Recent unsealed cabinet records reveal significant details surrounding the Northern Territory’s groundbreaking legislation on Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD), first introduced in 1995. This banning legislation was led by then Chief Minister Marshall Perron. It put the Northern Territory at the head of the pack in Australia, like all other trailblazers, for euthanasia legislation. Yet, the political climate of the time made for significant shifts that would influence the future course of VAD within the sub-region.
In 1995, the Northern Territory passed the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. This new law provided people with terminal conditions the choice to end their life through assisted dying. Weaving his way through the legislative process, Marshall Perron was the primary architect of this bold policy. He surprised everyone by announcing his resignation from politics in May, just hours before the second reading of his historic bill. His resignation threw the fate of VAD in the territory into confusion.
Our original bill was amended very significantly before passing, requiring a minimum of three assessments by a psychiatrist for any applicant. In November of that same year, the state legislature approved these amendments. They put in place more rigorous safeguards for people requesting assisted death. In 1996, the second such federal private member’s bill was introduced into the federal parliament. Even still, it passed with flying colors and became the law that wrongfully ended VAD practices throughout the Northern Territory. Consequently, it is now the last Australian state or territory where such discriminatory laws are allowed.
The Political Landscape of 1995
The political context of 1995 was in some ways as dramatic as the changes happening both in and outside of Australia. Perron’s resignation—on the same day his bill was scheduled for its critical third reading—was shocking and momentous.
“I had a good relationship with all of my colleagues in parliament [so] I guess there was some disappointment, but then again the resignation of a chief minister opens up all sorts of opportunities,” – Marshall Perron
After stepping out of politics, he continued his advocacy by making multiple failed attempts to introduce VAD legislation on a national level. These efforts didn’t include mental health assessments from a psychiatrist, a gap that Perron called out. This change in focus raised discussion on the appropriateness and availability of mental health assessments for individuals applying for VAD.
Unsealed Records Highlight Financial Decisions
Further, recent cabinet records provide insight into the often politically contentious financial decisions made during Perron’s government, especially with respect to poker machines. In 1995, the majority Country Liberal Party, led by Shane Stone, passed legislation to introduce poker machines into community sporting clubs. This decision opened the floodgates for gambling expansion into local communities.
The cabinet first approved $1.9 million to buy and install these machines. This funding is intended for outdoor community spaces. Treasury projections showed that the government would begin to experience a net-revenue gain. Starting in 1997/98, this increase would be $5-6 million annually.
“Treasury’s broad estimates are that government’s net position, after development costs, will be at least budget neutral in the start-up years 1995/96 and 1996/97, with a net revenue gain starting at $5-6m per year from 1997/98,” – Treasury submission to cabinet
By 1998, almost three out of five establishments indicated that the introduction of poker machines had greatly increased their gross profits. This was a definitive turning point on how organizations focused on advocacy and activism viewed making money.
The Evolving Conversation Around VAD
In turn during this contentious period, the Department of Health consistently championed the Voluntary Assisted Dying policy. They stressed its vital significance for terminally ill patients. The evolving requirements imposed by amendments to the original bill indicated a complex relationship between healthcare regulations and legislative intent.
“The present requirement in the act is for the second doctor to certify both the terminal illness and the mental competence of the patient,” – Steve Hatton
In response, critics raised alarms about these requirements as overly burdensome and restrictive. As Hatton noted, limiting certification to psychiatrists would severely restrict patient access. For many patients, it will be difficult to identify qualified professionals who are able or willing to perform these evaluations.
“This is considered unnecessarily restrictive as it requires the second doctor to have special medical competence possessed by very few doctors and limits the choice to psychiatrists,” – Steve Hatton
Critics freed some valid concerns. They ignited a debate about the need to reform the expedited process. The hope is to decouple functions and simplify evaluations, which should help sort qualified physicians for each role.
“The reformulation will separate the two functions to make it easier to find competent doctors to certify each aspect,” – Steve Hatton
