David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate our party's support for the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. The coalition's decision to prevent territory governments passing assisted dying laws was always deeply cynical, inappropriate and undemocratic. The Greens opposed that measure the time, we have been consistent in supporting efforts to overturn it ever since and as a party we support this bill to overturn that move. Indeed the Greens are the only party that has a clear position to support the urgent repeal of the 1997 so-called Andrews bill, and we do this as part of a long track record of supporting territory rights.

I do want to commend the different speakers in this debate for the way in which they have positioned the discussion on territory rights. I particularly commend the contribution of Senator Pocock and Senator Davey's recent contribution, frontlining the right of people in the ACT and the Northern Territory to have the same rights as citizens across this country. If citizens of the states, residents of the states, are allowed access to voluntary assisted dying schemes then the Greens fundamentally believe that citizens of the territories must also have that right, and this should be the case for all other legislative rights that the democratically elected bodies of the ACT and the Northern Territory choose to adopt for their respective territories. Indeed this proposal should not even be controversial.

For the Greens this is not a conscience vote, and we hear the discussion amongst other parties that this, because it may involve some moral issue, is descending into a conscience vote, where individual senators will choose which way they vote. The Greens see this as a matter of principle first of all about the rights of territory citizens to have the ultimate say through their elected bodies about what laws should apply to them and what rights they should have, but we also adopt it as a matter of principle when it comes to voluntary assisted dying. This is a matter again on which the Greens unite on principle, and I believe we are the only party uniting on those core principles in this debate. If people who live in states are allowed access to voluntary assisted dying schemes then it goes without saying that those same rights need to be able to be extended to the territories if their democratically elected representatives choose to legislate so.

Over the last two decades the Greens have been a key part of the work in different states and territories to deliver the right to assisted dying laws and to give people, often in unbearable pain or facing the impossible loss of self and dignity, choices and empowerment around their death. Terminally ill people in pain have a right to choose to die with dignity, provided appropriate safeguards are put in place. To the people who have been bravely advocating for access to voluntary assisted dying for themselves and their family members as part of this debate: I recognise the strength and the power of your advocacy and want to state clearly that the last years or months of your life should not be spent advocating for the right to make choices about your own life. The last years and months of your life should be focused on family, should be focused on self. But too often we've seen brave advocates spend those last months fighting with politicians for the right to die with dignity. It's time that ended. It's time the right was entrenched in the territories and the states.

Indeed, regulating voluntary assisted dying has been the call of the great majority of the medical profession across the country. It provides a clear framework for doctors, nurses and healthcare workers to use when dealing with terminally ill patients who are in immense pain and who are asking for the right to choose when to end their pain and their indignity. Legislating for clear voluntary assisted dying laws provides that clarity and enables health workers and doctors to get on with doing their jobs and putting the rights and needs of their patients first. It also provides clear, unambiguous pathways to prevent what can be very serious legal consequences for the medical profession if they get the call wrong in an unregulated environment.

Inbuilt protections in the schemes that have now been legislated across the country show how voluntary assisted dying can unite political debates. There are appropriate checks and balances in each state jurisdiction to ensure sound decision-making, to prevent inappropriate pressure and to prevent the kinds of highly inflated rhetorical instances that are often used in this debate by opponents of voluntary assisted dying laws, such as we've heard from some senators in their contributions. Arguments that this will be abused by gold-digging relatives have not stacked up in the experience in states around the country that have legislated for voluntary assisted dying. The move of adopting this bill would clear the path for progress on voluntary assisted dying in both territories.

It's a sad tale for those families and individuals who have been seeking the help of their legislatures in the Northern Territory and the ACT since 1995. It was in 1995 that the NT became one of the first jurisdictions on the planet to legislate for assisted dying laws. Within less than two years, a political backlash saw the then Howard government support the Andrews bill and override the right of the Northern Territory to legislate. But since then—and it's been through the courage of survivors, families, patients and doctors—we finally saw laws passed in Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia in I think 2019. We saw laws pass in South Australia and Queensland in 2021, and just this year we saw laws for voluntary assisted dying finally pass in New South Wales. I was grateful for the opportunity, as one of my last contributions as a member of the New South Wales parliament, to speak with my Greens colleagues in support of those New South Wales laws to finally legislate for voluntary assisted dying in New South Wales.

So, every part of the Commonwealth now has these laws except the ACT and the Northern Territory, who are prevented from moving forward, from determining their own democratic future, by an offensive law, supported by this parliament, that dates back to 1997 and that we can strike off the statute books if we support this bill. Dying with Dignity describes voluntary assisted dying laws as:

… legislation that enables competent adults, experiencing unrelievable suffering from a terminal or incurable illness, to receive medical assistance to end their life peacefully, at a time of their choosing.

Dying with Dignity says:

We need a better method of end of life care than unbearable suffering.

Indeed, when I was a state MP and we were moving forward and legislating on voluntary assisted dying, I had many, many family members talk about how they lost critical months with their mum or their dad because their mum or their dad felt that they had to move forward and end their life while they were still physically capable of doing so, before their illness descended into incapacity and prevented their ability to act. They didn't want to have their family members caught up in the legal dangers of assisting the end of their life, so they lost months and months with their family members, and they died alone without help because the law forced them down that path. They had no open, clear, legislated pathway to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing with appropriate safeguards and with their family around them. This parliament is preventing the ACT and the Northern Territory legislating for voluntary assisted dying, which is causing those people, in unbearable pain and suffering, to often end their lives isolated from families and in secret. They are hiding the truth from their families and the situation is stealing those critical months and weeks from families. It's time we ended that.

Opponents of these laws will say that improved palliative care is the answer. But we have been told by the profession and by family members that, yes, there is a desperate need to increase palliative care, and of course we should all unite and support that. But, tragically, there will be many cases where it will never be sufficient. There will still be cases that are deeply, deeply distressing for people in the last weeks and months of their lives, and for their families, who see this unbearable suffering, where the pain and the sheer indignity of the illness cannot be meaningfully ameliorated by palliative care. That's the pathway that's open through voluntary assisted dying laws, to give people empowerment and choice in those situations. The current situation that this bill seeks to address is where a person who lives in the ACT or the Northern Territory is in great physical suffering and approaching the end of their life. This parliament has said that they must continue to endure their suffering. They have no choice because of a cynical political decision made by this place in 1997. Your end-of-life choices should not be dictated by former minister Andrews or former prime minister John Howard. People have a right to choose and their elected representatives have the right to make laws.

I'll finish with a contribution from the ACT Attorney-General, Shane Rattenbury, who said this:

It's absolutely time these discriminatory restrictions were removed, and we ask the Attorneys-General of Australia to support us in this call.

It is very simple: if citizens of the States are allowed access to voluntary assisted dying schemes, citizens of the Territories should also be allowed.

Residents of the Territories are being treated as second-class citizens. The imposed restriction on our ability to legislate on voluntary assisted dying is inequitable and undemocratic.

Voluntary assisted dying is a deeply important issue to people in the ACT, and we should be permitted to consider this issue within our own democratically elected parliaments.

I endorse the words of the ACT Attorney-General and the Greens collectively commend this bill to the House—not as a matter of conscience but as a matter of principle.