Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I too seek to make a contribution to the debate on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. It's interesting, and I reflect on the contribution made by my colleague Senator McLachlan. It's an important distinction to make around the eventual intent of the bill relating to, specifically, voluntary assisted dying as opposed to putting the territories of this Commonwealth on the same footing as states.

Before I turn to that issue, I want to start my contribution by reflecting on how difficult and complex this issue is for many Australians, for those who've had personal experiences—family members or friends who have experienced a terrible end to their life and who have sought the services that would be available to them under a legalised arrangement, such as this bill would enable to be contemplated in territories in Australia. I don't want to diminish that at all. I acknowledge the pain that so many people have felt, and friends of my own have gone through some terrible journeys. We've heard many accounts in the debate on this bill thus far and, indeed, in previous versions of it.

In doing that, I think it is important to reflect on what this bill does, what it seeks to do and what consequences may flow from affirming this bill, by passing it and enabling territories to perhaps legislate on the issue of euthanasia. Reflecting again, though, on the fact that the bill does talk about restoring rights to territories, I think it is important to focus on the fact that this bill does singularly enable territories to legislate with regard to one issue, and that is the matter of assisted dying.

It doesn't alter other constitutional arrangements. It doesn't alter issues around resourcing and responsibility for service delivery in the jurisdictions we're talking about here. It doesn't change any of those matters. It simply allows territories to legislate on the matter of voluntary assisted dying, on the matter of euthanasia. It isn't about equality between states and territories. It is important to remind ourselves of that as we proceed to eventually vote on this bill.

Turning to that substantive issue, the ultimate end point here about legislating to enable people to access assisted dying, as this bill would enable contemplation of, I think does deserve serious contemplation. I don't know that the bill does it justice, given that's where we end up. If this bill is passed, the reality is that we are legislating for assisted dying.

At the outset, I want to indicate that I won't be supporting the bill. There are a range of reasons for that, that I've given great thought to over a long period of time. This is not the first time I've thought about this issue. This parliament debated this issue in 2018. With my involvement in politics over many years, I've observed this debate occur in different parliaments, including this one, and have considered the views that have been put forward.

For many across Australia, faith is a reason to vote against such legislation. I'm one of those. As a Christian I believe that life is a gift from God and one that you must be very grateful for and take very seriously. It's on that basis that I fundamentally find great difficulty in what's proposed through this bill. I put this very personal aspect to my thinking on this on record because it is a conscience issue. It is a matter that we are dealing with in conscience.

I want to reflect on the respect with which the debate has occurred in this chamber. It shows that on serious issues we as a parliament, senators in this place, can operate with respect of one another's views while holding different ones ourselves. For me, one of the central reasons I will not be supporting this bill is because of my faith and how I view life. I know I'm not alone in that view and why I hold it, but there are a range of reasons. Many Australians have concerns about, or objections to, this bill and what it will do.

This debate is one that has happened, as I said before, in many, many parliaments across this country and, indeed, across other legislatures across the world. In the United States, for example, between the years 1994 and 2011, there were 122 attempts in Congress and different state legislatures to legislate for voluntary assisted dying or euthanasia. As I examined the issues that have previously been canvassed, I think it's important to note that a lot of the issues that have been raised in these previous debates haven't been addressed satisfactorily to my mind and certainly, I know, to the minds of others that I've corresponded with as I've engaged with members of the community on this issue. Fundamentally, I have to say I remain very concerned that there'll never be a way to completely ensure that any abuses, malfeasance or any other negative activity that might occur can be prevented from occurring by legislating.

I was drawn to an article authored by Mark Powell nearly four years ago now in a publication here in Australia. He outlined 10 non-religious reasons which I thought sum up many of the issues that have been raised in other debates around the country and around the world that I think we do need to consider and pay attention to if we do intend to legislate on these issues, as this bill—if passed—would enable certain parts of our country to do. And I think, going through those reasons, it's important to draw breath and weigh up what actually will happen here.

I know others have considered the issue of the role of the medical practice. What are medical professionals to do? The first concern, of course, is around bioethics: are doctors healers, helpers or killers? In the United Kingdom, a survey showed that the majority of doctors didn't support the practice of euthanasia. Indeed, here in Australia, the AMA has been critical of the practice. Dr Chris Middleton stated:

… I think it would completely change the mindset and the ethos of medicine in Australia because in their practice in training, doctors tend to see themselves as agents of hope and healing and comfort and certainly not as agents of death …

That does change the focus of the role of the medical practitioner who is seeking to heal and to help. That is one thing we need to consider. Does a change of this nature change that relationship and the role of the doctor as well?

Secondly, there is the potential for elder abuse. The European Court of Human Rights stated that that the risk of abuse inherent in a system which facilitated assisted suicide should not be underestimated. Jeremy Pritchard wrote in an op-ed in the Examiner in my home state of Tasmania:

In coming decades we face a rapidly aging population, a shrinking tax base and increases in health problems like dementia…euthanasia could form part of government planning for service provision for people nearing end-of-life…If that sounds far-fetched, consider two cases from Oregon where patients' applications for medical treatment were rejected, but followed by departmental notifications informing the patients they were eligible for assisted dying.

I think those sorts of examples are things to be very concerned about. When these options are available, perhaps government entities might well turn to them as a way of dealing with some of these issues.

Psychological pressure is a third concern to consider around ending one's life. There were statistics taken from the state of Oregon in the United States. Oregon, of course, legalised euthanasia in 1997. There was a study undertaken around people's attitudes in this case on the issue of pressure—a concern around wanting not to be a burden to their family or friends and citing that as a reason to elect to be euthanised. In 1998, 12 per cent of those surveyed indicated that that was a reason for their electing to voluntarily suicide. In 1999, that went up to 26 per cent. In the year 2000, that was at 63 per cent. Fast forward to 2012 and, according to the statistics available to me, that was at 57 per cent. So people are citing wanting not to be a burden as a reason to elect out of this life.

The fourth reason is the negative societal perception of those who have a disability, with death being treated as an act of compassion. As stated by Jeremy Prichard and another author, there is a claim or an 'implication that some people are "better off dead" and that "some lives are not worth living"'. They're phrases that I think we need to be very wary of, but they're ones that have been used in this debate across the globe.

The issue of bracket creep is another concern, and it's something that has been observed in other countries where euthanasia has been legalised. If that is the wish of the family, and they've pressured a patient to choose to be euthanised, what sorts of practices are we enabling to be included in that? What sorts of reasons are we enabling to be included as legitimate reasons to elect to voluntarily end one's life? Bracket creep is something very, very serious that we need to take into account.

Safeguards are of course something that we need to consider. Again, I mention this point around never being able to properly ensure that there will never be any abuse of these laws. The same document I've already referred to by Jeremy Prichard states:

In the Flanders region of Belgium approximately half of euthanasia cases are not formally monitored as doctors do not report them to authorities. The rate of underreporting in the Netherlands appears to be between 20%-23%.

It also says that in the state of Oregon the number of people being referred for psychiatric evaluation has decreased markedly. It went from 31 per cent in 1998, the year after voluntary assisted dying was legalised, to two per cent in 2012—the same period of time.

Obviously, there are concerns around non-voluntary euthanasia in Belgium, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002. It's been claimed that people have been put to death without consent. Providing surety around preventing that from happening is I think something we'll never be able to do, given the nature of relationships between carers, patients and family members. We've already talked about some of those concerns.

I could go on with a lot more around the concerns and claims that have been experienced in other jurisdictions as reasons not to head down this path. I cannot find one reason to do so, as I said before, on the basis of my faith and my belief in the sanctity of life. Also, importantly, I cannot find one reason to wave through legislation that would enable jurisdictions in this country to legislate for something that I don't think can ever be done safely or can ever be done in a way in which we can prevent there being abuse, malfeasance, bracket creep and pressure on individuals to end their lives for reasons not entirely pure.

I acknowledge the difficulty so many in our community face with this issue, with family members who've experienced extreme pain as they have ended their lives and with people who've witnessed family members suffering terribly. I acknowledge the difficulty and the complexity of the issues they've faced. But, for those reasons and the risks I've outlined, I cannot support this bill.