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

The Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill (ROTI) Act made history when it entered into law on 1st July 1996 as the first voluntary euthanasia legislation in the world. Bob Dent was the first person to access the legislation. With his wife Judy by his side he used the laptop computer, effectively a ‘suicide machine’, devised and provided by Dr Philip Nitschke, to bring about his chosen death on 28th July.

It was the NT Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, who was the architect of the legislation in the early 1990s, putting up a private member’s bill, which was passed 13 votes to 12 on 25th May 1995. Four people elected to utilize the law before it was overturned in 1997 by the federal Euthanasia Laws Act, or the Andrews’ Bill as it became known, after Victorian liberal Kevin Andrews who introduced it (passed 38 votes to 33). He did so while secretary of the ultraconservative Christian group the Lyons Forum. Arguably, as in the Joffe Bill in the UK, debate on the NT legislation was largely confined to religious and medical opinion masquerading as community values.

As reported in the Medical Journal of Australia (1997, pp166-173) the intent and provisions of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act were supported by the Doctors' Reform Society, the voluntary euthanasia societies and the AIDS Council of NSW. Opposition was expressed by the Australian Medical Association, Australian Association for Hospice and Palliative Care, mainstream religions, Right to Life Australia, aged and disabilities advocates, and Dr Djiniyinni Gondarra, an Indigenous Uniting Church Minister. However it was the Indigenous MP Wesley Lanuphuy (now deceased) who supported the bill and cast what has been seen as a deciding vote. This was despite many Aboriginal people believing the campaign of misinformation which stated that old people who went to hospital would be killed.

In response to the challenge posed to the Act by the Andrews Bill, but also notification by ACT Minister Michael Moore that he would introduce voluntary euthanasia legislation in 1997, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) requested a report into the application of international human rights law to voluntary euthanasia, and in particular to any implications arising for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

George Zdenkowski, Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Human Rights Centre of the University of New South Wales, wrote an Occasional Paper commissioned by HREOC (December 1996) stating that the legislation did not appear to violate the ICCPR, or any of its other provisions, 'given its very limited scope and extensive statutory safeguards'. The statement was also made that there was ‘no coercive element involved.'However the point was also made that 'each specific law must be carefully assessed both as to its formal provisions and its material operation' and that 'the final political and moral judgment must be one for the legislature'. Although the ROTI Act was overturned the legislation remains ‘on the books’ and can be reintroduced if and when the Northern Territory gains statehood. However the High Court challenge to the territory’s right to pass legislation also endures.

Ten years on from the enactment of the NT legislation it is timely to reflect on its potential for an important social reform bolstered by safeguards as acknowledged in the HREOC report. Given the current challenge to ACT domestic law on other matters, it is also timely to reflect on the territory rights issues raised by the overturning of the ROTI Act. Not only does the Euthanasia Laws Act prohibit the Australian Territories from passing voluntary euthanasia laws, but its reach is much broader. It also prohibits legislation similar to the SA Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act which protects doctors who provide sufficient levels of pain control under the doctrine of ‘double effect’. Arguably people in the territories face arbitrary discrimination and poorer quality pain management.

While the Northern Territory’s legislation was short lived, there is no doubt that for as long as medical-aid-in-dying remains a covert and illegal practice it will return to the legislative agenda and remain under review until finally resolved, regardless of the jurisdiction.