Private Members' Business, Federation Chamber, Australian Parliament House

Monday 24 May 2021

Subject: Euthanasia and ACT right to legislate

It's not often you have the opportunity to speak on the same issue in both chambers. At its essence, this motion is about whether citizens living in the territories should have the same right through their logical legislatures as citizens in the states to make their own laws. In my view, there can be no doubt the answer to that question is yes.

The grant of self-government to Australia's two populous territories recognised that the people of the territories deserve the same democratic rights as people living in the states. There were exceptions to the powers of the Legislative Assembly, but these reflected for the most part either limitations that the Constitution itself placed on the states or matters that the states had agreed should be dealt with by the Commonwealth. For example, the Legislative Assembly was not to have the power to laws with regard to the raising or maintaining of any naval, military or air force or with regard to the coining of money, despite being home to the Royal Australian Mint.

Similarly, the act excluded the power to make laws with respect to the classification of materials for the purposes of censorship, which is already the subject of a national scheme under which classification was the responsibility of the Commonwealth. In each case, common sense dictated that these matters should be solely in the domain of the parliament of Australia. In effect, the ACT was not being placed in a position any different to that of the states.

That leaves two further original exceptions: the acquisition of property other than on just terms and the provision by the AFP of police services in relation to the territories. The first of these was based on a limitation imposed on parliament by the Constitution, while the second reflected the fact that the AFP are under the direction of the Commonwealth minister and policing services in the ACT are the subject of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the territory. That bill was passed with bipartisan support. While there was some discussion around the detail, the record is clear that across the political spectrum there was agreement that the lawmaking powers of the ACT Legislative Assembly and the Northern Territory assembly should be equivalent to those of a state parliament.

This remained the case until the passage of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, which removed from the ACT Legislative Assembly and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly the power to make laws with regard to euthanasia or voluntary assisted dying. In doing so, that act introduced in that it remained completely open to any state parliament to pass such laws.

The motion before us supports restoring the constitutional position that existed from the time self-government was introduced into each of the territories until the passage of the Euthanasia Laws Act. It will be a matter for each of the territories to decide whether and in what form any laws should be passed in this area, just as it is and has always been for each of the states. Of course, there are some who may object that the ACT and the Northern Territory are not states and that their legislatures should not have the same powers as state parliaments. Of course it's true that self-government exists only because of acts of this parliament, not by way of constitutional right, and it's within the powers of this parliament to amend the self-government acts if it sees fit. However, parliament, having made its decision on the general principle that self-government ought to be granted to the people of the ACT and Northern Territory, would be wrong to pick and choose matters for which we would deny citizens in the territories the right to govern themselves. Some of us may be unhappy with the decisions made by the people of the territory, but, if we support the principle of self-determination, we accept their decisions and do not seek to substitute our own any more than we would where the same decision is made by the parliament of a state. Former Senator Humphries said in 2006, when he crossed the floor to oppose the Howard government's disallowance of the ACT Civil Unions Act:

… we may not agree with the ACT's legislative choices, but we have an obligation to respect them where they are democratically made

I acknowledge that the legislation on euthanasia, or voluntary assisted dying, is an issue that provokes strong passions, with firmly held opinions from opposing points of view. That's understandable, since the issues relate to matters of life and death and pain and suffering, and because we have a critical role to ensure we protect the vulnerable. My own personal view is not in support of the legalisation of euthanasia. However, with all its gravity, this is not something that should be restricted from consideration by the ACT and Northern Territory legislative assemblies.