Amendment to Motion
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
[speeches and comments of various members]
HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [5 .30 pm ]: I rise to speak on this amendment. I was one of the members who participated in the debate on the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2010. By and large, my views on the matter are pretty much on the record. Having said that, a lot of nuances exist around this issue that I certainly hope will be captured; they have certainly honed my thinking around this matter in the last seven years.
From the outset, I have quite a bit of sympathy for the position put by Hon Nick Goiran in wanting to ensure that should this amendment not succeed, that will in no way be interpreted as any sort of endorsement by this place to not have as wide a debate as possible in the committee. In fact, that would concern me greatly. I understand some members are concerned about not holding up the deliberations of this committee any further by having a further amendment and having it go back to the other place for its further consideration. I recognise that many people just want to see us begin the activity of this committee as soon as possible and do not want to see it delayed any further.
Having said that, if the amendment put forward by Hon Nick Goiran does not get up, I would want to make it very, very clear that it is certainly my expectation — I hope it would be the will of the house — that in no way will the breadth of this debate be constrained. This issue is serious and important to many members of the community, on multiple sides and across the continuum of this debate, that it would be doing a great disservice to the public, to whom I believe we owe a duty, to try to limit the scope of this debate in any way.
For example, I have looked at the issue of the intersection with suicide prevention matters and measures, and I think it is a really important issue to unpick. Those of us from the suicide prevention sector take very seriously the intersection between people who have reached the end of life and need to make decisions, as opposed to people who, for a whole range of reasons, may be seeking support to die. I really hope that will be fully explored, and I would be extraordinarily unimpressed — in fact, deeply concerned — if there were any efforts to limit the scope of the exploration between these two matters. I really stress that point. Because the terms of reference of the committee have been framed very clearly within end-of-life decisions, hopefully, there will be some clear exploration and removal of, for example, any intersection between a desire to end one’s life and people who experience depression or who have any form of mental illness or live with suicidal ideation. It is important that we ensure that these issues are very clearly distinct from the issues around decisions made at the very end of life and the role that the state may or may not play in the options for people. Likewise, I hope — I notice it is in the terms of reference — that due attention is paid to the state of our palliative care sector. As I have said before in this place on a number of occasions, I am deeply concerned about people seeking to have their lives terminated earlier simply because they cannot access appropriate palliative care. We have already discussed this matter in this chamber, particularly the impact that it could have on Aboriginal communities and people who live in rural and remote parts of the state. Although the terms of reference seem to focus particularly on medical responses and what happens
when people reach end of life, I hope that a fulsome analysis is done on what is required to improve the status of palliative care within this state.
I have been thinking particularly about the first part of the amendment and have been contemplating how that could potentially be incorporated into the motion. It occurred to me that I do not want to inadvertently narrow the scope of issues that we could potentially be looking at. I want to be very clear that I absolutely support the intent of the motion so that when we are talking about euthanasia, we are also talking about the intersection with suicide prevention measures. I unequivocally support that. But I also want to be talking, for example, about the intersection with a desire of some people within the disability sector to die. I also want to fully explore some of the language that we use around disability and euthanasia and how that impacts on and influences the debate. For example, when we talk about people dying, we talk about dignity. I can say that people with disability are constantly calling for the inherent dignity of their lives and the way that they are living to be valued. I can tell members now that there are people with disability who take great umbrage at the way we use language around dignity, because they feel as though what is effectively being asserted is that their lives are somehow devoid of dignity. Likewise, when we talk about suffering. It is true that a lot of people who are living with disability are also living their lives in a degree of pain. They are very concerned that we are talking about suffering as though it is something that immediately must be alleviated through death. People with disability would say, “Hold on, I live with pain, and that may be your interpretation of suffering, but I do not accept that that means I have to die or that my life is not valuable and not worth continuing.” I think we need to be mindful of the way we use language.
Likewise, I want to pick up on the language we often use around “burden”. This is particularly concerning because often when people talk about euthanasia and the desire to take their lives, they talk about no longer wanting to be a burden to people. They may say, “I don’t want people to be helping me with intimate functions like toileting; I do not want people to assist me to feed.” They talk about the range of ways they consider themselves as being a burden on others. I point out that for many people with disability, this is their life. These are day-to-day functions, yet that does not mean that their lives are not inherently valuable, that they are not inherently important people and that they are not absolutely entitled to be treated as equal members of our community. I hope that as part of the scope of this committee, we will also explore, beyond the intersections with suicide prevention strategies, how the language that we use around euthanasia can inadvertently have detrimental impacts on valued and important members of our community. We need to ensure that we recognise that people with disability are often fighting to have their lives valued and recognised. I can tell members that they are often feel quite fearful of the medical profession and that they may go into hospital for a procedure only to wake up and discover that they suddenly have a “do not resuscitate” band around their wrist. That matter is raised with me time and again.
The scope of the words that have been used to describe the terms of reference of this committee is really broad. I share the concerns raised by people here; we need to ensure that it means that the intent is absolutely honoured and expected. I expect that and even without amendment, the sorts of issues I have canvassed and other issues that people in this place will raise, and are entitled to raise, will also be given the same level of respect and considered within the scope of this debate. That is my expectation. If it is anything less, quite frankly, I expect I will be a bit contemptuous of any outcome of this committee. If we want it to be the best it can be, we should not try to limit that scope.
I am also hoping and expecting that this committee will be inviting submissions for anyone who is interested, including members of Parliament, to raise a range of issues. It is too important an issue not to enable that to occur. I am pleased to hear that members in this place who have already indicated an interest to be on this committee, and who potentially will be on this committee, are committed to ensuring that that scope is respected, and I really hope that is the case. I wanted to make those remarks about this amendment and to make it quite clear that should it not succeed, I fully expect that it does not mean that there is any suggestion that the scope of the committee would be limited.
[speeches and comments of various members]
The PRESIDENT : I will put the amendment. The question in front of us is an amendment moved by Hon Nick Goiran, which has now been split into two parts. The first part is —
In paragraph (1) after “Choices” insert —
, subject to the Legislative Assembly agreeing to the following amendments to the resolution —
(a) the insertion of a new paragraph (2)(e) in the following terms —
(e) examine the risks of introducing voluntary euthanasia, including the impact on suicide prevention.
The question is that the words to be inserted be inserted.
Division
Amendment (insertion of words) put and a division taken with the following result —
Ayes (14)
Hon Jim Chown Hon Rick Mazza Hon Tjorn Sibma Hon Colin Tincknell Hon Peter Collier Hon Michael Mischin Hon Charles Smith Hon Ken Baston (Teller) Hon Adele Farina Hon Martin Pritchard Hon Aaron Stonehouse Hon Nick Goiran Hon Robin Scott Hon Dr Steve Thomas
Noes (17)
Hon Martin Aldridge Hon Stephen Dawson Hon Colin Holt Hon Alison Xamon Hon Jacqui Boydell Hon Colin de Grussa Hon Alannah MacTiernan Hon Pierre Yang (Teller) Hon Robin Chapple Hon Sue Ellery Hon Kyle McGinn Hon Tim Clifford Hon Diane Evers Hon Matthew Swinbourn Hon Alanna Clohesy Hon Laurie Graham Hon Dr Sally Talbot
Pairs
Hon Simon O’Brien / Hon Darren West
Hon Donna Faragher / Hon Samantha Rowe
Amendment thus negatived.
The PRESIDENT : We will now deal with the second part of the amendment moved by Hon Nick Goiran, which seeks to insert new paragraph (4)(b). The question is that the words to be inserted be inserted.
Division
Amendment (insertion of words) put and a division taken with the following result —
Ayes (12)
Hon Jim Chown Hon Rick Mazza Hon Tjorn Sibma Hon Dr Steve Thomas Hon Peter Collier Hon Michael Mischin Hon Charles Smith Hon Colin Tincknell Hon Nick Goiran Hon Robin Scott Hon Aaron Stonehouse Hon Ken Baston (Teller)
Noes (19)
Hon Martin Aldridge Hon Stephen Dawson Hon Laurie Graham Hon Matthew Swinbourn Hon Jacqui Boydell Hon Colin de Grussa Hon Colin Holt Hon Dr Sally Talbot Hon Robin Chapple Hon Sue Ellery Hon Alannah MacTiernan Hon Alison Xamon
Hon Tim Clifford Hon Diane Evers Hon Kyle McGinn Hon Pierre Yang (Teller) Hon Alanna Clohesy Hon Adele Farina Hon Martin Pritchard
Pairs
Hon Simon O’Brien / Hon Darren West
Hon Donna Faragher / Hon Samantha Rowe
Amendment thus negatived.
Motion Resumed
[speeches and comments of various members]
Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.