SAVES is not affiliated with Exit International / Dr Philip Nitschke and opposes the public availability of a 'peaceful pill'.

The Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2005 contains offences that were originally introduced in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2004. The Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee has handed down recommendations, after considering 31 submissions, including one by SAVES.

The provisions of the Bill include inserting new offences into the Criminal Code dealing with the use of a carriage service to ‘access, transmit or otherwise make available suicide-related material; and possession, production, supplying or obtaining suicide-related material for use through a carriage service’. It also makes it an offence for a person to use the carriage service to ‘counsel or incite suicide, with the intention that they or another person will use the material to counsel or incite suicide.’ It would also be an offence to ‘promote or provide instruction on a particular method of committing suicide, with the intention that the material be used to promote or provide instruction on that method of suicide’. ⁽¹⁾ This particularly relates to the use of the internet, email and online applications.

The key issues raised by the committee of enquiry were from submissions, arguing both for and against the Bill citing variously that

• the Bill is necessary for protection of the ‘vulnerable’
• the measures are misguided, unnecessary and counterproductive
• there is support for the Bill
• the Bill involves curtailing free speech and access to information
• there are concerns over the terms and definitions used
• the Bill is inconsistent with the Customs Regulations

The Law Society of NSW made the pertinent point that the Bill would not protect the vulnerable or those at risk of suicide because it does not address the underlying causes of suicide, which include ‘personal despondency, loneliness, depression, mental illness, family breakdown or death of a loved one, poverty, unemployment, financial ruin, substance abuse or the chronic pain of a terminal illness’. ⁽²⁾ Another submission stated in part that adults should have access to the kind of information and counselling prohibited by the Bill. Terminally ill people should not necessarily be considered vulnerable and prevented from accessing information. ⁽³⁾

Targeting the internet was considered counterproductive as suicide has decreased since internet access became available in 1994 ⁽⁴⁾, and would certainly not have any impact on the common methods of suicide including hanging and motor vehicle exhaust. Other submissions noted that the internet cannot be controlled by any one country, and that there is no way that internet service providers can block access to material except by development of an Australian ‘firewall’. ⁽⁵⁾

The voluntary euthanasia societies’ submissions raised concerns that the Bill would seriously impinge on their activities in legitimately seeking law reform in relation to voluntary euthanasia.

The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states that it would not capture debate, public discussion or advocacy for law reform if the person or organisation does not intend that the material be used to ‘counsel or incite suicide, or promote or provide instruction on a method of committing suicide’. ⁽⁶⁾ However, as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Victoria argues, ‘proving that one did not have the requisite intention not to encourage suicide while at the same time discussing the possibility of medically assisted dying would be difficult’. ⁽⁷⁾ SAVES argued that the phrase ‘counsels or incites suicide’ should be changed to ‘promotes or incites suicide’, a view not supported by the Department which claimed that, in the context of the Bill, the word ‘counsels’ has a narrow meaning of ‘encouraging or urging the commission of a suicide’. ⁽⁸⁾ Yet, as Electronic Frontiers Australia notes, the word ‘counsels’ is not defined in the Bill and the phrase ‘counsels suicide’ is ‘dangerously broad’. ⁽⁹⁾

The committee made recommendations for changes, while still supporting the passage of the Bill. One of these was making changes so that the term ‘counsels or incites suicide’ reads ‘counsels or incites another person to commit or attempt to commit suicide’.

One submission made the point that the offences proposed by the Bill cover a much broader range of material than that prohibited by amendments to the Customs Regulations which this Bill seeks to complement. As such the Bill would prohibit accessing material on the internet and other carriage services that is quite lawful to import, access, and distribute by other measures. ⁽¹⁰⁾

SAVES considers that this Bill is inconsistent, draconian, and has far reaching proposals that impact on freedom of speech, education and information access. It is expected that the new censorship law will be passed in the Senate. (It was passed in the House of Representatives in May). If passed, the laws will take effect in December 2005, thereby providing a window of opportunity for people to make their views known.

The committee urges readers to write to the Federal MPs listed on page 355 in the front section of the telephone directory. If possible write to all listed Senators expressing opposition to the proposed Bill. Letters can be photocopied, put in envelopes with just the Senator’s name on the front, and all envelopes included within one large envelope addressed to Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600.

Simply writing to one member is better than taking no action at all against this assault on freedom of information.

References:

1. Senate Report Provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2005
2. Submission 18, Law Society of NSW
3. Committee Hansard, 14th April 2005, Electronic Frontiers Australia
4. Submission 28, Electronic Frontiers Australia and Dr Philip Nitschke in Hansard 14th April 2005
5. Submission 23 Atheist Foundation of Australia and Electronic Frontiers Australia, Hansard 24th April 2005
6. Explanatory Memorandum, p 4
7. Submission 11.
8 Submission 32 Attorney General’s Dept.
9 Submission 28 Electronic Frontiers Australia
10 ibid