Democratic equity demands that the Andrews Bill’s time has come

Ian Bushnell 7 March 2021 13
Tara Cheyne

Human Rights Minister Tara Cheyne is leading the new charge against the Andrews Bill. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

With every passing year and as more states debate the issue of voluntary assisted dying and come to some resolution on how to legislate for it, the so-called Andrews Bill, specifically designed to thwart the ACT and Northern Territory’s bid to make their own laws on this issue, is showing its age.

Making a law to block any one thing is usually not a good idea, and in this case, its price was to, in effect, create two levels of democratic standards in Australia – one for the states and another for the territories.

In 2018, the Senate voted down a bid to revoke the legislation, and now the ACT and NT are joining forces to again lobby the Federal Government to overturn the law as the political landscape continues to change across the nation.


READ MORE: Commonwealth limiting human rights in ACT over euthanasia position: Minister


Human Rights Minister Tara Cheyne and the Northern Territory’s Attorney-General, Selena Uibo, have penned a letter to the federal Attorney-General, Christian Porter, calling for the restoration of the right to legislate on voluntary assisted dying.

And Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee has spoken to the Prime Minister asking him to let the ACT make laws on voluntary assisted dying, marking a departure from previous Canberra Liberals positions.

It’s more than 20 years since conservative Liberal MP Kevin Andrews used federal legislation to overrule the territories, and any of the tissue-thin arguments about immature parliaments and social laboratories are surely in tatters.

His bill was a blunt instrument to achieve a particular outcome, but as the states such as Tasmania, Victoria and now Western Australia legislate on and others tackle what is understandably a complex and fraught issue, it is, as Chief Minister Andrew Barr has said, untenable to continue to withhold from Territorians the right to do so as well.

Whether one supports voluntary assisted dying or not, all Australians, wherever they live, should have the same political rights and the ability to debate and make laws as they see fit without sanction from the Commonwealth.


READ ALSO: The ‘Canberra bubble’ of gender inequality isn’t confined to just Parliament Hous


It is true that the ACT and NT are subject to section 122 of the Constitution under which the Commonwealth can remove some or all of the powers it grants to self-governing territories, but the Andrews Bill has been the only time it had resorted to specific legislation.

Self-government, which was imposed on the ACT, should not be conditional, and Canberrans should not be treated as second-class citizens in Australia’s democracy.

While it may suit opponents of voluntary assisted dying to continue to support the Andrews Bill as a bulwark at what they see is a slippery slope to euthanasia, the argument is not really about stopping it but about the rights of Canberrans to make their own laws, within the bounds of the Constitution like everybody else.

It is acknowledged that with opinion polls showing that 80 per cent of Canberrans support voluntary assisted dying, the likely outcome will be the very legislation opponents fear.

But they should not shy away from having the debate and their fellow citizens having the right to decide about the issue themselves and shaping laws that can offer appropriate safeguards.

The pandemic has also highlighted the difficulties of the ACT being an island within another jurisdiction, and while the ACT is proud to be a leader on social reform, it mostly respects the practicalities of lawmaking in a federation and prefers a collaborative approach to mitigate any cross-border issues.

At the rate legislation is being prepared and presented, the ACT and the NT will be left as the only jurisdictions without some sort of legal framework.

The prospect of one law for those in Queanbeyan and for those across the border on such a significant matter, where criminality will be at issue, is not a desirable one.

But for now, the anachronism of the Andrews Bill needs to be dealt with.

It would pay for the proponents of reform to stick to the core political arguments and not drag into the debate the divisive and emotional elements of voluntary assisted dying.

There will be time enough for that later.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
13 Responses to Democratic equity demands that the Andrews Bill’s time has come
Leanne K Pascoe Leanne K Pascoe 6:09 pm 09 Mar 21

It should be legal when you are unable to care for your self.

chewy14 chewy14 7:51 am 09 Mar 21

Once again there’s no real discussion around why the ACT Government should have these powers when the Constitution specifically gives them to the Feds.

The issue is still legislated on, just at a Federal level. The same way local councils can’t rule on things controlled by the state governments. Is that somehow a breach of human rights in local government areas?

It’s fine to argue that the Federal government should change the law but at least put a logical argument forward.

    jorie1 jorie1 9:59 am 09 Mar 21

    Well said Chewy14. Certain people cannot just change the Constitution because they feel like it or think it will work better for them.

dukethunder dukethunder 12:23 am 09 Mar 21

No. unless the LA is reduced to 7.

Barry Finch Barry Finch 10:49 pm 08 Mar 21

Absolutely agree. Canberrans and the ACT Government should be able to decide on all issues affecting us, rather than falling under the Federal Government.

jorie1 jorie1 7:52 pm 08 Mar 21

I support s.122 of the Constitution. You cannot just decide to change the Constitution because you feel like it. The people of the ACT did not vote for self government, it was imposed upon them, much to their dismay, and the majority don’t want it.

    JS9 JS9 8:35 am 09 Mar 21

    You have no idea whether the majority want it or not at this point in time. That statement may have held in the late 80’s/early 90s, but what evidence do you have that it still holds 30 years later? The demographic of Canberra has changed substantially since then, and maybe that opinion has too (alternatively – maybe it hasn’t, but we just don’t know).

Steve Ross Steve Ross 1:48 pm 08 Mar 21

“Making a law to block any one thing is usually not a good idea”...you might want to think this statement through a bit more. 🤔

Stephen Saunders Stephen Saunders 11:10 am 08 Mar 21

Tara, Christian won’t be coming back. Even if he did, he has no record of sponsoring anything decent in the way of legislation.

    Capital Retro Capital Retro 11:51 am 08 Mar 21

    Christian hasn’t gone anywhere but you get 10/10 for your vindictive speculation.

    Rob Taglienti Rob Taglienti 4:24 pm 08 Mar 21

    Well said…

Tim Cole Tim Cole 10:34 am 08 Mar 21

We'll be half way there after the next election, with the dinosaur Kevin Andrews not winning preselection for his own seat.

Andrew Duncan Andrew Duncan 7:50 am 08 Mar 21

Brilliantly explained. But as you highlighted euthanasia being seen as main issue when it should be the right to pass laws on issues that should be focus.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site