Page 2977 - Week 10 - Friday, 8 October 2021
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Queensland, passed legislation under Labor and Liberal governments. A bill will be introduced into the New South Wales parliament as soon as next week, and Premier Perrottet—himself proudly conservative—has confirmed he will permit a conscience vote. But the ACT and Northern Territory remain banned.
The only body which can restore the powers to the ACT and Northern Territory is the same one that took them away—the federal parliament. Seven long months ago, back when only two states had legislated for voluntary assisted dying, Northern Territory Attorney-General Selena Uibo and I wrote to several senior commonwealth government ministers. We outlined our governments’ serious concerns regarding the continued ban on the ACT and the NT being able to consider legislation providing for voluntary assisted dying. We also drew attention to the human rights implications of this continuing prohibition, noting that it was likely inconsistent with Australia’s international human rights obligations. Australia is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees citizens the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, and individuals are entitled to enjoy their human rights without distinction or discrimination of any kind. Prohibiting ACT and Northern Territory citizens from participating in public life in ways that citizens in the states can, by virtue of these citizens living in territories, may limit these human rights.
Soon after this, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed a tripartisan motion and wrote to all members and senators of the commonwealth parliament supporting territory rights and seeking this untenable situation to be resolved by the end of this year. It is no secret that we received no correspondence from the Attorney-General or anyone else in the commonwealth government for almost seven months and that we had to follow up several times, both formally and informally. We learned that the ministers were handballing the correspondence between the portfolios.
At one point the Attorney-General’s department formally advised us that the Attorney-General would not be responding to us but that the Assistant Minister for the Territories would be. But that changed this week. I table correspondence dated 1 October but received by us this week:
Territory rights—Voluntary assisted dying—Copy of letter from the Federal Attorney-General, to the ACT Minister for Human Rights and the Northern Territory Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, dated 1 October 2021.
In summary, it advises that the commonwealth government does not have any current plans to introduce legislation to repeal the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997; fails to respond to the issue of territory rights, instead advising that there is a ‘diversity of views’ on voluntary assisted dying; and fails to respond to the very serious human rights implications we have raised.
I asked in March and ask it again: how can the rights of citizens in their own country not be a priority? How can the citizens in their own capital not be a priority? Attorney-General Cash’s correspondence is dismissive. It is evasive. It is disrespectful. It disrespects the concerns of ACT and Northern Territory residents and those of the Australian community. And it is pathetic. If you want an example of something not worth the paper it is written on, this is textbook. After seven months of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video