Second Reading
Danny O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (17:07): I will not say I am pleased to rise. This is always a difficult topic for everyone in this chamber to deal with. For some it is not, for some it is straightforward and easy, but it is certainly an issue that has caused me a lot of thought. I would say, to be frank, I was blessed or privileged to have been here in 2017 and to have gone through the debate over whether we should in fact have voluntary assisted dying in Victoria. I remind those who were not here at the time that I opposed the introduction of voluntary assisted dying at the time. But in considering my position today, and for all of us, I must acknowledge that this legislation today is not a debate about whether or not we have voluntary assisted dying. It is about changes. What we are debating today will not change whether voluntary assisted dying is available in Victoria or not. We are considering whether there are worthwhile changes to be made to it.
In saying that, I do need to go back briefly to the 2017 debate and point out – and I did this to the Minister for Health, and I thank the Minister for Health for the opportunity she gave to brief me on this bill a couple of weeks ago – the slippery slope argument. Many of us argued at the time that whilst the government was planning a number of safeguards – I think 68 safeguards was what the Premier and the minister at the time talked about – many of these are now being removed. It is a point of argument, not necessarily a point of policy, but it is relevant nonetheless that many of us said that that would be the start and those so-called safeguards would be removed over time. And to be frank, that is what some of today’s legislation is doing. I think the Premier talked about the bill in 2017 having strong safeguards, and now they are seen as barriers. That is the point I wish to make. Having said that, as I indicated, we are faced with the fact that we have voluntary assisted dying. It is not up for debate today. Even if it were, I strongly suspect that the vote would remain in the majority in terms of the people in this place.
I know many of my colleagues have already indicated that they have probably changed their position somewhat since 2017, and I would probably also be one of them. I am not sure, if we were debating it today, what my position would be, but I certainly have grappled with it over the years. There have been a number of individuals who came to me at the time with concerns. Acknowledging the member for Pakenham, one of those individuals spoke about having motor neurone disease in her family and simply wanting the option. I have thought about that person a lot ever since, even though I voted against it. It highlights that this is a tricky decision. I think it is not easy to decide on voluntary assisted dying in principle. It is even harder when it comes to the practice of a certain individual, and previous members have spoken of their experience with individuals.
On that score, I would like to reference a person from my electorate, Amanda Mundy, who has spoken on behalf of Dying With Dignity Victoria about her experience with her father Don Wright, who I knew. I played footy with Amanda’s brother Danny and her other brother Matthew. Amanda gave a very eloquent explanation of the experiences of her father, particularly the experience of him being a regional Victorian and some of the challenges that that caused. Her position was very moving. Again, I am influenced to some degree by that specific experience.
In saying all of that, I raised at the time concerns particularly about coercion and about the prospect of that occurring. I must say, eight years down the track I have seen no evidence nor heard stories of the things that I was concerned about then actually occurring with voluntary assisted dying. I emphasise that is not to say that they have not. It is very unlikely that anyone would be able to ever prove that a person was coerced or pushed into voluntary assisted dying.
It is on that issue that I still am somewhat conflicted on two of the amendments in this legislation. One is with respect to clause 7, which allows health practitioners to initiate discussions about VAD. The mere fact of a health professional giving the option to someone could be interpreted by them as something that it is being suggested that they should do. The second matter is the issue of interpreters. Again, there is a risk – I think a very small one but a risk nonetheless – that an unaccredited interpreter, perhaps a family member, could make statements that would make it difficult for someone facing a decision on this. They are two issues that I grapple with as well. I will be interested to listen to further debate on this.
As I said, I remain conflicted on parts of the bill. There are some, though, that I am happy to support. Clause 8, about Australian citizenship requirements, and clause 9, about Victorian residency requirements, I have no issue with. Clause 10, about medical practitioner eligibility, and clause 15, removing the requirement for third prognosis assessments for people with neurodegenerative conditions, I do not have any issue with. Shortening the time period from nine to five days between the first and second request – I understand the concerns about that, I genuinely do, but I think when it comes to someone who is genuinely at the end of their life this becomes an issue. Simplifying the permits, removing the forms from the act and requiring the additional review of the act every five years I certainly support. Even though there are parts of the bill that I am uncomfortable with or that I am grappling with, I would certainly support clause 11, the prohibition on practitioners from being a beneficiary or a family member.
As I said, I think in respect of allowing health practitioners to initiate discussions on VAD, so removing the so-called doctor gag, there is a risk that people are not informed. As MPs we deal with certain things day after day and we know what is available, and there is no doubt that there are people, particularly someone going through a very stressful time, who will not be aware of these issues. I think it is a tricky one, and I am conflicted on this because there is the risk that doctors simply raising it, as I said, does potentially send a signal to someone that they should take up the option of VAD, but I will consider discussion on that further.
The conscientious objection is the other one. I am concerned that anyone should be forced to do anything against their will or their conscience, but I am pleased that the proposal here is not that a health practitioner must refer to another health practitioner, as is the case with abortion, but that they must simply provide further information. I will consider some of the amendments that have already been flagged and proposed to tighten that a bit to ensure that it is simply not the secretary’s information. I am not sure that it is too much to ask that if you are an objector to this you at least provide information if someone is raising the concern.
I will carefully consider the debate as it goes. I will listen to arguments about amendments. I think we all want to see people have a good life and a good death. Since 2017, sadly, I have lost my mum to a kidney issue that was effectively a terminal illness. She had a good death. That was a great thing. It was very peaceful and calm and largely without pain. I guess we would all like to see that. I, again, remain conflicted on aspects of this bill. I look forward to the ongoing debate.