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

On August 30th in the SA Legislative Council Sandra Kanck MLC gave a speech in which she mentioned several ways by which people seeking to end their lives could do so. Had these comments been transmitted through a telecommunications carrier they could have been interpreted as contravening the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Materials Offences) Act 2005. In making this speech Sandra stated:

I will be doing two things: I will be placing on record some of the dreadful ways that people use to end their lives and what might be more acceptable alternatives for those who are denied the opportunity to access legal voluntary euthanasia...and I will be challenging federal law.

The following day the Legislative Council removed her speech from the online version of Hansard prompting public concerns over freedom of speech, including the claim:

Without a full Hansard record of its debates, the parliament is little more than an exclusive legislative club, available only to those who have the location and the leisure to attend. However Hansard itself occupies a special place in our form of government because it is trustworthy...readers can be confident that the contents of Hansard are a full reflection of the course of debate. They cannot have this confidence about any other form of parliamentary reporting(1)

There is a valid counter argument that responsibility comes with parliamentary privilege, and there is allowance for objections if they are taken immediately, and ruled on immediately by the presiding officer (Legislative Council Standing Order 207). This did not happen. A worrying precedent now been set:

What subject will be blacklisted for debate next? What is to stop a dominant government from excising speeches which are contrary to its political interests? (2)

Ms Kanck made her intentions clear:

" ... I am not advocating suicide, but I am advocating the right of people to end their life should they find themselves suffering intolerably" People looking for simple ways to end their lives by accessing this speech will not find them. She strongly encouraged people to complete anticipatory directions and ‘not leave it to their loved ones to guess their intentions’.

Ms Kanck has responded to requests by hundreds of people for mailed copies of her speech; a mode of communication not affected by the recent law. Her comments attracted both negative commentary from sections of the media and general public, as well as overwhelming expressions of support; and SAVES President Frances Coombe sent the following letter to the editor of The Sunday Mail:

Dear Editor,
I thank Kym Wheatley for highlighting the cruelties of our current law prohibiting voluntary euthanasia (Sunday Mail October 1st). However I disagree with her condemning of Sandra Kanck’s speech in parliament. Ms Kanck acted honourably and courageously with a dual purpose; challenging the absurd Federal law that prohibits suicide related information via electronic means when that same information can be readily accessed through books, post and via face to face, and highlighting the disturbing fact that the lack of voluntary euthanasia legislation effectively forces some people to pre-emptive and covert suicide often by violent or unreliable means. Any shame and blame rests squarely with the majority of our lawmakers who oppose such legislation.

Further to this issue of challenging the ‘suicide act’, the following quotation taken from an emailing list raises an interesting point in need of clarification:

I really would like to know if this act is legal, as I see on reading the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" set up by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1948; Article 19 says (quote) "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers". Surely what has happened here in Australia is going against the United Nations and the Government should be called to answer to it.

References:

(1,2) Dr Anthony Marinac ‘Shaking the foundations of parliamentary privilege’, reported in Online Opinion 18th September 2006.