Catholic leaders tell ACT VAD Committee that ‘Catholic facilities cannot co-operate in state-sanctioned killing’

Christian leaders were invited as a panel to answer questions about their submissions for the ACT’s proposed voluntary assisted dying legislation. (L-R) ACL’s State Director NSW/ACT Joshua Rowe, Dr Patrick McArdle, Chancellor Archdiocese of Canberra Goulburn, Canberra Goulburn Catholic Archbishop Christopher Prowse, and Canberra Goulburn Anglican Bishop Mark Short. Issues raised were conscientious objection, the need for proper Palliative Care funding, and the misguided understanding of human rights and compassion.

Last year, the ACT Government committed to swiftly enacting euthanasia legislation ACT. The Chief Minister declared that the ACT legislation would have the benefits

of considering the legislation and impacts of similar laws in the six states.

The Bill introduced to the Legislative Assembly represents the fewest protections and the widest application of any such legislation in Australia.

The Bill proposes:

• No diagnosis of a terminal illness – just that the person deems their actual or anticipated suffering to be intolerable
• No predicted time to death
• No real protections for healthcare providers
• A requirement that all providers must cooperate in enabling killing to take place within their institution
• Criminal sanctions for those who do not comply on a strict liability basis (which means that there is no defence – simply not complying with the law is evidence enough for conviction).Fewer safeguards for individual health practitioners than in any other jurisdiction

Some of the more egregious thought bubbles floated, such as opening up the provisions to those who are under 18 or who have impaired cognitive

capacity (i.e., dementia or mental illness) have been deferred to an internal inquiry three years after the passage of the Bill, though it does not require further legislation, simply ministerial approval.

The Inquiry on the Bill was held between 31 October 2023

and 29 February 2024, with submissions closing in the pre-Christmas rush and the actual hearings in four days in late January and the first week of February 2023. Those deemed to have specific faith-based objections – the Anglican diocese, the Australian Chris- tian Lobby and the Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn – were provided with a joint session of 45 minutes at the end of a seven-hour day. It was clear the plan was to consider all faith-based concerns as equivalent and to deal with them in a single narrow time frame.

The Inquiry members: Ms Orr, Ms Casterley, Dr Pattison, Mr Braddock and Mr Cocks conducted the hearings in a deeply considered, thoughtful and respectful fashion.

Not surprisingly, there were actually several reports: one from the Select Committee as a whole—where the members of the Committee all agreed—and several others from individual or smaller groupings of MLAs. None found the Bill as proposed by the Government in its current form acceptable.

Areas where the Committee as a whole recommended the bill be changed to provide for, among other things: greater precision and clarity about terms such as “advanced” and “last stages of their life”; a doubling of the timeframes applicable for ‘strict liability of- fences’; and, training about the nature and role of both carers and those living with disability.

Perhaps most pleasing, the Committee recommended that before the passage of the bill, the ACT Government make a statement to the Assembly on the current state of palliative care provision in the ACT and that in three years, a similar statement be made to the Assembly on palliative care provision. This is vital given the failure of the Government to honour its commitments to palliative care in this term, let alone when there is an ‘efficient safe medical’ alternative. Evidence from Canada, where there is some transparency, suggests that there are significant savings to the budget from euthanasia (over $C80m in 2021, according to the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Office).

The Committee could not reach a consensus on conscientious objections. The Committee were largely unable to understand the basis for such objections unless they were the result of an individual prefer- ence. The idea that something could simply be objectively morally wrong and therefore abhorrent to a community or to the provider of a service was simply beyond them. This is not to impugn ill will – it was simply a failure to actually understand what it means to belong to a community, especially one guided by the principles of faith and reason.

We await the Government’s response, though the indications from the Minister for Human Rights and the Minister for Health suggest that there may be tinkering around the edges but that the substantive bill will pass later this year.

It is clear and made clear to the Committee that Catholic facilities cannot cooperate in state-sanctioned killing and cannot permit another to do so within their facilities. As it stands, this will make the pro-prietors, that is, the Archbishop or the religious companies in health and aged care, along with the CEOs of the facilities, criminals under this bill.

A question worth posing to the Government is how they intend to guarantee welfare, health and aged care if they make it impossible for faith-based providers to continue to operate in the Territory.