, as to whether he's had any willingness to support the territories to have their rights empowered again in these parliaments so that that discussion and debate can take place. Shame on you, Senator Seselja, for trying to bring to this Senate such disrepute in saying that you brought this bill on this morning, that it was the government. No, it wasn't—not at all. This was us. This was completely the Labor Party and this was done because we fairly believe in the sincerity of Senator McMahon's bill to improve the rights for the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory.

One of the things that I'm acutely aware of is that, should this bill pass, there will be passionate debate, in particular in the Northern Territory. Given the over 100 Aboriginal languages there, I know the importance of communication and the importance of being able to understand what the ability to debate this in the Northern Territory parliament would mean. It would come back to the 25 members of the legislative assembly in the Northern Territory to discuss and debate, and I have no doubt that each and every one of those 25 members of the Northern Territory assembly will have to dig deep and find out where they stand on this issue of voluntary assisted dying.

It has been over two decades since the Northern Territory led the way, and I have to agree with Senator McMahon's comments that it was the Northern Territory that courageously brought this forward well ahead of its time. Were we mad? Were we crazy? Were we all these things? Let's have a look at the state parliaments around the country who have now had their own debates. No doubt every single parliamentarian in each of those states that have debated end of life have dug deep to find out what it means for them, their conscience, their family, their Christian beliefs and their ability to sit comfortably or uncomfortably with it. But that's because we're a democracy. Isn't that what we pride ourselves on as Australians? Isn't that the one thing that really does hold us together—the belief in our ability to speak respectfully? I have to raise 'respectfully', because there are many views of late that shouting at people, threatening people and bullying people is democracy. Well, that's not democracy. It's not the democracy I want; that's for sure. Democracy is the ability to stand up and agree to disagree. It's the ability to listen respectfully but also know that in this particular instance it's about the Senate, the House of Reps and parliamentarians at the Australian government level realising that sometimes democracy is also about letting go. Let go of the power you hold onto so fiercely in this place, and let the peoples of the Northern Territory and the ACT make up their own minds and have the right to do so.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just rise to make a short contribution to this debate. I will, in opening, simply state that I do support euthanasia. This bill, the Ensuring Northern Territory Rights Bill 2021, is not about that, however. This bill is about how responsible systems of government work. In a responsible system of government, we have the government responsible to the parliament, which is responsible to the people. So it's not really a matter for me to decide how laws are passed in the ACT or the Northern Territory; that is a matter for the parliaments of the Northern Territory and of the ACT. It's not for Senator Smith to decide what the laws are in the Northern Territory. It's not for Senator O'Sullivan to decide what the laws are in the ACT. It's not for Senator Waters to decide what the laws are in the ACT or the Northern Territory, because she's not responsible to that electorate. The principle ought to be that those who legislate, who pass laws that affect the conduct and the rights of people, are responsible to those people, and, ultimately, those people can rid themselves of that member if they don't like the way in which they vote. So it is pretty important that we understand that that is what this is about. This is about proper systems of government, where we hand responsibility to the parliaments that are actually voted in by their respective people.

I do hope this does come to a debate, because, in some sense, it is a proxy for euthanasia. I can't imagine why anyone would vote against allowing a parliament of a state to set their own laws unless they had a feeling that they didn't like those laws.

I just note that, in this chamber in the last week or so, we've had a number of coalition MPs crossing the floor to vote for choice. One would hope that, if this does come to a vote, some of those people who were voting for choice would also vote to allow choice in the Northern Territory and in the ACT. Under responsible systems of government, we should let the parliaments of the ACT and the Northern Territory pass laws that relate to their people. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.