Final vote still unclear in assisted dying laws

MLCs in marathon debate into proposed new laws

TASMANIA’S Legislative Council is likely to hold a special sitting on Friday as it nears a decision on whether to support voluntary assisted dying laws.

MLCs debated the contentious Bill on Tuesday, but are working through amendments and have yet to reach a final vote.

TASMANIA’S Legislative Council may hold an additional sitting on Friday as it nears a decision on proposed laws that would give terminally ill people in intolerable suffering the legal right to end their life.

MLCs debated voluntary assisted dying legislation during a marathon 13- hour sitting on Tuesday in the hope of reaching the stage of a final vote, but are still working through amendments.

Legislative Council members continued debate on the Bill late on Tuesday night, with MLCs expected to vote on whether to resume debate on Friday and make a final decision on the legislation.

If it passes, the Bill will be presented to the House of Assembly as early as next month, where MPs will have a conscience vote.

Three previous attempts at enacting VAD legislation in Tasmania have been defeated — in 2009, 2013 and 2017 — when they failed to pass the House of Assembly.

But this bid differs from the previous three because it was introduced in the Legislative Council by Mersey MLC Mike Gaffney as a private member’s Bill.

It was an emotional debate, with discussion about whether a review should be done into what is occurring in other jurisdictions around access to VAD- like processes for people aged under 18.

An amendment to remove that provision from the Bill was won, meaning the review would no longer take place.

Among amendments made to the Bill were that a five- person commission for VAD be established, instead of a single commissioner. The role of nurses in the VAD process was also extensively debated, including whether they should be able to be appointed to administer the VAD substance. A push to remove nurses from this part of the process was defeated.

MLCs considered whether patients should have to make their final of three formal requests to their primary medical practitioner to access VAD in person, or if it could be done by audiovisual link.

Murchison MLC Ruth Forrest said such a meeting should be done in person, but Mr Gaffney said that could be “callous” for the patient and the motion was defeated.

Other debate included the training that would be provided to medical practitioners about VAD and how the VAD substance would be handled.