Senator HARRADINE (1.35 p.m.) —I congratulate those who have preceded me in speaking about euthanasia. I will not attempt to go over what they have so expertly dealt with.

  I want to say to the 13 politicians in the Northern Territory, `What have you done?' Those 13 politicians in the Northern Territory have, for the first time, legalised by act of parliament the deliberate and intentional killing of one innocent human being by another. That is a first; that is a world first. Stripped of all its euphemism, euthanasia occurs, in the medical context, when the doctor and not the illness kills the patient. Those 13 politicians, by their decision, have legalised the lethal injection. At a time when civilised country after civilised country is abolishing the death penalty, when those of us in Amnesty are trying to get others to abolish the death penalty, those politicians have installed in the law a licence to kill. At a time when political, medical and community concern about suicide abounds, they have legalised assisted suicide and thus promoted a culture of death.

  I ask those 13 politicians, `How did you do it? Was it done after the mature reflection that was required in this life and death issue?' The answer must be no. Oh, yes, they set up a committee in February of this year to receive submissions and that committee reported in May of this year, a mere three months later—with the Easter break intervening, of course. And what did that committee report? It merely reported the views of those who made the submissions—no, not the detailed House of Lords report, nothing like that; instead, something, in my view, done in indecent haste.

  I have been reading the Hansard of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and I am amazed. First of all I must congratulate a number of the speakers who indeed made very thoughtful contributions. But I was amazed more so when I started reading the committee stage of the debate. Dozens and dozens of amendments appear to have been pushed through in the early hours of the morning or late hours of the night. I know that we are not beyond criticism as being sometimes a ramshackle show in the committee stage, but I invite honourable senators to read the Hansard of the committee stage of the debate on the Northern Territory bill.

  I ask those 13 politicians further, `Why did you do it?' Yes, they did it for compassionate reasons and at least the mover was motivated in part by a stunted philosophical view of autonomy.

  No-one has the copyright on compassion. Compassion really does mean suffering with a person, not putting a person to death. In this utilitarian, excessively individualist and hedonistic society which appears to be descending upon us the value of suffering for personal growth and for the opportunity to love and serve is ignored. Anyone whose wife has died in his arms of cancer and whose mother, an Alzheimer's sufferer some years later, also died in his arms realises the importance of suffering with a person. Sometimes that realisation comes too late. But what you do know when that happens is that the person with whom life and love have been intimately shared your life does not go out of existence—does not die like a dog. That person who has shared abstract thoughts and ideas not associated in any way with corruptible matter does not die like a dog.

  The motivation of the mover of the bill was described by his assistant in an article in the Australian by Elizabeth Wynhausen which stated:

`It's got nothing to do with his mother's death,' says O'Brien, contending that the issue of euthanasia had long pre-occupied the man—

that is the mover, Marshall Perron—

`His whole philosophy is geared to the individual, and the individual doing what they want to do . . .

How ironic in the exercise of that absolute autonomy over your life you destroy that life and with it your prized autonomy itself, and what if there is a life after death? What if you do not like the state into which you have plunged yourself? Where is the autonomy in that? Admittedly, public opinion held sway over some members of the Northern Territory parliament—I have read the Hansard—but the manipulation of public opinion by sections of the press was absolutely deplorable. Some of the questions asked ran something like, `Are you in favour of a dignified death or would you prefer to suffer a protracted death in persistent unrelievable pain?' or, `Are you in favour of burdensome and futile treatment?' That sort of nonsense is a disgrace and a great disservice to the community. I cannot elaborate on that because I do not have time.

  Who will be affected most by the decision of these 13 politicians? I believe it will be the marginalised, the sick, frail aged and those who have lost self-esteem or whose society does not affirm their esteem. A recent study of clinical trials of new drugs has shown that most of the human subjects of the trials are those very persons. It does not address the question of fear of death and the need to inculcate the importance of experiencing death as part of life. Only the other day a nursing sister of long standing in the geriatric area said to me that even now patients say, `Is that too much of a burden to you?'

  If this goes into force, of course they will feel too much of a burden to those who are caring for them. Obviously, this legislation will not be implemented in a social vacuum, free from social pressures or familial pressures or from the financial pressures that were described by Senator Woodley. It is important to have educative programs in which persons can understand the difference between euthanasia and the treatment for pain and palliative care. Palliative care, as Senator Woodley said, is going to be the loser. There should be education of doctors and, more particularly, of families as to what morphine and other drugs might do, but this has to be handled extremely carefully.

  I come now to a particular area of concern to this parliament: Aboriginals and our Aboriginal power conferred upon us by the amendment to the constitution. This decision of 13 assembly members runs counter to Aboriginal respect and reverence for life. Of all people, Aboriginals know life's fragility and the need of the tribe to defend its sanctity. The Central Land Council made it clear in a statement reported in the Australian of 13 June. The Chairman of the Central Land Council described voluntary euthanasia as `culturally inappropriate' and warned that many Aboriginals would be `afraid' of visiting hospitals and health clinics if the law were enacted. The spiritual basis of Aboriginal culture has been radically vilified by the legislation.

  I believe great harm is done to the body politic by the legislation. It threatens to undermine the cornerstone of society, which depends upon the inviolable nature of the right to life of every individual human person. On that inviolability rests the equality and dignity of each human being and the edifice of law which protects that life and advances that person's benefit. From that inviolability flows the human solidarity needed to achieve justice for all human beings—the reverse of the legislation whereby the value of life is eclipsed and a culture of death is inculcated.

  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes two rights inviolable: the right to life and the right to liberty. The state will not condone people selling themselves as slaves. The cornerstone of any body politic is to ensure that the right to life is inviolable. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice. The principal function of a law-maker is to safeguard the inviolable right to life of the human person and to facilitate the performance of his or her duties. I believe that those 13 members of the Northern Territory parliament have done great disservice to the body politic.