Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Twenty-five years ago, when the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill was introduced into the Northern Territory parliament, I wanted the Northern Territory parliamentarians to vote against it. Based on cultural and personal grounds, I certainly did not support it. Twenty-five years later, I still do not support voluntary assisted dying. But I do support the Northern Territory parliament having the right to debate what is an absolutely critical issue on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory—an issue that has been debated across Australia in every state parliament since the Northern Territory introduced it and then had it removed. The Euthanasia Laws Act was passed by the Commonwealth parliament in 1997. All of the states have passed laws allowing for voluntary assisted dying in Australia.

Of course, as we all know, it was the Northern Territory where we saw not only Australia's first legislation on euthanasia but the first in the world. The NT parliament passed these laws on behalf of their constituents who voted for them to represent them. It was a democratic decision. The sky didn't fall apart, but the Howard government saw fit to stomp over the democratic rights of Territorians, throw out their fair decision and gag them for half a century—and still to this day. A lot of Territorians were very upset as they saw the Andrews bill developed, debated and, eventually, turned into law.

I looked through some of the speeches from the Territory. I knew then of those politicians who were there. There was a speech introduced by the then Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, a most passionate advocate. And there were speeches by the late Maurice Rioli and Mr Wes Lanhupuy, two First Nations people in the parliament at the time—two people with very different views on to how to approach this most sensitive issue. That's what democracy is about, that's what the Westminster system brought to this country: an opportunity for parliaments to be able to debate—to agree, to disagree—and to be heard with respect.

I would like to share with the Senate the story of Bob Dent, one of those Territorians who paid very close attention to the Andrews bill. He did this in his final days. Mr Dent became the first person in the world to die using a voluntary euthanasia law, and he was one of only four to access the NTs Rights of the Terminally Ill Act before it was overturned by the federal government. Mr Dent, a former pilot and carpenter from Darwin, had prostate cancer, which infiltrated his bone marrow, deteriorating his body. Before Mr Dent passed away, he sent a letter to all federal politicians, to make it clear how he felt about the Andrews bill. Part of his letter read:

I read with increasing horror newspaper stories of Kevin Andrews' attempt to overturn the most compassionate piece of legislation in the world. (Actually, my wife has to read the newspaper stories to me as I can no longer focus my eyes.)

If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don't use it, but don't deny me the right to use it if and when I want to.

Of course, it's difficult to imagine how he might have felt knowing a democratic decision that affected his life so deeply and so personally could be stomped over and dumped at the whim of the parliament we're all standing in today.

I acknowledge the advocacy and hard work of Luke Gosling MP and Alicia Payne MP in bringing this bill to the parliament to finally right a wrong that was made here in this same parliament 25 years ago.

This bill has been a long time coming. In 2022 Territorians and Canberrans still have fewer democratic rights than their fellow Australians in the states and hopefully this bill is going to change that. For 25 years the ACT and the Northern Territory have been banned from legislating, let alone debating, the issue of voluntary euthanasia. It is something that all other states can do and now have done.

This bill before the Senate does not in any way legislate voluntary assisted dying. I need to make that very, very clear. It simply proposes to give the territories equal democratic rights to debate and legislate this issue within their own parliaments. It's not something that should be deliberately conflated and confused for political advantage. This is ultimately an issue of territory rights, of Australians living in the territories having the same rights as fellow Australians in the states.

The bill proposes to remove archaic restrictions preventing the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory from passing any legislation which would allow for voluntary assisted dying. These restrictions, as I said, were introduced in 1997 through the passage of a private member's bill introduced by Mr Kevin Andrews MP.

This attempt here today is, of course, not the first in this parliament to remove Kevin Andrews' restrictions and restore territory rights, but I certainly hope that it is the last and that this one will be successful. Since the passing of Andrews' legislation there appears to have been around nine bills subsequently introduced into parliament with the intention of granting one or more of the territories the ability to pass their own laws relating to voluntary assisted dying, and all of these have been private members' bills.

I acknowledge the work and good intentions of all those who have attempted to restore territory rights, albeit unsuccessfully. It is fortunate that we do have a government here today that has given us a chance to finally, in my view, and hopefully, correct this wrong and make a change.

Before the election the Albanese government committed, as a priority, to facilitate the introduction of this bill to restore the rights of the territories. This is, fortunately, a piece of legislation that can bring a lot of us together. We saw the territory rights bill pass the lower House with an overwhelming majority. It had the support of members of the Greens, the coalition, Labor and the Independents.

I would like to touch on a few issues that have been raised here so far. I also want to give my own view, as I did at the outset, that as a Yanyuwa Garrwa woman I am deeply aware of the cultural concerns in terms of assisted dying. I also know that in our way people do want to go back on country when they feel that they know their time is near. I have a very personal view about this issue. Should this bill pass and get to the Northern Territory parliament to debate it I will probably be one of the first people to urge the politicians there to vote against it, but they still have the right to debate it. The Australian parliament should not be taking away the rights of our fellow Australians in the Northern Territory and the ACT.

I do call on senators to see the importance of the territories and their respective parliaments, that they be enabled to have the debate that every state parliament has now had. Senators, if you are unsure, I urge those of you who are still wondering what to do to: please support this bill. Please do not make these Australians in the ACT and in the Northern Territory feel any less worthy than the Australians you represent in your respective states.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to voice my opposition to the Restoring Territory Rights Bill. While this bill is couched in terms of the restoration of rights to the territories, what it really is, in truth, is a new voluntary assisted dying bill. This debate is one that is, of course, emotionally charged. For those who oppose this concept of voluntary assisted dying, for those who wish to see this in the light that it really should be and for those that are concerned about the suffering of those who are in terminal pain, I hear all of those arguments. You don't have to necessarily be a religious person to oppose euthanasia. You just need to understand the facts. I think it is helpful to understand where this leads.

Far from being indifferent to the suffering of others, opponents of euthanasia oppose it for a variety of ethical reasons as well as because of the deteriorative impact of euthanasia on our society. Despite the mangling of words that we see, it has to be looked upon as a form of suicide. Whenever we're discussing whether euthanasia should be legal, we're discussing whether suicide—or, more specifically, a medical professional assisting someone with that suicide—should be legal. One of the fundamental tenets of any society is that we respect human life. And this can't be the answer to suffering, whether it be mental, physical or both. That's why the federal governments of both colours and persuasions have spent $11 billion on funding mental health services over the years.

To support this on the one hand and advocate for suicide prevention on the other seems entirely hypocritical to me. Surely in either case it's a terrible outcome for individuals and for society, particularly when we want to prevent this in either occasion to the best we can, because we want to affirm life whatever the circumstances are. But the underlying ethos has to be remembered, and that is that some lives just aren't any longer worth living. If we in this place send that message, then ultimately it devalues the lives of citizens rather than cultivating a sense of meaning and morality.

Practically speaking, the message that this is a way out leads to an increase in the demand. That's just a fact. To quote a recent peer-reviewed study conducted by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Oxford, England:

Introducing EAS—

That is, euthanasia—

is followed by considerable increases in suicide (inclusive of assisted suicide) … There is no reduction in non-assisted suicide relative to the most similar non-EAS neighbour—

where euthanasia isn't practised—

and, in some cases, there is a relative and/or an absolute increase in non-assisted suicide.

Another peer-reviewed study for the Southern Medical Journal by the same author focused specifically on the United States. It concluded:

Legalizing PAS—

That is, euthanasia—

has been associated with an increased rate of total suicides relative to other states and no decrease in nonassisted suicides.

This at least needs to give us cause to pause before going down a road that will certainly legalise the so-called right to die.

Proponents will often mock those who are opponents for making this slippery slope argument, even though the slippery slope quickly becomes evident each single time, as it has in international jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal and, closer to home, in Victoria, where it's only been legal since 2019. Sadly 175 people were euthanised in Victoria by the end of 2021, which was an enormous increase from the 49 deaths the previous year. The data supports the conclusion that euthanasia is related to an increase in these suicides, in general, whether they're assisted or not. So I ask the question: is this what the public really wants? With laws that have an instructive effect on the morality of society—where that is part of their purpose, to uphold and enforce morality—it makes sense that those rates would increase when any government or any legislative body signals that this is the way to proceed.

The Commonwealth power that was used to ban euthanasia in the territories was, in my view, a good and just use of a Commonwealth authority as it protected vulnerable Australians—the sick, the elderly, the mentally ill—by preventing the territories from legalising voluntary assisted suicide. This restriction should, in my view, remain in place. If we do in fact care about reducing the number of suicides in Australia, the demonstrable proof is there. As I said, the slippery-slope effect is very, very real. We've seen this in the Netherlands, where children as young as 12 now can access these services. More and more Dutch citizens are opting for euthanasia due to psychological disorders such as depression. These are just facts. Again, is this something the people of the territories really want, that the people of Australia really want? Is that a picture of a flourishing society or is it indicative of one that is going down the wrong path?

Part of the problem is that euthanasia legislation is predicated on the concept of suffering, which we all understand and we all sympathise with, and that's difficult to define. So, being open to its being interpreted liberally by others is always a problem in these legislative dilemmas. To quote an associate professor on the board of Palliative Care Australia:

I am concerned we are too caught up with our "right" to die, while not investing in the system that helps us live as well as possible before we die.

And more Australians die in pain because of the lack of access to palliative care, not because of palliative care. Good-quality palliative care obviously can't work for everyone—I accept that—just as heart surgery can't work for 100 per cent of people. But, for the majority, palliative care is an experience that is essential in those terrible circumstances—and we've all been through those, I would say.

Having the option of voluntary assisted suicide means that people who would not otherwise consider it feel the pressure to do so, fearing that they'd be a burden on their loved ones, rather than simply expecting that they would be cared for, as is their right. There are terrible and very real stories of elderly people being neglected by family members so that they will choose suicide sooner. The Left of politics may dismiss these stories, but they do happen, and they are terribly tragic, as many of these stories are.

I want to conclude my remarks about this bill by saying, finally, that one can't address the topic without noting the way in which euthanasia fundamentally changes the doctor-patient relationship. The Ancient Greek Hippocratic oath, still a document—until recently—fundamental to the importance of Western practice of medicine, reads:

I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.

And:

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm.

We would like to think that as a society we are more enlightened than the Ancient Greeks regarding medical ethics. The dignity of the sick and the suffering and our obligation to help and comfort them has to be a paramount concern that cannot be forgotten. I think the answer to the question is clear, and it's for these reasons that I oppose the bill.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. The bill that is before us today is fundamentally about equality. It is about restoring the rights of the territory legislators so that they are equal to those of the state parliaments. By doing this, we restore the rights of electors in the ACT and the Northern Territory. For too long, people of the ACT and the NT have elected representatives in their territory parliaments who have fewer rights than those in state parliaments. Their parliaments have been specifically prevented from considering one particular issue. This prohibition makes our democracy unequal.

For 25 years our parliament has persisted in discriminating against certain citizens solely on the basis of where they live. What this bill is not about is voluntary assisted dying. The bill will not legalise voluntary assisted dying in either the ACT or the NT. Instead, it will finally allow the duly elected members of the ACT and Northern Territory assemblies to debate and consider the issue if that is what their parliaments wish to do.

We all know that any discussion of voluntary assisted dying arouses strong emotions and deeply held views. The debates that I have been involved in and have listened to in the past have usually been passionate and mostly very respectful. But as I said, this bill is not about voluntary assisted dying; it is about restoring the rights of the two parliaments that have been prevented from considering voluntary assisted dying to actually debate the issue, if that is the parliament's wish.

When the ACT and Northern Territory self-government acts were passed by the federal parliament in 1988 and 1978 respectively, both jurisdictions were granted general legislative powers. Both were specifically granted the power to make laws for the peace, order and good governance of their territory. These legislated rights were left unchallenged and unhindered until the Northern Territory assembly passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1995. The passage of the NT bill was one of the first of its kind in the world, so I understand why some in the community and this parliament were concerned about the consequences.

As many colleagues may recall, the controversy surrounding the passage of that bill through the NT assembly ultimately led to the former member for Menzies, Mr Kevin Andrews, introducing his private member's bill with the aim of overriding the legislation passed by the Northern Territory's legislative assembly. The passage of Mr Andrews' private member's bill also specifically removed the right of the ACT parliament to pass legislation that allowed for voluntary assisted dying. One of arguments used at the time in favour of the Andrews bill was that the territories should not be allowed to move before any of the state legislators. In other words, the territories weren't allowed to lead but they may—may—be allowed to follow; except, thanks to the Andrews bill, the territories aren't even allowed to follow.

Between the time of the passage of the Andrews bill in 1997 and the introduction of the legislation we are considering today, every state part parliament has passed legislation relating to voluntary assisted dying. The Victorian parliament passed legislation in 2017 followed by Western Australian parliament in 2019 then Queensland, South Australia and Tasmanian parliaments in 2021, and the New South Wales parliament earlier this year. All of these sovereign state parliaments have passed legislation that will allow their citizens to access voluntary assisted dying in strictly controlled circumstances, yet the citizens of the ACT and NT are prevented from debating these issues, let alone passing similar legislation, by an act of the federal parliament.

The passage of these various pieces of legislation stands in stark contrast to the specific prohibition of the ACT and NT parliament's ability to follow suit. So it is time for our parliament to restore the equality among the state and territory parliaments. To persist with the situation where state parliaments have more rates than territory parliaments is unjust and unfair. If the current situation is to persist, it will mean that citizens who live a short drive from this building, over the border in New South Wales, will continue to have more rights than those who live in the ACT. To continue to hold back the two territory parliaments is to hold back two jurisdictions from debating the very same laws that have been passed in every other state.

It is time for our parliament to restore the full rights of the NT and ACT parliaments to legislate for the peace, order and good governance of their territories in all respect. Not to do so is to say that the representatives and electors in the states should continue to have more rights than those in the territories. To continue to prevent two representative and duly elected bodies from discussing an issue that their respective communities want debated and addressed is fundamentally undemocratic.

The passage of the bill before us today would see the Northern Territory and the ACT fully reinstated as equal partners in our Commonwealth. Fundamentally, the Andrews bill, I believe, was wrong in 1997, and for it to stay in place in 2022 would send a clear message to the people of the ACT and the NT that this parliament does not see them as equals.

In drawing my remarks to a close, I will take this opportunity to place on the record my respect for and thanks to my colleagues from the two territories for their pursuit of equality for their parliaments and citizens. In particular, I'd like to congratulate Alicia Payne MP and Luke Gosling MP, both in the other place, for advocating so powerfully for the restoration of territory rights and for bringing forward this legislation. To my Senate colleague Malarndirri McCarthy I say: your advocacy for the rights of Northern Territorians is legendary, and I am pleased to be here today to support you in that quest. And, of course, I congratulate Senator Katy Gallagher for her outstanding work and advocacy on behalf of Canberrans.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of previous members and senators who have attempted to resolve this issue. I hope that this bill will succeed where others have not. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not the first time that we've traversed this issue in this place. In fact, back in 2018 a similar bill was defeated by only two votes, and I was one of them. In this very chamber I stood right over there on the other side and I spoke of section 122 of the Constitution and the inarguable position that the territories do not, as do the states, govern by way of constitutional right, and I remain a fervent believer in the importance of section 122. In this I have not changed my position.

Back then I also spoke about the danger of unicameral parliaments legislating for such consequential issues without the scrutiny of an upper house. And on this issue I am not quite so impassioned, because in 2018 only one state, Victoria, had passed legislation to allow for voluntary assisted dying, although it was yet to be enacted at that time. I know, through conversations with friends in the Victorian parliament, of the extraordinary rigour and scrutiny around that legislation, and now we have all states, including those with a unicameral parliament, adopting their own forms of voluntary assisted dying laws. The scrutiny has already been done: it has been done by other jurisdictions. The argument of unicameral weakness on this issue is, today, far less compelling.

But it was the issue of safeguards that caused me the most hesitation back then—the theory that someone vulnerable may be 'guilted' into deciding to end their life. 'No legislation can legislate against guilt,' I said back then. Well, two years later, in March 2020, I was to learn that, in practice, voluntary assisted dying legislation in my home state of Victoria had so many safeguards in place that it was almost insurmountable to navigate, and that was even for its most qualified and most determined participant: my father, Steve.

My dad was one of the statistics that was mentioned by Senator Antic—this is going to be difficult. Despite their Catholic upbringing and very conservative disposition, my parents had always been committed to exiting on their own terms. That was the phrase that they used. As lifelong Liberals, they felt that this was the ultimate expression of the individual. In the early 2000s they went to a forum by Philip Nitschke, who is the fervently pro assisted-dying physician and activist who was, in fact, the first doctor in the world to administer a legal lethal voluntary injection, under that short-lived Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1995. Dad said to me, after he went to that forum, that it was just so heartbreaking to see the desperation in the eyes of so many people there—people in pain; people who loved and looked after people in pain. And he and mum—fit, happy, healthy—never wanted that desperation for themselves.

The first time I realised dad was sick was in this building. When I was elected in 2016 I arranged for him and mum and my three kids to come to Canberra to see my maiden speech. I organised flights and taxis and a private tour of Parliament House and dinners and activities—all while I was wrapped up in that first week, that bewildering week, of being a new senator in this place. But dad wasn't himself. He was breathless; he was frustrated; he couldn't even make it around the building.

I looked recently at the video of my maiden speech. The camera panned onto him. He was sitting right up there. It panned onto him and mum. They're proud, certainly—you can see that—but you can see that dad is in pain and that mum, who had some health and mobility issues of her own, is confused and frightened by their combined helplessness. Over the next three years, dad went from doctor to doctor and to test after test and was diagnosed with absolutely everything from pneumonia to fibromyalgia to gout. He became increasingly unwell, uncomfortable and bad tempered, and each week was defined less by who or what my parents would be seeing, in friends or who St Kilda was playing that weekend, than by which doctor he would be visiting. When finally, in 2019, a random scan showed a shadow on his lung they operated and removed a cancer the size of a cantaloupe. By December he was readmitted to hospital because the cancer had returned, this time to his spine, and he had six months at best.

Exhausted by treatments, by endless trips to hospitals, on Christmas Eve 2019 I sat with him in his hospital room while he explained to his doctor that he no longer wanted to be treated and instead wanted to arrange to receive voluntary assisted dying. That was the beginning of a harrowing three months. His doctor tried to talk him out of it, insisting that palliative care was a better option. But when dad insisted, his doctor simply stopped responding to his requests. It was Christmas, and his medical team all went away on holidays. I don't deny them that; that's fair enough. But dad went downhill rapidly, not just physically but mentally, too.

The voluntary assisted dying safeguards mean that no family member can help organise, request or even discuss voluntary assisted dying. It must be the patient themselves. This is a good safeguard in theory but a very frustrating one when you are the daughter of a stridently adamant, single-minded but increasingly incapable father demanding your help and an overtired, emotional and physically weak mother and have an absent or potentially conscientious-objector team based in a Catholic hospital.

Finally, I called a colleague in the Victorian state parliament and asked them for advice as to how I could help dad navigate this system. She put me onto someone on the advisory panel who pointed me in the right direction—a hotline with no contact details and no voice message, just a simple and unidentifiable 'hello' at the other end. Once we moved past the not unexpected suspicion of a daughter calling on behalf of her father, the ball was put in motion. It took another six weeks of phone calls, demonstrations of competence, demonstrations of independence of mind, interrogation of me, interrogation of my sister and interrogation of my mother to ensure that we weren't applying inappropriate pressure on dad. We also had to go to increasing numbers of appointments—specialists' appointments, doctors' appointments—all of which were becoming increasingly difficult to get to, and show reams of medical certificates and emails to prove that dad's diagnosis was terminal. Everything seemed to rely on somebody else's willingness, somebody else's timetable—not dad's. So the safeguards that I questioned back then were not only there; they were almost insurmountable.

Now, by this stage, my once strong and very bombastic father had lost around 50 kilos. He wasn't eating. He wasn't sleeping. When he did sleep, he had the most terrifying nightmares that he would get up and fall over in the middle of the night. He couldn't shower by himself. He needed 24-hour supervision by a family member because, when he would fall over, mum was too weak to pick him up. He was becoming increasingly difficult to understand; his painkillers were so strong. He muddled his words, and he was genuinely worried that when the doctors would speak to him, they would think he had dementia and that would disqualify him from receiving voluntary assisted dying.

Then COVID hit. Doctors were diverted, restrictions were put in place, and although he had done absolutely everything that was needed, we were told it would still be another three weeks at least before the two voluntary assisted dying doctors could come to his home and show him what to do. When dad heard he had to live for another three weeks, he cried. Now, we were lucky with one thing. Knowing that dad had only three weeks to live and that the COVID restrictions were about to bite, we invited all of his friends over for a party and we drank his good champagne and his best wine from his cellar. It was essentially, whilst nobody said it out loud, a living wake. It was a really special day.

Then day zero finally came. Two men came to the house around 10 am. They were terribly kind, and they were terribly patient. They filled out the paperwork, they got dad's signature, they interviewed us all one last time. They showed dad what to do, they ensured he was competent to do it himself. There were more safeguards right up to the very end. When they left, it was all we could do to stop dad mixing up the mixture straight away, the moment the doors closed behind them. Instead, my kids came over to their grandparents' house. We had a cup of tea, we had some sandwiches, we told a few funny family stories of favourite holidays, happier times.

Then dad went to lie down, and when he was settled my kids went in to say their goodbyes. They left and took themselves back to my house, and then it was our turn. Mum went to speak to dad alone for a while, and then my sister and I joined them. We sat on the bed, and he told us how much he loved us, how proud he was of us. He made us promise to look after mum, and then he mixed up his medicine that he had been shown how to do and he drank it. We held his hand, we told him how much we loved him, and about three minutes later he very calmly and very peacefully and very quietly died.

Now, more than two years on, it's not a small thing to talk about this. Indeed, we will have family and friends who, because of their faith, will be very disappointed to have it confirmed that this was the pathway that my father chose, although I think they might have suspected as much, even if it wasn't spoken of at the time. Dad died on the very day the Prime Minister announced there was only a 10-person restriction on funerals, so we never had that cathartic family congregation with friends and family that would have allowed us to talk about his life or his death. He really loved that, because he never wanted a funeral anyway. He was almost as strident about that as he was about his right to die.

I read through some of the speeches on this issue from my colleagues in here and my colleagues in the other place, and particularly from those who will vote differently from me. They have used the arguments that I once used—all reasonable arguments: section 122, unicameral parliaments and safeguards. However, the most common refrain in any of those speeches is far less clinical, far less intellectual, but no less compelling: 'I know in my heart that this is wrong.' I respect this opinion because I once felt in my heart that it was wrong, too. I once voted against this legislation, but I will be voting in favour of it today.

We say in this place that when we make a decision, we will walk a mile in another man's shoes. Well, I have certainly done that. Having experienced it, having lived it, having held the hand of a person that I deeply loved as he died peacefully, as he died painlessly, as he died willingly and in the manner in which he wanted, the manner in which he had always wanted, and at the time of his choosing, I now feel very, very differently. It was truly a beautiful death.

To those Australians who live in the territories, rather than in any other part of the country that's represented in this chamber, I say to you: who am I to deny you the choice to leave this Earth in the same beautiful way as did my father, Steve. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, I would like to convey my appreciation to Senator Hume for demonstrating her courage, for sharing her grief and her loss, and for being so open with her feelings and what moved her. I also want to commend Senator Alex Antic for his statements a few speakers ago. I will be following in his footsteps.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that the name of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 is deceptive and misleading. In reality it's a backdoor attempt to introduce legalised euthanasia into territory law. This is what occurred with the ill fated Rights of The Terminally Ill Act 1995 that the Northern Territory parliament passed. Two years later, in 1997, Kevin Andrews sponsored Commonwealth legislation, the Euthanasia Laws Act, which reversed the Territory's act. The Northern Territory's act was responsible for the killing of four people. Several others, who had not even satisfied the criteria of the act, were still approved for death using lethal injection.

The Constitution intended that territories do not have the same legislative power of a state, and that remains the case. The Commonwealth parliament may pass legislation on a territory issue, including invalidating a territory law. This is constitutionally correct and it is exactly what happened previously. If the territories wish to exercise the same powers as a state, then the territories need to go through the process of becoming a state. This requires a referendum of territory voters. The last time such a referendum was held, Northern Territory voters rejected the move. They rejected statehood and all the responsibilities that come with it. I am in favour of states' rights, and I've spoken very much about that in this chamber. I'm in favour of states' rights and minimal central or federal government. I will not, though, use that deceptively to get around the fundamental primacy of human life.

I reject this bill before the Senate today because it devalues the lives of those whose needs are not being met, through the failure of government to put in place appropriate palliative care resources. Such resources are conspicuously absent in the Northern Territory now and were absent during the 1995-96 period. That is inhuman. That is the real issue that needs to be addressed. Labor and Liberal-National governments all too often contravene our precious federal Constitution, the governing document of our land, the highest law. I oppose violating the intent of our Constitution yet again. We need to always uphold our Constitution.

After listening to Senator Alex Antic, I commend him and endorse his comments. I agree with Senator Antic that this bill's message is simply that some lives are not worth living. This draws a terrible line that can be shifted in the future. Gradualism is a recognised tactic of those who push antihuman and transhuman policies, such as the senior levels of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, which are openly pushing such transhuman, inhuman and antihuman policies. It's widely used, gradualism. Government has three roles: protect life, protect property and protect freedom. The first is to protect life. I support the primacy of human life and I oppose this bill.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After listening to Senator Hume's speech today I think there's very little more one should really feel they need to say in this debate. But I do want to put my own remarks on the record, in particular because Western Australia has now had the benefit of voluntary assisted dying laws for some time. It's true to say that the uptake has been somewhat larger than initially expected. I put that down to the number of families and people who are in exactly the kinds of shoes of Senator Hume and her father. There have been, as I understand it, some 170 deaths using Western Australia's voluntary assisted dying laws.

I have always been pro-voluntary assisted dying. I haven't had the need for it for people close to me in my own family. However, I have spoken to a great many citizens in my own home state of Western Australia who saw the need for it in the context of their own lives and family experiences. Indeed, my own mother lobbied me. She is 83 and very healthy. She wants the confidence that, should it come to it, should she be in the kind of circumstances that Senator Hume outlined for her father, she would like to be able to access voluntary assisted dying in Western Australia, which brings me to this point. In the case of the ACT you could not have a more pro-voluntary assisted dying jurisdiction in the country. You could not have a more pro jurisdiction in the whole of the nation. Yet, they are the last—along with the Northern Territory—to be able to discuss these issues, debate them and implement them on their own terms. It is patently ridiculous that this is the case.

I say to senators here who oppose this legislation: either we can give the right back to the territories to decide these issues for themselves or this place has an obligation to implement voluntary assisted dying for the ACT. There's no reason that the rights of individuals should be so far behind that of other jurisdictions who have access to voluntary assisted dying already.

The jurisdiction of the ACT could not have, frankly, a more demanding demographic asking for the protection of these laws should they ever need them here in the ACT. We have a jurisdiction that has some of the most progressive and open laws around the possession of marijuana, for example. We haven't taken away the ACT's rights on those questions.

If this place can't allow itself to give the right back to the ACT to pass its own laws, well, what then? Are we simply going to sit here forever, because of the moral conscience of those who are deeply opposed to euthanasia in this place, and, therefore, that conscience leads them to decide that they're going to vote against giving that right to the ACT and the Northern Territory? That could be the outcome, but I hope the numbers are better than that.

It is patently ridiculous that, should we fail, it would be an inevitable consequence that this place would have to think about the citizens it governs because it has not let the ACT and the Northern Territory govern on these questions for themselves. We are simply debating the issue of giving them the right to govern for themselves on these questions. Should we deprive them of that right? It does not take the substantive issue away. As a federal parliament that has the power to intervene in these matters and take that right away, it should frankly mean we would have to debate the introduction and application of laws in the territories to implement voluntary assisted dying.

But who is better to debate those laws? As Senator McCarthy so eloquently outlined, she wants her Territory to have that right back for itself. She would perhaps advocate against the eventual passing of such laws in the Territory. But, again, we need the parliament to be close to the people on these questions. The Northern Territory has diverse First Nations communities to work with, just as my own home state of Western Australia does.

In the case of the ACT, you could not have a more pro-euthanasia, pro-voluntary-assisted-dying jurisdiction. It would be the most pro jurisdiction in the country, just as it was the most pro-marriage-equality jurisdiction in the country. I very much hope that this legislation passes and that the ACT government is already thinking about what these laws would look like with the right protections but, I would hope, not-too-onerous protections. There is very much a balance to get right here, as Senator Hume's very moving speech outlined.

I know these are deeply personal issues. If you are anti-voluntary assisted dying, that is a matter for you and the people you influence in your family. But there is a dire need to support families who are grappling with these issues. Locally in Western Australia there is a very active service doing a great job navigating the voluntary assisted dying laws—not only use of those laws but also strong palliative care support, because many people will pass before they need the use of such legislation.

I thank the Senate for its indulgence in hearing my remarks on this question today. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some remarks on this important bill, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. I note there was a prior version of this bill flagged for pretty limited discussion, I must say, in the last parliament by former Senator McMahon. I am very pleased that arrangements have been made to allow senators to make some statements on these matters. I have listened carefully to the various contributions that have been made, and my own view is that it is very hard to separate the issue that has been the driver of this 25-year-old bill from the issue of territory rights. I talk, of course, of voluntary assisted dying.

My general philosophy for political contribution has been one of 'live and let live', which, I think, is an important cornerstone of Australian liberalism and is a philosophy which is shared by other members and senators in this place in various forms. That is the key principle that drives me here in making comments about the issue of voluntary assisted dying.

In relation to the issue of self-government, I think that we are clearly half-pregnant on this issue here in this federal parliament. Either we have decided to grant self-government to the territories—the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory—or we have not. The last time I looked, we had decided to do that, and therefore, if we have decided to grant self-government, then we ought to allow those assemblies to get on with the job of making the laws for their citizens. We have this dreadful situation where my constituents, who live in southern New South Wales, can access voluntary assisted dying, but of course the people of the Capital Territory cannot access the same services should they wish. And there's no way they can get those services, because the jurisdiction in which they live has been granted self-government but the federal parliament has taken away that assembly's right to make laws in some areas, which makes it patently unfair. It's very unfair. So I think it is an issue of democratic civil rights being at stake here, and I am hopeful that this parliament will now overturn what has been a very unjust law which has denied basic access to civil rights in relation to voluntary assisted dying.

For disclosure purposes, I will say that I have spent parts of my life in Canberra, in the Capital Territory, and I don't regard the people who live here as being second-class citizens in Australia. I think that every Australian deserves to have access to the same rights and opportunities. Certainly this law—the 'Andrews bill' when it was enacted—has denied access to equal rights. I do note that it was enacted at a time when the Northern Territory had decided to go it alone and to put in place the first voluntary assisted dying laws in the Commonwealth. But, in 2022—I don't seek to repeat all the arguments that have been made here, but I think it is important for the record to note—we now stand here with the position that the only jurisdictions on the mainland that cannot get access to these services are the territories, because of a 25-year-old law. So, as I say, I think that we should get on, and I hope that we can have a vote on this sooner rather than later. But it is impossible to separate the issue of territory rights from this substantive matter which led to the Andrews bill being enacted wrongly by this parliament.

I note that, of course, there was a stronger case for the Andrews bill perhaps 25 years ago than there is today, where I see no case at all for the Andrews bill. But we are after all a secular nation, and in general terms I think that the 'live and let live' credo is one that can apply across the board. If this bill is successful, it is now up to the legislatures of the territories to enact their own laws, make their own judgements and be accountable to their own citizens. I imagine that, in doing so, they will seek to enact protections so that voluntary assisted dying remains just that—voluntary assisted dying. It is a judgement for individuals to make in accordance with medical professionals and certainly not a right that the federal parliament should try and steal from the territories.

So at the end of the day, there are strong parallels to recent discussions this parliament has had about expanding civil rights like marriage equality. We should always seek to progress the ability of all citizens to access the same rights and services in our country. None of this of course is compulsory. If you don't want to use these services you don't have too, so I entirely reject the argument that enacting or removing the Andrews bill will open the floodgates. Certainly, the protections that have been put in place in the states have shown that the protections can and do work. I thank very much the Senate today for facilitating this debate. I hope it is not too long until we can go to a vote on this important matter.

Debate interrupted.

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

It being 12:15, we shall now proceed to statements by senators.