There simply is no longer a case for the NT and ACT to be denied the ability to decide for themselves if they want to legalise voluntary assisted dying

CLAIMS of discrimination in one form or another blare from the TV every night. Race, religion, sex and age are the common themes. Territorians can add another – discrimination on the grounds of geography By withdrawing powers that had been transferred to the territories at self government, the federal parliament effectively divided Australian citizens into two classes on the grounds of where they live. The 660,000 who choose to live in the Territories (more people than live in Tasmania) cannot elect representatives to legislate on their behalf on end-of-life issues the way citizens living in the states can. Court action delaying the inevitable NT tour operators in dire need of JobKeeper extension Time to talk to business about fees In 1997 when the federal parliament voted narrowly to overturn the first voluntary euthanasia law and withdraw the Legislative Assembly’s power to pass such a law again, it might have been considered the Territory had overstepped the line. At that time, no other parliament in the world had legalised voluntary euthanasia. History now shows the Territory was simply leading the pack. Today, 22 jurisdictions around the world with a population of 364 million have legalised medical assistance to die. This includes Victoria, Western Australia, and New Zealand. Tasmania will join the group within a month. SA is currently debating a bill, and Queenslanders will have their debate later this year. There simply is no longer a case for the NT and ACT to be denied the ability to decide for themselves if they want to legalise voluntary assisted dying (VAD.) Even the strongest campaigner against legalising VAD, Professor of Law at the Australian Catholic University and Jesuit priest, Father Frank Brennan, conceded during Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee hearings in 2008 that when a state passed an assisted dying law, the territories should be allowed to do the same. “In terms of political morality, I am readily conceding that point,” Brennan said. “If, for example, NSW were to legislate tomorrow for euthanasia then I would say that in terms of political morality the territories should be given the power to make equivalent type laws.” In the 23 years since the Territory law was quashed, an unknown number of people who would have used it have endured unnecessary suffering and an undignified death. Others are in that situation today and more will be in the future. Yet our representatives seem impotent to do anything about it. Between the NT and the ACT there are five members of the House of Representatives and four Senators. Add in two Chief Ministers with a bunch of lawyers, speech writers, political advisers and press officers already on the payroll and you have a formidable army to target the problem if only they would work together. The case is strong. Not one of the 126 Senators and MHRs who voted for the Euthanasia Laws Bill in 1997 were electorally responsible to Territorians. Outsiders could also be called upon to help. Across Australia there are a number of institutions, organisations and influential individuals that have a particular interest in the functioning of our democracy. They should be encouraged to add their support for an end to the unjustified second class status of Territorians. HOT NEW DEAL: $1 for 28 days subscription offer One example is the Citizens for Democratic Renewal – democracy2025.gov.au If individual MPs like Jackie Lambie and Pauline Hanson can use their political prowess to extract concessions from the political powerbrokers in Canberra, how come nine federal members and two Chief Ministers can’t get to first base? There seems no real urgency among today’s Territory MPs, all of whom claim to be supporters (of restoring powers) and no doubt are. But where is the action? . ■ MARSHALL PERRON is the former NT chief minister whose government introduced the NT’s euthanasia laws in 1996