Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022 and I acknowledge the work of my House colleagues Alicia Payne and Luke Gosling in bringing this private member's bill into the parliament. As a territorian I support this bill—and I want to be clear about what this debate is about. Right now, hundreds of thousands of Australians have fewer democratic rights because of their postcode. Because they live, work and raise their families in a territory, they have fewer rights. That decision was made for them by this parliament 25 years ago, when the Andrews bill became law, preventing the ACT and Northern Territory legislatures from considering or debating laws relating to voluntary assisted dying. In doing so, that legislation restricted the rights of territory citizens by placing restrictions on the autonomy of their democratically elected legislatures.

But it has been a quarter of a century since that decision was made and times have changed. Every state has now considered and debated laws on this issue: Victoria in 2017, Western Australia in 2019, Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland in 2021, and New South Wales earlier this year. All the bill before us today does is allow the ACT and the Northern Territory that same right. It does not compel their parliaments to legislate on this issue; it simply restores their right to do so—their right to legislate in their own terms, in their own words and on behalf of their own citizens on the issue of voluntary assisted dying. It removes the constraint on the legislative authority of those democratically elected parliaments, which does not exist anywhere else in Australia.

I understand that many of my colleagues may be personally opposed to the issue of voluntary assisted dying, and I acknowledge within my own community that there are a diversity of views. But this bill is not about that; it's about whether every Australian, regardless of where they live, should have the same right to self-determination. The territory parliaments are mature parliaments. They run hospitals, build schools, design transport networks, deliver emergency services, shape cities and manage multibillion-dollar economies, and we have seen over the last two years they've led the pandemic response. The people they represent deserve the same right to self-determination as every other Australian.

Now, this is not the first time I have spoken in this place to support a bill on territory rights, nor the first time that I've campaigned to get this done. It's been a long journey, and for more than a decade I have fought to end this discrimination against Canberrans. Ten years ago as Chief Minister I made a submission on behalf of my government for a review of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988, arguing that the Andrews bill was a constraint on the ACT's legislative power, that it should be removed and that its inclusion was an unnecessary constraint on ACT policy choice, a constraint that was not possible in the states. In 2014 I continued my campaign as Chief Minister, writing to the federal parliamentary Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee to argue that the Andrews bill creates a differential democratic right between citizens in the states and territories and that repealing the legislation would ensure that all Australians were treated equally before their parliaments.

After arriving here in the Senate in 2015 I got straight to work on building support in this building to get it done. In 2016 I co-sponsored with former Greens Senator Di Natale the Restoring Territory Rights (Dying with Dignity) Bill, which would have repealed the Andrews bill and dealt with the issue. Unfortunately that bill was not allowed to come to a vote by the government of the day. I continued trying the same year and again in 2017, supporting former independent Senator Leyonhjelm's Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill, working across the aisle to get it passed. That bill came to a vote a year later in 2018 and was narrowly lost by just two votes.

That brings us to where we are today, and this is our best chance to get it done. Having worked since my time as Chief Minister to do this, I'm optimistic that in 2022 we can right this wrong, because the difference this time around is that we have a Prime Minister who facilitated as a priority a debate and a vote on territory rights in the House. This was a commitment Labor made last year and one we followed through on in the very first sitting on the new parliament. It matters because before now, even if the Senate had passed a bill, previous governments wouldn't have allowed the issue to be debated in the House, a reality that had played out time and again over many years.

With debate and a vote on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill facilitated in the House last month, we saw the bill pass on 3 August with an overwhelming majority of 99 votes to 37. That vote highlighted the broad support for getting this done, with Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Greens and independent members of parliament voting for it, including the Prime Minister, opposition leader and Nationals leader. We have seen every federal representative of the ACT support the restoration of territory rights, with my Labor colleagues Alicia Payne, Andrew Leigh and Dave Smith having long advocated and championed getting this done. We have seen every federal Labor representative of the Northern Territory support this bill, and we have seen every member of the ACT Legislative Assembly, Labor, Liberal and Greens, support the removal of this legislative constraint, with the passing of a unanimous motion on 31 March in 2021. I would like to acknowledge that the ACT Minister for Human Rights, Tara Cheyne, is with us in the gallery—and my colleagues from the House; sorry, I had not seen you there. But that shows you just how important ACT representatives believe repealing this legislation is.

With every state having now considered and debated legislation on voluntary assisted dying, with broad support across the House and unanimous support at federal and territory level here in Canberra, this is our best chance to get this done. As this bill begins debate in the Senate, my message to Canberrans is: I know how much this matters to you, to every one of you who have spoken and made your voice heard. Whether you are one of the thousands who signed the petition last year or whether you raised it with me in the aisles of Woolworths or at a street stall across town, whether you called, emailed or wrote to me, your advocacy on this mattered. You're not asking for much; you're just asking for the same rights as your neighbours across the border in Queanbeyan. Standing here right now, I speak on behalf of every single one of you.

While this parliament made a decision 25 years ago to restrict the democratic rights of Australians living in the territories, more relevantly today it has the opportunity to end that discrimination and restore those rights, because the continuation of this discriminatory legislative constraint on the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory cannot be justified. The bill before us today would ensure that every Australian, regardless of whether they live in a state or territory, has the same democratic rights. I thank the Prime Minister for facilitating the vote in the House and giving us the best chance we've ever had to deal with this issue. Without his commitment, we would not be in this position today. As this bill is considered by the Senate, I extend an open invitation to any of my colleagues to continue discussing this bill and to share what it means to the constituents I represent.

Colleagues, the House has spoken decisively on this bill. My hope is that the Senate plays its role, too; that the Senate stands up for democratic equality, and senators can do that by supporting this bill. I hope that we are able to get the majority of senators to do that, to right this wrong, and to ensure that every single Australian, no matter where you live, enjoys the same democratic rights as other Australians.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to join this debate on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022, a bill that, across the major parties, is quite rightly a free or conscience vote in its consideration. I rise to join Senator Gallagher in supporting this bill.

The bill for me is a series of simple questions that, with the elapse of time, have only become even more straightforward. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, imposing restrictions on the legislative abilities of the territories with regard to voluntary euthanasia should never have been enacted in the first place. Entrusted and empowered as the territories are with all manner of life and death, tax and spend, lock people up or let-it-rip type powers, it was always anachronistic for the Commonwealth to have decided that the one limitation on the territories compared with the states would be on the questions of voluntary euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying.

For me, personally, the right to voluntary assisted dying, and to access that, has always been one that humane societies should make available, albeit with appropriate safeguards. Let's be frank: death and all that comes with it isn't pretty. We don't really like to think or talk about it, but it's unavoidable and, ultimately, the process of dying always has the same tragic ending. For some of us, we will avoid prolonged pain and loss of dignity but potentially lose the opportunity to say our farewells to loved ones or to put our affairs in order. For others, time will be on our side, but the preservation of dignity or of quality of life will not. For a comparatively fortunate few, they will face a middle ground, where farewells are possible but pain or suffering is not prolonged. Voluntary assisted dying makes the kind of pathway of avoiding prolonged pain, suffering or loss of dignity available to more who choose to access it.

The question of choice is a significant and determinative factor. No person should ever feel pressure to leave this life before they're ready, but nor should people of sound mind, clear intent and genuine need be deprived of the ability to make that choice. To make that last point in the inverse, people of sound mind, clear intent and genuine need should not be forced into months or years of cruel and prolonged suffering or loss of dignity because of the judgement or attitudes of others. My body, my life, my choice—a very sound liberal philosophical approach, as long as those choices don't harm others.

Many will come to this debate with personal experiences of loss and the agonising death of loved ones that inform their opinions. I respect those approaches and, like most of us, have experienced some of my own. But, for me, the fundamental principles of choice and empowerment lead me to support voluntary assisted dying. Others will come to this debate with faith-based and ethical beliefs that inform their opinion. To those colleagues: I respect your beliefs and will always defend your right to live by them but urge you not to impose them on others.

However, as Senator Gallagher has rightly emphasised, this bill is not per se a voluntary assisted dying bill. It simply restores the rights of the territories to make their own laws on this matter. You don't have to agree with me or others on questions of voluntary assisted dying to support this bill. My opening thesis was that consideration of the questions relating to the support or otherwise of this bill has only become more straightforward with the passage of time. When the restrictions on the territories were passed and put into law, the Northern Territory was at the time the only jurisdiction in Australia to have enacted voluntary assisted dying laws. While I pay tribute to former Northern Territory chief minister Marshall Perron and those who supported him in the passage of those laws, I also acknowledge that, at the time, it was an act of legislative adventure by the smallest legislature in Australia. They were ahead of their times and were penalised for being so. In the intervening decades, every Australian state has enacted voluntary assisted dying laws. To maintain the restrictions on the territories put in place in 1997 would be even more anachronistic and inappropriate than was the imposition of them in the first place. Far from enabling legislative adventure by the territories, this bill we consider now will only enable the territories to play legislative catch-up. Rather than inventing their own safeguards, the territories can now adopt the best of the safeguards and approaches already legislated across all six of the Australian states, who have already legislated for voluntary assisted dying. But whether they do so, under this law, would still be a matter of choice for the ACT and the Northern Territory. This bill will not impose voluntary assisted dying legislation upon them, just the right to enact it if they choose, thereby giving their citizens the ultimate right to choose.

I urge all colleagues in this place to back choice and equality of opportunity for those across the territories, for those who reside in the territories, and I urge them to support this bill.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. I want to start by acknowledging the member for Canberra, Alicia Payne, and the member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, who co-sponsored this bill and successfully moved it through the House. This isn't the parliament's first attempt to pass a bill of this nature. I'd also like to acknowledge the previous efforts by the member for Fenner and Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, as well as Senator Gallagher; the member for Bean, David Smith; and the many other territory representatives who have pushed this issue over the years. I'd like to thank the many Canberrans—including Nicole Robertson, Kate and the two Sams, Samuel Whitsed and Sam Delaney—who've shared their stories with me, who've spoken out with so much dignity and courage about why it's so important to them that our rights are restored. I'd like to thank the many people who've given their time, raising awareness, making the argument: Andrew Denton and Go Gentle Australia; Dying with Dignity ACT and New South Wales; Judy Dent; Marshall Perron; and the many others across the country.

I've spent some time with Samuel Whitsed, a 39-year-old contemplating end-of-life choices. No 39-year-old should have to contemplate the end of their life, but Sam is. No father should be fundraising for his son's funeral, but Sam's dad is. As Sam has said to me, he knows speaking up may not allow him to get the kind of end-of-life choices people living in every one of Australia's states do, but his hope is that, by telling his own story, one day those in the ACT will. That's what courage looks like.

In 1997 Kevin Andrews's private member's bill, the Euthanasia Laws Bill, came into effect, immediately making the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory second-class citizens to their family, friends and neighbours living in the states. Much has changed in Australia since 1997. In those intervening decades, the states have all had discussions about voluntary assisted dying and how to craft laws that both honour the wishes of dying people to have that choice and provide options for a death with dignity, while ensuring they have rigorous safeguards in place for the most vulnerable in our communities. We have seen these discussions happen in every state across the country. We watched in 2017 as Victoria led a compassionate discussion on voluntary assisted dying, inviting clinicians, terminally ill people, disability groups, palliative care professionals and faith groups to contribute to the debate. We watched the debate in New South Wales just this year, in which parties across the spectrum came together to discuss, debate and interrogate whether a voluntary assisted dying scheme was appropriate for their state. Queensland has also had this opportunity. So have Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia.

In the quarter of a century since the Andrews bill, every single state has legislated voluntary assisted dying, yet the Andrews bill still stands in the way of the territories being able, through the work of our elected representatives in our parliaments, to debate and consider voluntary assisted dying for ourselves. The people of the ACT and Northern Territory overwhelmingly want to have this same debate for ourselves. The overwhelming majority of Australians living in states believe their fellow Australians living in the territories should be able to have these debates and make our own decisions on whether to legislate and on what that legislation should look like. Yet, as we all know, we can't, which begs the question: why? Why is it that by virtue of where we live in this country, we cannot participate in these same debates on decisions? Why are we denied the democratic rights enjoyed by the states? Why are we considered less capable of having this discussion?

It makes no sense to me; nor did it make sense to the framers of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 34 years ago. They understood that the people of the ACT are no different from other Australians and should be given the political franchise to consider laws for themselves as each state does. In his second reading speech, then Minister for the Arts and Territories, the Hon. Clyde Holding, said of the people of the ACT:

… unlike every otherperson in this country, where a fair go is the creed by which we live, they cannot elect a member of their own community to their own government. They have no say in the decisions which affect their everday lives. What an extraordinary admission in a country so committed to democratic ideals, and why? Are these people somehow different from other Australians? Are they second class citizens in some way? … Can they not be trusted with their own destiny? The answer to all these questions is very simple. The only difference between these people and the rest of Australia is that they live in the Australian Capital Territory.

Nothing separates us from the rest of Australia other than a jagged line on the map and fewer representatives in this chamber. The ACT and Northern Territory governments are expected to run their own treasuries and manage their own finances. They must run their own health and child protection systems, they collect revenue, they provide public transport, they build public infrastructure, and they face public scrutiny for their decisions and actions. They are represented on the National Cabinet and played their part in keeping their people safe through the uncertain years of the pandemic. Simply, the ACT and Northern Territory governments and legislative assemblies are expected every day to make complex, life-changing choices on behalf of their citizens. They are no less capable of having a discussion on voluntary assisted dying than every other state.

I have listened respectfully and read the arguments to the contrary. In his first reading speech, the architect of the Euthanasia Laws Act stated that his bill simply reflected the national approach to voluntary assisted dying. He stated that his bill was designed to bring the Northern Territory in line with every other state and territory. Twenty-five years on, it is now the ACT and the Northern Territory that are forced to be out of step with the rest of the country. We know that, nationally, over three-quarters of people support the ACT and NT in having these decisions for themselves. I have heard it said that the territories are incapable of having these discussions as their parliaments do not have an upper house, but nor does the Queensland parliament. And why is it that it is only on this topic that this issue is raised? It's clear to me that the concern lies in the subject matter itself. The issue of territory rights was tied to voluntary assisted dying 25 years ago in the Andrews bill.

I recognise that people have deeply held convictions on voluntary assisted dying. I don't discount the personal, ethical or faith based perspectives brought to this chamber by senators nor their right to view legislation through that lens. However, as legislators, it is our responsibility to unpick complexity and to set our own beliefs in the context of how we promote the equal treatment of all Australians before the law. As former ACT Chief Minister and senator for the ACT, Gary Humphries, said, 'The ACT is mature enough to have this debate for ourselves.'

This is not the chamber to debate voluntary assisted dying, and no-one here is asked to do so. Senators are only being asked to allow the territories to have the debate for themselves. Just as every state has done, people will be able to contribute their perspectives and concerns on whether a scheme is established and what it looks like through their representatives in the legislative assemblies. I have confirmed with both the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the ACT Minister for Human Rights that draft legislation on this matter does not yet exist. Both territories will engage in a rigorous consultation process in the formulation of any bill, which will also be the subject of debate in the legislative assemblies.

There are divergent views on this matter. These views need to be heard and considered. But that should be done in the legislative assemblies. Let me be clear: here in this place, each one of us is being asked to decide whether we believe that the people who live in the ACT, as well as those who live in the Northern Territory, deserve fewer democratic rights than their families, friends and neighbours who live in the states. Senators are being asked to consider whether the people of the ACT and Northern Territory should keep being considered second-class citizens in this Federation. Apart from my three territory colleagues in this chamber, your constituents already have the right to engage in this conversation, and have done so. Please, give us that same right.

Since coming to this place, I have had many conversations with colleagues across the chamber seeking your support, and I will continue to do so. To those of you who are yet to make up your mind on this important issue, my door is open. I will welcome and seek an opportunity to speak with you. People living in the territories are not asking for anything more than what everyone else in this country already has. It is my sincere hope that this bill will pass.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank Senator O'Neill for her very considered contribution to this debate. She raised a lot of very sensitive issues that are, certainly, foremost in the minds of many people when they're looking at the bill that is before us, the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. A lot of people are making this bill about voluntary assisted dying, or euthanasia. Certainly, if this bill goes through, it will enable the Northern Territory and the ACT to bring on debate about voluntary assisted dying, and it may result in the passage of laws in those territories. While, yes, voluntary assisted dying might be the outcome of the passage of this bill, what this bill is actually about is what this place started in 1978 with, first, the passage of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. Ten years later, that was followed up by the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act. Then we also had the Norfolk Island Act in 1979.

We in this place, at those times, decided that it was right and fair for the territories to be able to govern themselves. We decided that the territories should have the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of their people. But then, in 1996, when people in this place saw the result of the passage of those bills, when the Northern Territory passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1995, all of a sudden we decided that, no, the territories can't govern for themselves over everything; they can only govern for themselves on things that we think are appropriate for them to have self-government on. Now, I don't think you can have it both ways. We either support the territories governing and making laws for the peace, order and good government of their people, or we don't. I don't think it is fair that the territories always have it hanging over their heads that, if we don't like their laws, we'll come into this place and work against them.

This bill proposes to remove the restrictions that were put in place in 1996, known as the Andrews bill. I acknowledge that this is a very sensitive issue and a personal issue for many people in this chamber, in the parliament and in the wider community. We know that there have been many attempts to repeal the Andrews bill, and, if this bill is unsuccessful today, I'm sure there will be many attempts in the future. I am not here to debate the merits of euthanasia. I am here to debate the merits of the territory leaders and the elected representatives in the territories taking their positions to their electorates, and for their right to debate in their own assemblies the merits, or otherwise, of their proposed legislation.

I grew up in the ACT. In fact, I was living in the ACT when they had their first self-government elections. I remember the size of the ballot paper. It certainly made the New South Wales Senate ballot paper look quite small at the time. I remember the Party! Party! Party! party running—that was the joy the ACT had when they could finally elect, from their own, people to come together and determine rules and legislation for the peace, order and good government of their own region, of the territory. It was a joyous election, and the ACT has been governed ever since by people that they elect from their own, who come together in the ACT Legislative Assembly to debate the merits of their proposals. Why should anyone from any other jurisdiction determine that the people of the ACT and the people of the Northern Territory and Norfolk Island don't have the right to have their own elected representatives debating the merits of their own laws?

In today's world there is no justifiable reason why the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly or the ACT Legislative Assembly should not have the power to make laws that impact on their own citizens. Territory leaders should be able to take legislative proposals to their electorates. Their elected representatives have the right to, and, indeed must, adjudicate on issues on behalf of their electorates. It is crucially important that these people are able to have those rightful debates in their assemblies.

If this bill is successful today, I implore the leaders of the people of the ACT and the Northern Territory to first take their positions to an election so that their constituents are aware of what the positions being taken forward are. I implore them to give it that time so that the people of their jurisdictions can have the right say, can vote for their elected representative knowing full well what that person's position is. Then they can have the debates in their assemblies to progress or otherwise any legislation that they wish to bring forward. But I think that is a right that the people of the territories should have. They should absolutely be able to vote for representatives based on what their positions are. They should be able to vote knowing that their representatives will then take that position forward into their assemblies and have the debates, like we are having this debate today.

I don't want to dwell on the fact of the voluntary assisted dying part of the bill, because, really, to me, this bill is about the territories' rights, but I will address a couple of issues. I wholeheartedly agree with Senator O'Neill when she raises the importance of palliative care. We must do better in this country to provide palliative care for our elderly and for our terminally ill.

There is a fear that, if we allow voluntary assisted dying, we will have an absolute tsunami of applications. But this is not borne out in Victoria, which was the first state to bring in voluntary assisted dying. Their legislation passed in 2017. Between June 2019, when it came into effect, and June 2021, only 836 assessments had been made. Some might say that shows that it was unnecessary, and I would say no—it shows that there are not going to be a tsunami of applications. People are not going to race forward to try and get early inheritance. People take this very, very seriously. Out of those 836 assessments, 597 permits were granted, but only 331 people actually took the medication. That is less than 40 per cent of all assessments. That goes to show that, even if you are assessed and even if you have got a permit, it doesn't necessarily mean you will follow through. But what it means is that you have the choice. You have the right and you have the option.

I certainly wouldn't want to take advantage of such a law prematurely, ever, but I do think that people deserve the right to choose to live or die in dignity. I still think that the first priority should be palliative care; the first priority should be health, treatment, medication. But I also know that there are times when, for all good intentions, there is no means of prolonging someone's life, and there are certainly diseases and ailments that just cause so much pain and suffering that people want a choice.

I think that the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT should absolutely have the right to debate the merits or otherwise of any proposed legislation brought forward. We have certainly learnt a lot from the different models that are out there, and I am sure that the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT and their leaders, their elected representatives, will take all due consideration. But they should have the right to have the debate for themselves and to then vote on the merits or otherwise of any legislation that is brought before them. I do not think it is the responsibility of us in this place. Most of us don't live in either of the territories. In fact in the Senate there are only four territory senators out of 76 of us, so I don't think the rest, 72 of us, should be telling them what they can and can't do. The territories have their legislative assemblies now. We passed that in 1978 for the Northern Territory and 1988 for the ACT, and we should let them govern. So I will be voting in support of this bill.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2022. First, let me be clear that this is not a debate about voluntary assisted dying, because this is not a bill to legislate voluntary assisted dying and nor should it be. This bill is about restoring the democratic rights of territory residents: the right to self-government and the right to debate and consider their own laws on this matter in the same way that residents of every state have done. It should not be we in this chamber who take those decisions on behalf of territorians, and it's time for Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory residents to be treated equally with their state counterparts.

Twenty-five years ago, the Howard government passed the Andrews bill, which significantly restricted the democratic rights of residents in the ACT and Northern Territory. The bill overturned the Northern Territory parliament's decision in 1995 to become the first jurisdiction in the world to legislate voluntary assisted dying. This decision had been debated by residents of the Northern Territory and, ultimately, had been decided by those residents through their elected representatives. It was a democratic process that was unfairly ignored by the federal parliament at the time. The Andrews bill limited the law-making powers of the territory parliaments. It removed their ability to even consider laws related to voluntary assisted dying.

This bill will return those powers to these jurisdictions, giving the territories back their democratic right to debate these laws. It is absurd that the law-making powers of these jurisdictions have been restricted by this very parliament when the same is just not true for the states. The elected representatives of these territories should have the right to debate the same laws that a state parliament can, and the residents of these territories deserve the chance to have their voices heard in these debates. That's what this is really about.

My home state of Victoria was the first to introduce voluntary assisted dying laws to the parliament in 2017. As my friend the Hon. Jill Hennessey said in her parliamentary speech: 'The laws are uniquely Victorian and have been developed recognising the diversity of Victorians.' This was only true because Victorian residents and their representatives had the right to participate in a debate; they had the right to participate in the discussion. They had the right to share their stories and help shape the laws that would impact their own lives, making sure that Victorian laws reflected the stories and the experiences of Victorians—Victorians like Amanda, who bravely shared her story about her father's struggle with myelofibrosis. At the time, Amanda shared how, after several years, her father's entire body was shutting down and the medication he used to slow the passage of his illness no longer worked. There was nothing left that the medical professionals could do to ease his pain and his suffering. In the end, Robin took his own life, alone. And there are the stories of Victorians like Greg, who shared his story of living with HIV and watching his life partner die in the end stages of that same disease. He spoke of the pain of nursing his partner and the fear for his own future.

Amanda and Greg had the courage to share their stories and those of their loved ones in the debate about voluntary assisted dying in Victoria. Territorians should simply have that same right to share their own stories, to have their voices heard, to meet with their parliamentarians and tell them what they think, and just to have their say. For Amanda and Greg, once the debate had concluded and the law had been voted on, they were secure in the knowledge there their voices could not be shut down by the federal parliament: that Victorian stories would shape the Victorian laws about voluntary assisted dying. These laws in Victoria and in every other state allow people to make what is, of course, a deeply personal choice to relieve their suffering and die with dignity. Every death is a tragic loss, and in this parliament we should respect that the laws that give this deeply personal choice to so many people must be decided by the residents of each state and territory, not by us here in this place. I want to acknowledge Dying With Dignity Victoria for their participation in the community discussion towards the Victorian legislation. In particular, I thank Vice President Jane Morris for speaking with me about the bill before the chamber today.

I want to repeat that this bill does not seek to legislate voluntary assisted dying for the territories. It seeks only to restore the voices of Australians living in these places, giving back to the people—people just like Amanda and Greg—their right to contribute to the laws which affect them. Every single state in this country has had the opportunity to debate voluntary assisted dying laws without the interference of this parliament, and we need to return the right for the ACT and Northern Territory to do the same. Acting Deputy President Reynolds, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.