The legislation we are debating here this evening, the Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, seeks to overturn an act of the federal parliament which denies the people of the Northern Territory and the ACT the same rights as their fellow Australians living in the six states, and that is the right to elect representatives who make laws on their behalf concerning the rights of terminally ill people.
Of course, that was an entitlement taken away from them in 1997 when this parliament, at the urging of then Prime Minister John Howard, passed the Andrews bill to overturn the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Act 1995.
At that time, the Northern Territory legislation was unique in allowing a doctor to accede to a request from a terminally ill, competent adult patient for assistance in ending the patient's life if specified conditions were satisfied.
The ongoing effect of this legislation is to create two classes of Australian citizens, those who live in states, who have the right to elect representatives to make decisions on issues such as euthanasia and those who live in the territories who do not.
In November of last year, the Victorian parliament voted to legalise a framework of safeguards to permit assisted dying. Those who live in the ACT and the Northern Territory are denied by a specific act of this parliament the right for their legislators to grapple with these issues. I do not believe that is neither logical nor supportable.
I also want to briefly comment about the political context surrounding this debatethat is, the deal between the Prime Minister and Senator Leyonhjelm to bring this issue on for debate in return for Senator Leyonhjelm's support for the restoration of the ABCC. Mr Turnbull now makes clear that he does not intend to honour that deal, by denying this bill a hearing in the House should it pass.
I have to say that this does raise serious questions about how much trust senators and, in fact, the Australian people should place in a man who is prepared to say one thing to get a vote and do another once he no longer needs that vote.
Whatever you views on the ABCC or the bill we are debating here tonight, I'd invite senators to think long and hard about the next time you are offered a deal in return for your vote.
However, returning to the bill before the chamber, whilst the principle that the bill seeks to restore is territory rights, it is of course naive, and would be so, to ignore the issue around which this bill revolves, which is the right of terminally ill people to seek assistance to end their lives. There is much talk in this place, both in 1997 and this year, and in fact just a few moments ago, about the intrinsic value of life.
Everyone in this chamber has a fundamental respect for human life, and I understand why any proposal that would in any way assist people to shorten their lives might appear on the surface to defy this basis respect for human life.
Life is precious, but let us remember whose life it is we are talking about.
We are speaking of a person in the terminal stages of an illness who is seeking the right to determine how they can bring an end to their suffering with dignity and free from pain.
I would argue it is precisely our respect for human life, for the person whose life it is and for the fact of their living through a terminal illness that causes us to consider whether that person's life would be better, or at least more tolerable, if they were able to control the pathway to its inevitable end.
We are living in an age where it is possible, in some circumstances, to extend life but not necessarily the quality of life and to ensure that life continues but only at the cost of pain and the forfeit of personal dignity.
That is why, after careful consideration of the ethical and moral issues involved, I have come to the view that respect for life must be balanced against the respect for the right of any individual facing certain death and their remaining days filled with pain, suffering, fear and the loss of personal dignity to take control of their life and make a choice about the quality of its ending.
In doing so, I cast no judgement on those who hold a different position, because I also come to this position with questions and some reservations about checks and balances.
Of course we need to ensure that this right of which I speak is not subject to abuse. I am clearly not alone. When the Andrews bill, which we are seeking to repeal, was examined by a Senate committee in 1996 and 1997, it received over 12 and a half thousand written submissionsthe largest number ever received by a Senate committee during the course of inquiry at that time.
An important point which should be noted, and to which Senator Moore adverted, is that this parliament doesn't have the legal capacity to legislate for assisted dying.
Any Australian legislature which sought to pursue such legislation shouldand I have no doubt wouldconsider thoroughly and deeply the constraints and safeguards that would be required.
In closing, whatever my questions or concerns about this issue, I have come to the view that, just as people have a right to control the way they manage their living, so too they have a right to control the way they manage their dying.
For that reason, I support the legislation.
Authorised by Noah Carroll, ALP, Canberra.