Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's always an honour and a privilege to speak on matters that are of such import in the community and to enter the chamber when there is clearly a very considered and respectful debate underway. This morning I was listening to a philosophy show on Radio National where presenters Waleed Aly and his co-host were talking about the strident voice of debate in the modern place and the discourse practices that are engendered by social media algorithms that lead to more outrage. I think it's very important to note that the quality and standard of this debate is moving away from that.

I rise to speak on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. I acknowledge that this is a very emotive debate and a source of tremendous suffering and anguish for many people here and many we seek to represent. I acknowledge the grief, loss and personal truth of every account by senators here who've shared their life experiences of losing someone that they love in both this debate today and in the previous debate on this matter. I certainly respect the diversity of views that have been put respectfully on the record in the course of the debate I have my own history, as others do, of grief and loss, and it's a lens that colours what I feel about this issue.

We're called on in this place to combine that journey of the heart with the intellectual endeavour to interrogate the legislation that comes before us. I will endeavour to do that in my contribution. I also want to acknowledge that my contribution is formed by my faith perspective as a practising garden-variety Catholic, as I call myself. I hate to be thought of as devout because that could be a standard I'd never be able to live up to. The reality is that, as a person of faith, I do represent a range of views across that Catholic faith and also across other communities of faith that hold views about life that are at the core of what is being debated here and what will then be debated if this legislation is advanced in the two territory jurisdictions concerned.

I want to make a claim for the importance of a faith perspective in this debate, and I want to use the words of the Canadian legal philosopher, Margaret Somerville:

Those wanting to exclude religion from the public square have created confusion among freedom of religion, freedom for religion, and freedom from religion. Freedom of religion means the state does not impose a religion on its citizens: there is no state religion. Freedom for religion means the state does not restrict the free practice of religion by its citizens. Freedom from religion means the state excludes religion and religious voices from the public square, particularly in relation to making law and public policy. The first two freedoms are valid expressions of the doctrine of the separation of church and state. The third is not.

That is why I think it's important in this particular debate, which goes to matters of life not just to state rights—these two are absolutely intertwined in this legislation—to put on the record a faith perspective and a life perspective, which I bring as a representative of that group of people in the community.

This bill is about euthanasia; let's make no mistake about it. The only amendment that this bill will make is to remove the prohibition that the federal parliament made under its constitutional powers to prohibit euthanasia in the territories. I know that there have been many earnest contributions to this debate that, no doubt with good intent, call us to avert our eyes from the substantive issue at the heart of the bill. Many will say—and, indeed, have said—that this bill is just about the legislative rights of the territories, but that is only one small element of the bill. The greater, substantive part deserves consideration.

Let me say clearly: history will show that this bill is about giving territories of this nation the green light to go ahead with enacting legislation that will make it legal for physicians to terminate the lives of their patients and to assist patients to take their own lives. I think a review of the contributions of those who will support the bill will show that, as much as they declare it is not so, they indeed do know that enabling state-sanctioned suicide in the ACT and the Northern Territory is, in fact, exactly what they are seeking to achieve today. Those contributions—and I acknowledge the contribution of Senator Pocock who spoke in this place just before me—herald the sort of debate which is going to advance that purpose and which is the trigger for that to happen. These two things are intertwined; they are not separate. So the substantive debate does matter, I think, in this place.

The legislation that passed this parliament in the form of the Euthanasia Laws Act in 1997 was about euthanasia. That word isn't used in this new bill; it uses the lexicon of 'assisted suicide'. This bill would allow matters of life and death to be determined in unicameral parliaments where there is no house of review. I note that Senator Pocock notes that Queensland, which is unicameral, has advanced legislation. It is also a much larger state. These two territories are not seeking to become states; they will remain territories. That is in alignment with the scale of the population they have and the resources they have, with the requirement of support from the rest of the federation. So there is something unique about the Northern Territory and the ACT.

I also note important remarks from colleagues and community leaders about the particular vulnerability of the First Nations people, the Indigenous people, particularly in the Northern Territory. Although I don't want to underplay the important contribution of the First Nations people here in the ACT—the land of the Ngunnawal and the Ngambri people who we acknowledge every single day—so much of the population of the Northern Territory is First Nations people, the Indigenous people of the north. The impacts of this bill are unlikely to be known before the passage of this legislation. I do take on board that, if this legislation passes, as it appears it will, it's important going forward that this very important constituency, which doesn't yet have a voice to this place, is taken very much into account when the debate is considered in the Northern Territory. I think that goes to issues of resource capacity as well. It's one thing to think about what enacting voluntary assisted dying laws, or euthanasia laws, in the ACT might look like; it's an entirely different matter to look at it in the context of the Northern Territory with its very dispersed population with incredibly different levels of access to services, including health services—mental health services, physical health services and palliative care.

In 2014, during the Victorian state debate, 105 of Australia's 148 palliative medicine specialists—that's 70 per cent of the profession—wrote an open letter in which they stated that euthanasia advocates actively and deliberately undermine confidence in palliative care. At the time the vote passed the Victorian parliament, Victoria had the lowest level of palliative care specialists per capita in the country. That is, in my view, very instructive and it's part of what's driven this debate. It reveals that the first state to enact legislation to allow assisted suicide was the least well served in terms of expert palliation advice and access. I think it would've been very helpful to have an inquiry at this point in time, to give some deep consideration to any shifts in the level of palliation that's available in the jurisdictions that have adopted euthanasia laws.

Much has been made, very appropriately, of the pain that people have witnessed on the passing of someone they love. I don't doubt for a single moment that senators, both in this debate and in the previous debate, have authentically revealed their experiences of witnessing that pain and their own deeply personal encounters with the death of a loved one and that that informs their view in this debate. Indeed, I recall one day in the course of my own father's dying when palliation failed him as an aggressive brain tumour progressed. He was very much in pain, and we were very distressed. Seeing that sort of thing makes you question everything. But his palliation was able to be adjusted, and he continued his farewell to us with very little pain over the following weeks. He reached his 49th birthday not long before he passed. That was 35 years ago. Things do change. Things have changed. But death is ever with us. Saying goodbye to a loved one is always a fraught experience. There's no doubt amongst palliation specialists that there's been a marked improvement in the field over that time. I acknowledge the powerful contributions of many senators who have called for an increase in the level of resourcing and the enablement of ever-improving palliation practices, including quality mental health and psychological supports that ameliorate the challenge of a journey to death.

In response to many claims about pain management that have been characteristic of this debate—in the public and here in the Senate—I want to make a few remarks about the claims that pain management is the most pressing reason for advancing legal assisted suicide. Just how significant is pain as a factor in the decision-making of those who actively seek suicide in jurisdictions where it's currently enabled? The most instructive piece of research I was able to locate was in the Oregon public health report of 2016. For the 1,127 patients in the state who died from ingesting a lethal dose of medication, the data revealed the real reasons for that action. Somewhat surprisingly, neither pain nor fear of pain was cited by those people who took their own lives as the main reason that they sought assisted suicide. In fact, 296 of those 1,127 people, or 26.3 per cent, indicated that pain control was a factor for them. That is not an insubstantial amount—a quarter—but, to be fair, let me put on the record that the most often cited reason for assisted suicide in the Oregon study, at 91 per cent, was the steady loss of autonomy. Being less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable was a reason cited by 89.7 per cent. For 77 per cent it was the loss of dignity that motivated their assisted suicide. Loss of control of bodily functions, such as incontinence and vomiting, was the reason cited by 46.8 per cent. It's important to note that the two reasons most cited by people who died by assisted suicide reveal that it was their feelings about their lives, their concerns about others' views of their lives, that prompted them to take action. That is really what worries me at the heart of this debate. As much as we've talked about pain, it's people feeling they are a burden, people so overwhelmed by the social mores of our time that they think that to lose some control of bodily functions is a loss of dignity. To a Catholic, the dignity of a person is fundamental, regardless of what they look like or what they can do, or how old or how infirm they are. That belief in the essence of life is actually what informs a theological position that is opposed to voluntary assisted dying.

I want to put on the record, in the few moments remaining to me, a recollection of attending a public meeting in the lead-up to the now long ago 2001 federal election. Labor's Kim Beazley and our candidate for the seat at the time, Trish Moran, arrived at Kincumber High School. It was a well-attended meeting, and it was surrounded by a large number of people from the local retirement villages who had very strong views about euthanasia—and I do believe that they were really for it. When he was asked a question, Mr Beazley spoke about his experience of taking evidence in a parliamentary hearing. He spoke of a young man and his sister who had come to the inquiry and who had insisted that assisted suicide should be enabled because their mother was a perfect example of someone who was spending their inheritance on her health care, and they should have access to that.

Now, Mr Beazley rightly pointed out that people who want assisted suicide and people who are arguing passionately for it here in the chamber are not motivated by that kind of intent. Nonetheless, these motivations do exist in our community, and we're wise to heed them as we make law for this country. We have to make it for all people, and we have to cover those who have malintent. Mr Beazley finished with—and these words still echo in my head—'I don't know what kind of a mother you had, but there's very little my mother wouldn't have done or given up in order for me to have a better life.' That motivation can lead to egregious practice; we are battling an epidemic of elder abuse. These are contexts that actually should be informing a decision in this debate.

I also remain concerned about the message that euthanasia sends, in my view, to those suffering mental health troubles and to people who are suffering from a disability. A moment, or an extended series of moments, when you can't access services can make voluntary assisted dying seem a lot more appealing than fighting for access to services that should be your right in a country as large, as sophisticated and as successful as Australia—the 12th largest economy in the world. When you feel bad, so bad that you want to die, treatment doesn't work, you should end your own life—I think the easy movement to that can be a very dangerous thing. I'm looking at Senator Perin Davey, and I know that she cares about access to services in the regions, as I do, and that this is another layer of concern.

I want to thank colleagues for their participation in this debate, and I've put my words on the record. I hope that we find a safe way through this for the Australian people.