Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that motion No. 546, relating to the right to die with dignity, be taken as a formal motion.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is an objection to this motion being taken as formal, Senator.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent him moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion no. 546.

I was prepared to simply have a count of the voices on that motion but, seeing as formality has been denied, I hope whoever denied it—Senator George Campbell—will let us know why. It is a very simple motion about the right of Australians to die with dignity. I particularly wanted it dealt with today because we are approaching the 10th anniversary of the death of Bob Dent, the first person to have a legally assisted and compassionate death under the Northern Territory euthanasia laws. There were four such people before there was as override from this parliament. That happened in March 1997 finally, with the passage of a private member’s bill known as the Andrews legislation.

It is high time that we revisited this issue, because we as a mature nation ought to be moving to allow Australians to die with dignity. The obvious alternative viewpoint is that Australians do not have the right to die with dignity, and to block a vote on the matter is to lead me to now call for a debate on the matter. That, of course, will be determined by the vote that is going to follow after this very short debate. It is an important matter. It should not be swept under the carpet and it is a matter for debate. I know that there will be the argument that this is not the way to do it, that it should be done in some other forum or that we should be debating it in some other way. But, if you look at the record, nobody brought it forward in the long intervening period until I did now.

As a former doctor, I am aware through the Medical Journal of Australia that there are some 4,000 assisted compassionate deaths by doctors in Australia at the moment. We ought to legalise the matter. We ought to ensure that those Australian citizens who are dying from a terminal illness without chance of a recovery, who are suffering and who find indignity in the long process of death in an age when the dying process as well as the living process in our society is becoming longer, have a right to a determination to end the indignity and the suffering and, with their families and with the backup of proper medical authority, are able to have a release from that suffering.

The matter is important. I will listen carefully to the debate. I suspect there will be statements that this is not the proper way to do it. Senator Allison has a bill on the Notice Paper. I have spoken with her about that, and I support that bill. In fact, I was moving for the same legislation to be brought forward on the Notice Paper. We will be moving to have that brought up for debate, and let the debate be enjoined. The worst thing is to have our heads in the sand—to be trying to deny that as we sit here comfortably today there are people in very undignified circumstances in a slow, prolonged dying process in this nation of ours who should be given an option but who are not being given that option. Since the debate in this place, other countries, including Catholic Belgium, have moved to give people that right. Australia should be doing the same.

I feel very strongly about this because, as a doctor, I have been involved in the process of people being in a long dying process who do not want to continue their suffering, their indignity. And only they can determine that. Of course there have to be proper rules and forms, and we know all about those in Australia. We have the wit and wisdom to do that and not to leave the situation where doctors have to make decisions without proper conversation with their patients—and to do it every day in Australia. This motion is just the start of a process. I suspect we may get a vote against having a debate on the matter. I think that is a sad reflection on the courage of us all to take on this important issue, debate it and come to a better result than we have so far.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are debating why this motion should be declared urgent and why this debate should come forward. Senator Brown did not address that, but I was not going to call a point of order on him. Senator Brown—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—this is shorthand for euthanasia. If you want to put up a euthanasia motion, at least be honest enough to call it euthanasia, not ‘the right to die with dignity’. Of course everyone wants the right to die with dignity, but if you are honest with the Senate and with the Australian people you will put up the right motion. But you do not want to frighten the horses, so you are making it a horse of a different colour, if I can use that expression. We had this debate a number of years ago. It was divisive; it divided the community. In fact, I have never had such hate mail from certain sections of the community.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Robert Ray interjecting—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have 13 staff.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Boswell, ignore the interjections.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us not go down that road, but that is completely untrue. This has been on Senator Brown’s mind for a number of years, and he persists in bringing it up against the wishes of the Senate in general. Recently in South Australia a Democrat in their state parliament produced methods of suicide. The speech was eventually struck off the Hansard because it was feared that it contained advice that would have triggered deaths. You, Senator Brown, received a gong from Dr Nitschke’s organisation—if we can call him a doctor; Dr Death—for services to the right-to-die movement. I hope you were proud when you received that medal on supporting euthanasia. In 1997, the Greens introduced into the Tasmanian parliament the Medical Treatment and Natural Death Bill. That bill was written by you, Senator Brown. One thing that we can say about you, Senator Brown, is that you are certainly consistent. You certainly want doctors to have the ability to—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wasn’t in the parliament and I didn’t write the bill.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order! Senator Brown, you were heard in silence; let Senator Boswell continue.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was written by Senator Brown in 1985. Senator Brown, if you are determined to keep pursuing euthanasia then be honest about it.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a bill coming.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Be honest about it. Don’t try to put up some sort of subterfuge in this parliament where you call it ‘the right to die with dignity’. Be honest and say ‘euthanasia’. I do not see any reason why we should proceed with this debate. I do not think in the mind of the Senate that we want to bring on this very divisive debate. We had the debate four years ago. That was considered over a two- or three-month period when people could actually make their decisions, have Senate inquiries and call witnesses. But, no, today you want to jump up and hijack the parliament so you can pursue this stupid ideology that you have—you want to get this parliament to back you in euthanasia when it is opposed by the majority in this parliament.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor voted not formal on this motion because we think it is an inappropriate way to bring on a debate that is much more complex and is intended to reflect something that is not honestly put in the motion. Quite frankly, Senator Brown, in speaking to the motion, you very much let the cat out of the bag. On the face of it, the motion says:

That the Senate supports the right of Australians to die with dignity.

No-one could disagree with that. Everyone hopes that everyone gets the opportunity very late in life to die with dignity. But when you spoke you talked about the 10th anniversary of Bob Dent’s legally assisted death. You talked about the override and the Northern Territory legislation. Be honest enough to put it in the motion. Be honest enough to be up front about it. I think this was quite sneaky and does your reputation no good at all, Senator Brown. I have respect for you, but this is not the way to behave. This is not the way to use the Senate. You make speeches, as I do, about the appropriateness of Senate process, about treating the Senate and senators appropriately.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where’s your motion?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have to bring on a motion. I do not believe we should consider euthanasia with a one-line motion moved in the Senate without debate. I think that is a really inappropriate way to deal with a complex issue. How I vote on euthanasia will be on the record when we have a proper debate by virtue of a bill, where people get to express their views. Quite frankly, this does you no credit at all. Not only is it a blunt instrument but also complex issues are allegedly brought down to one simple line which, at first blush, appears inoffensive, but when you speak you make it clear that you want de facto to have a debate about euthanasia. You expect to put through the Senate without debate a motion about euthanasia.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are about to block the debate.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave me alone! This is a cheap political stunt and you know better.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know better.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Brown, you know better. As I said, quite frankly this does you a disservice. Those motions and that process are designed to deal with things that are expressions of the Senate view. If you expect the Senate to express a view on euthanasia without debate, with a one-line motion that is not even honest, I think you ought to think again because you have not treated us with respect and you have not acted in a way that brings you any credit at all. If you want to bring on a bill about euthanasia, I will vote for us having the capacity to debate it as individuals. You know this issue is a matter of conscience, that both major political parties have allowed their senators to vote on the basis of their own conscience, but you think that you can pull a stunt on a Thursday morning that somehow we are going to pass a resolution about euthanasia. As I said, it is breathtaking and it does you no credit.

No senators were consulted. Until you spoke today, I did not honestly know what was intended by this motion. Thankfully, you were honest about what you intended, but in reading the motion we would not have known that. Quite frankly, I am confirmed in my view that we should have voted no to the formality request. I am angrier now than I was before about this stunt. If you want to debate serious ethical issues, do it properly. As I said earlier today, this Senate has a good record of dealing with these things in a mature and proper way, allowing senators the respect they deserve—to articulate their views and examine issues properly. We did that with the euthanasia bill last time. I voted against the Andrews bill and I was unsuccessful, but I did that after examination of the issues, a proper debate in the Senate and a proper community debate. Stunts such as this are not appropriate and do you a disservice, Senator Brown. They treat the Senate with a total disrespect. We will not be supporting this sort of stunt. That is not the way to have a debate on euthanasia. If you want to debate euthanasia, do it properly: put up a bill, inform the public, inform the Senate and treat your fellow senators with a bit more respect.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that my colleagues and I will not be voting on this matter. I think it is a great shame. I stand in this place as someone who is very supportive of reform of our laws to ensure that people can die with dignity, if that is what they choose. As has already been mentioned, my bill would have overturned the Andrews bill. Things have moved on since we last had that debate, and it is appropriate for us to discuss it. We cannot do this in a shorthand way; we cannot vote on a very simplistic statement. It is disappointing that it has come down to this. I would welcome a proper debate on the subject of voluntary euthanasia because many people feel it important to have that opportunity available.

We need to recognise that voluntary euthanasia does happen. Sometimes with their consent, sometimes at their insistence, people are euthanased in this country. We need to talk about it, but I would prefer that we did that with a bill or indeed with a general reference. I would be delighted if we were to refer this matter to a committee for consideration. There is no urgency at this point for us to vote on this. It is not going to take us anywhere. It does not say what will happen if we do vote on it. It will not progress the issue, and that is the problem that I have with it. In fact, it is more likely to get people’s backs up.

Senator Brown, I suggest that you withdraw this motion. As you are hearing, around the chamber there is an interest in us debating it, but debating it for half an hour on a Thursday is not my idea of an informed debate or a worthy way to treat such a profoundly important issue, one on which views are deeply held. This issue is rightly given a conscience vote because people hold very strong views on both positions. That is the reason we will not be present in this chamber for the vote.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First believes the phrase ‘dying with dignity’ is really code for euthanasia. The reality is: every Australian wants to die with dignity but not everyone wants to deliberately end someone else’s life. Family First opposes deliberately ending a person’s life or helping them to end their own life. We have already seen how far the euthanasia agenda goes. Dr Philip Nitschke has already moved quickly to assisted suicide, as well as giving depressed and suicidal people the means to end their own lives. This is not something that the Australian community believes is right.

Suicide is a major issue in Australia. In fact, more Australians commit suicide than are killed on the roads each year. Family First believes we should be focusing on supporting those desperate people who are thinking about suicide. We should be treating their depression and their pain. Family First does not believe euthanasia is a solution. It certainly does not address the needs of Australians in crisis. What message are we sending our kids? Suicide is not a solution. We should be looking at helping people who are obviously in desperate need of help. We should be doing all we possibly can. The motion we are debating is absolutely ridiculous.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The difficulty we have with a motion such as this is that it is an all-encompassing motion of great seriousness. How we could possibly have declared it formal and put it through without debate is beyond me. The Senate has shown a lot of forbearance in having a lot of motions declared formal and voted on without debate. It is an increasing trend—we know that. We are averaging about four divisions a day on these matters. It is not as though the Labor Party, by objecting to Senator Brown’s motion, has been at all spiteful. It has been consistent. The issues raised, and as explained by Senator Brown here today, are serious issues. You cannot just vote on them without debate. As to their urgency, Senator Brown let the cat out of the bag in interjecting on Senator Boswell, when he said that he had a bill coming in here to deal with it. Am I misquoting you?

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No—Senator Allison has a bill.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison has—so that is the appropriate time to debate this issue. It will be debated as an issue, I assume with a conscience vote. The one difficulty will be gathering enough time to do so; I concede that. It is not easy in general business to bring any of these things to a resolution, as we will find out later today with the ACT self-government bill. It is very difficult to do so. There was a bit of grumpiness initially from Senator Brown, who wanted to know who objected, who declared this not formal. We are saying it was us, and we are not apologising for it. We are not going to apologise for it, because it is a major issue that cannot be just voted on, yes or no. There is subtlety of positions to be explained on all sides. We will have an opportunity when Senator Allison’s legislation comes in to discuss it—maybe not to resolve it, but to discuss it. That is the appropriate time. Therefore, this cannot even be treated as a matter of urgency and we should defeat Senator’s Brown’s motion on this occasion.

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree. We cannot have an abbreviated statement on something with such huge implications. It is a profoundly important topic, and discussion is not possible in such a truncated way. The Australian people would expect that the topic of euthanasia be approached in a much more appropriate way than this.

Question negatived.