Cate has been a Greens Member of the NSW Legislative Council since 2010. During her time in Parliament, Cate has been a strong advocate for the environment, including working to protect national parks and marine protected areas, fighting for tougher pollution laws and campaigning around animal welfare. She fights hard for increased public transport investment, including light rail and cycling infrastructure.

Some of her recent achievements include winning support for a Greens motion in the NSW Upper House calling on the Commonwealth to support marriage equality and exposing hidden plans to drill for coal seam gas in St Peters, in Sydney’s inner west.

Prior to entering Parliament, Cate headed up the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, was a founding director of GetUp!, and a Board member of the NSW Environmental Defenders’ Office. She has also managed Greens election campaigns and media strategies in New Zealand, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia.

VISIT SENATE CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

Responding to the release of a new Sydney Airport Masterplan, Greens MP and transport spokesperson Cate Faehrmann says efforts to reduce bottlenecks will always be a band-aid solution when it comes to reducing congestion in and around the airport. Ms Faehrmann says the first step to improving amenity and productivity should be for the NSW Government to buy back the Airport Rail Line.

“The best planning for Sydney airport is ensuring there is adequate public transport infrastructure. While the old parties bicker about airport locations, motorway links and road bottlenecks, everyone else understands that without higher public transport patronage, the entire precinct is going to grind to a halt,” said Ms Faehrmann.

“An airport line buy back is a bargain-basement first step that will help alleviate congestion. It will be a huge boost to business and make commuting for passengers, including those who have no choice but to drive, much easier.

“If we see a doubling of passengers as the new master plan predicts, the operators can do as much internal planning, and make as many scheduling and efficiency changes as they like: unless we see a major increase in rail patronage we are going to see enormous problems in the future.

“A buyback was costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office for my office back in 2010 at $276 million. Meanwhile Barry O’Farrell is burning billions on a new motorway without even having a comprehensive business case.

“The number one priority for dealing with congestion at Sydney Airport should be cheaper and easier rail services. It’s a no brainer,” said Ms Faehrmann.

What? Logging in national parks? Tell the Premier: 

[contact-form-7]

Why not help build this campaign on Facebook or Twitter? Share the campaign here with your friends, or change your profile picture to send Barry a message. Download these images by clicking below.

And for the tech-savvy and creative among you, download this illustrator file of our no hunting logo and make your own!

Dying with dignity laws are inevitable. This may have been a last century decision by the majority of members in the NSW Upper House today, but I am confident the weight of public support will come to bear within the next year.

I am of course bitterly disappointed with the result today, and with the MPs who I know support reform but chose to abstain or vote against the bill for political reasons.

Outrageously, not a single Coalition member voted in favour of the bill. It was hard to believe it was a conscience vote. Clearly pressure was placed on some members to not support my bill.

Already my office has received a number of calls from people in tears about the outcome.

I’m telling them that Independent MP Alex Greenwich, Independent MP Greg Piper and Greens MP Jamie Parker have agreed to co-sponsor the bill in the Lower House, so the campaign will continue.

Excuses about process, inadequate safeguards and a need for an inquiry, will eventually fall away in the face of the overwhelming tide for change.

If you can make it to Sydney, please join Jamie Parker and me at a special forum to discuss the next steps in the campaign on Sunday at the Italian Forum Cultural Centre, 21 Norton Street, Leichhardt from 3 – 4.30pm 26th May. More infomation here:
Thank you again for your continued support.

Here is a list of how MPs voted.

AGAINST
Ajaka, John (Liberals)
Borsak, Robert (Shooters & Fishers)
Brown, Robert (Shooters & Fishers)
Clarke, David (Liberals)
Colless, Richard (Nationals)
Cotsis, Sophie (Labor)
Cusack, Catherine (Liberals)
Donnelly, Greg (Labor)
Ficarra, Marie (Liberals)
Foley, Luke (Labor)
Gallacher, Michael (Liberals)
Gardiner, Jenny (Liberals)
Gay, Duncan (Nationals)
Green, Paul (Christian Democrats)
Lynn, Charlie (Liberals)
MacDonald, Scot (Liberals)
Maclaren-Jones, Natasha (Liberals)
Mason-Cox, Matthew (Liberals)
Mitchell, Sarah (Nationals)
Moselmane, Shaoquett (Labor)
Nile, Fred (Christian Democrats)
Pavey, Melinda (Nationals)
Secord, Walter (Labor)

FOR
Barham, Jan (Greens)
Buckingham, Jeremy (Greens)
Faehrmann, Cate (Greens)
Fazio, Amanda (Labor)
Kaye, John (Greens)
Primrose, Peter (Labor)
Searle, Adam (Labor)
Sharpe, Penny (Labor)
Shoebridge, David (Greens)
Veitch, Mick (Labor)
Voltz, Lynda (Labor)
Westwood, Helen (Labor)
Whan, Steve (Labor)

ABSTAIN
Niall Blair (Nationals)
Pearce, Gregory (Liberals)
Phelps, Peter (Liberals)
Khan, Trevor (Nationals.

If you get a secretary, ask to speak to the Member or for them to call you back. If you’re calling after hours, you may need to leave a voice message.

Try not to get into an argument about the details of the bill. The bill has the support of experts in the field, including doctors and legal experts. It is safe, has excellent safeguards, and does exactly what it is intended to do.

Some suggestions of what to tell MPs:

1. Voluntary euthanasia law reform is compassionate: it’s about giving the terminally ill a choice to end their worst suffering at the very end of life if that is their wish
2. You expect them to vote in line with the vast majority of Australians who support the reform
3. The bill before Parliament is safe

4. You are watching how they will vote

If you have a personal story that explains why compassionate law reform for assisting dying is so important: start by telling your story.

Have you seen all the supporting documentation? If not, you can find the bill, the briefing note and a flow chart that explains how the legislation operates here.

Here is a list of MPs who haven’t indicated their support for the bill or otherwise. Please pick two or three and make your voice heard. But if you have the time and the passion, why not call them all?

• Greg Pearce (02) 9230 2428
• John Ajaka (02) 9230 2203
• Michael Gallacher (02) 9230 2302
• Niall Blair (02) 9230 2467
• Peter Phelps (02) 9230 3462
• Sarah Mitchell (02) 9230 3499
• Shaoquett Moselmane (02) 9230 2526
• Sophie Cotsis (02) 9230 2080

Shoalhaven locals are calling on the State government to revoke the renewal of Petroleum Exploration Licence 469, which will allow coal seam gas exploration in the Shoalhaven area for up to another five years.

As stated in the petition:

“Coal seam gas is no longer seen as a short term, less destructive energy source filling the gap as we transition from a fossil fuel based economy to renewable energies. The CSG industry with its fugitive emissions, government subsidies, long term destruction of productive farmland and water supplies does not contribute to the development of a stable and ecologically sustainable energy future.”

According to Cate Faehrmann, this decision by Chris Hartcher, the Liberal Minister for Resources and Energy, is “a slap in the face to the residents of Shoalhaven, as well as the broader population of NSW.”

“While Barry O’Farrell was applauded by some for his decision to restrict the areas in which coal seam gas mining could occur, it has taken no time at all for this government’s true intentions to come to light,” she says.

“By renewing this licence, Chris Hartcher has shown that his government’s earlier decision was nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention from its continued commitment to the interests of the mining industry over those of the people of NSW.”

You can sign the petition calling on the NSW government to revoke the PEL 469 licence here.

Greens MP and transport spokesperson Cate Faehrmann says reports the Federal government will commit up to $1.8 billion on the WestConnex motorway indicates Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese has the same ‘tunnel vision’ when it comes to Sydney’s transport solutions as Nick Greiner and Barry O’Farrell.

“Every dollar matters in this budget, yet today we hear that Anthony Albanese is happy to throw $1.8 billion towards Westconnex which has been written on the back of an envelope by Nick Greiner and his mates in the tollroad business,” said Ms Faehrmann.

“It has been committed to by the state government with scant traffic modelling or no business case being undertaken to justify it. Now we have the federal government falling over themselves to throw money at it too.

“The absolutely last thing Sydney needs is another toll road. But Anthony Albanese is happy to throw billions at one that will tear a path through suburbs, increase pollution and smoke stacks in residential streets and do nothing to reduce congestion in the long term.

“The fact that the federal government is also willing to support this before there is even a proper business case or a final route planned is beyond logic. Sydney is crying out for investment in congestion busting public transport yet both Labor and Liberal state governments are prioritising tunnels and tolls over and over again. Now Albo is no different.

“The federal government’s insistence that Westconnex not be funded by tolls will see the NSW taxpayer have to front up with the outstanding balance of $10 billion. Sydneysiders want their taxes invested in world-class public transport, not more motorways. New motorways have been proven without fail to become congested car parks within a few short years from opening.”

“The Infrastructure Minister will be helping to guarantee traffic gridlock when he should be standing up to the poorly planned tunnel vision propagated by the Liberals in NSW,” said Ms Faehrmann.

CASINO TO MURWILLUMBAH RAIL LINE

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN: The rail line which connected the town of Casino with Lismore, Byron Bay and Murwillumbah opened in 1894 and was finally suspended after a century of service in 2004. Members of the Far North Coast community have actively been trying to get the line reopened ever since. They were promised a reinstatement of the line by the current Government before it came to power, but that promise, like so many others, has been broken. In 2007 Geoff Provest, the member for Tweed, was happy to be photographed wearing a red T-shirt that said:

The Nationals. Yes, you can have your trains back.

The photo was published on a postcard promoting Geoff’s plan for Murwillumbah to Gold Coast trains with an integrated public transport plan. Clearly, colleagues thought it was a good idea too as Don Page, Jenny Gardiner, Andrew Stoner and others donned the same red T-shirt and appeared in the photo. So what has happened? The red T-shirts now appear like a red rag to a bull as local community members once more realise they have been conned by politicians not living up to an election promise.

The long-awaited report on the costs of reinstating the Casino to Murwillumbah line has finally been released by Transport for New South Wales, but typically the terms of reference were restricted so that the Government got the answer it wanted. This report estimated it will cost some $900 million to reinstate the line, whereas in 2004 PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated it would cost $30 million. Thirty-fold inflation in less than 10 years is quite frankly unbelievable, even with some additional degradation of the line. The usual pattern of understating the potential of public transport and overstating the costs has played out yet again. The report says that the $900 million is an upper limit cost profile of expected reinstatement costs. Publishing costs only for reinstating the line to XPT standards means that the highest possible costs are presented. So is it any wonder that buses were the favoured solution?

Many rail lines throughout the country can be used for more than one hundred years, as was this line. But the report chose to calculate costs based on a 15- to 20-year time frame. Should we be surprised to see that these costs seem unbearable? As we know from the parliamentary inquiry into rail infrastructure project costing that I initiated on behalf of The Greens, rail projects cost some 15 per cent more in New South Wales than in the rest of Australia. Is it any wonder when consultants engaged to report on projects choose the maximum possible cost they can get away with that Governments shy away from providing a public service and fail to future-proof this State against the growing cost

burden of car ownership? This report noted:

The Northern Rivers has proportionally the highest number of people not in employment in New South Wales.
This is concerning given that the number of people who can afford to drive will only diminish as fuel prices continue to rise faster than the cost of living. Students often have to get lifts, not always with people they know. Parents worry about their children getting home safely. The report raises other problems. Only 75 of 187 bridges were inspected, representing an incomplete picture of the line’s true state of repair, compared with PrincewaterhouseCoopers inspecting every bridge in 2004. The 2007 Southern Cross University patronage study, which found that 2,875 people would use a light rail every day, was ignored. A rail shuttle service—deemed more suitable by this report than light rail—could capture the same number of passengers.

The growth in tourist visits from south-east Queensland to Byron Bay has meant that road traffic can reach gridlock on any summer’s day. A 10-minute car journey from the highway into Byron can easily extend to 45 minutes. Buses would be similarly afflicted. Extending the rail line to the Gold Coast airport means that many visitors could convert from car travellers to train travellers. Insufficient account was taken of this when calculating patronage growth. It is far better to encourage tourists to travel to Byron by train and provide bike hire service in town than destroy the very thing tourists are seeking by continuing to encourage car travel. At the behest of some special interest groups the report also looked at converting the disused line into a rail trail. That almost 3,000 tourists a day would cycle along a specialist rail trail, thus competing numerically with the university rail patronage estimates, is somewhat fanciful. It is important to encourage tourism and the jobs it brings but greater rewards would be had from the tourists carried by rail than by cyclists using a rail trail.
This report provides somewhat curious train travel times. Modelling assumed a train would take 129 minutes from Casino to Murwillumbah. At 61.4 kilometres per hour that would be slower than any other regional rail line in the State. XPTs from Sydney to Dubbo are slowest at 70 kilometres per hour. If the train line is not reinstated then North Coast residents will be forced to use buses, which can become totally unreliable in summer. Getting to a job on time by public transport will become a nightmare. Bus rapid transit was ruled out by this report, so road sharing with cars will continue. All the advantages of train travel will be lost and any convenience will be lost alongside it, not to mention that the opportunity for freight transport along the line will also be lost. The age of oil is drawing to a close but this Government’s lack of long-term vision will condemn the residents of the Northern Rivers to a second-class transport system for many years to come.

Cate with Loredana Alessio-Mulhall

*CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY*

As I rise to formally introduce the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2013, I have at the forefront of my mind human suffering.

The suffering that we here in this place have the power to prevent, and I would strongly argue, the responsibility to prevent.

Suffering like that experienced by Angelique Flowers.

Diagnosed with an aggressive and advanced colon cancer just before her 31^st birthday, Angelique, an articulate, softly spoken writer learnt that despite all the achievements of modern medical science and the love, support and care of her family, she faced an agonising and grossly undignified death.

Angelique soon discovered that the type of cancer ravaging her body would mean her pain and suffering towards the end of her life would not be alleviated in any adequate way with palliative care.

Angelique’s colon cancer was aggressive. And it was cruel. And when she became aware of just how she would die Angelique desperately wanted to avoid dying this way.

But she did.

Her brother Damian was with Angelique when she died, just months after her diagnosis.

In those last moments of her life, he helplessly held a bowl under her chin, as Angelique, still in excruciating pain despite massive doses of morphine and other drugs, died vomiting and choking on her own faeces.

It is a death that many of us in this place would seek to avoid if we were able to foresee it. Surely if we were able to die with a little more dignity than this we would want that.

Angelique knew she couldn’t escape death itself, and that it would come soon.

She simply sought to go a little sooner before she was gripped with the grotesque and unimaginable pain and suffering that is an inevitable result of the dying stages of such an aggressive colon cancer.

And in her effort to die with a little bit of dignity, Angelique began searching for the lethal drug Nembutal.  During this time she was forced to withdraw from friends, family and medical staff, with the stress of all this only adding to her suffering.

She recorded a number of videos of herself in the last few months of her life. In one of them she says:

“At a time when I want to spend what good days and precious moments I have left having meaningful time with the people I love, I’ve had to cut myself off, writing questions and notes, making inquiries, doing research.”

At times she contemplated violent ways to end her life like jumping off a building.

“If euthanasia was legal…” Angelique said “… I could have ended my days as I chose, finding peace before leaving this world, not panic, and more pain.”

None of us here today can help ease Angelique Flowers pain.

But you can hear her story and you can let it give you the courage to make the right decision and support the bill knowing that it will help prevent some awful suffering in the future.

This bill is for people like Angelique, who are staring death in the face, who are staring down the barrel of an excruciatingly painful and horrific death that could last many weeks or months.

You can hear Angelique’s story and you can decide that you are going to have the courage to do the right thing for others like her who are still alive today.

One of Angelique’s dying wishes was to see law reform in this area so others do not have to suffer like she did if they do not want to.

One of her dying wishes was law reform so that others can choose to die with dignity, dignity that she was denied.

Others like Loredana Alessio-Mulhall.

I met Loredana two years ago. She has Multiple Sclerosis, which she has had for 37 years. She is 63.

Multiple sclerosis results in the progressive loss of motor andsensory function in a haphazard way over many years resulting in virtually total loss of movement.  People are initially wheel-chair bound then later bed-bound. They become incontinent, then if their speech and sight are impaired they lose the ability to communicate.  Meanwhile, the intellect may remain unimpaired, but the person is a prisoner in a body which cannot move or function in any real way.

Loredana still has sensation in her body. She just can’t move. She has told me how she can lie awake for hours at night, her fingers painfully clawing her skin. There is no one there for Loredana at night so she must wait for the first carer’s shift the next morning before her fingers can be pulled away.

Loredana continues to tell me she is a positive person and, under ordinary circumstances, of course she would not want to die.

But she is very afraid of what is ahead.

The MS is now eating away at the nerve endings to her eyes and attacking her voice box.

This understandably terrifies her, as she knows that her final weeks, months or even years will be spent completely cut off from the world: unable to communicate if she is in pain, unable to speak to her family, unable to do anything at all, at the mercy of everyone and everything.

Loredana was searching for lethal medication in the years before she was totally incapacitated. Now her predicament is heartbreaking.

“I don’t want to die…” says Loredana “… but when life gets too difficult, I should not have to beg for mercy, from the people around me, like I am now, to be allowed to die in peace and with dignity.”

Loredana is begging you today to please support this bill. Loredana wants to die with dignity but she needs assistance to do it.

Under our laws as they stand, Angelique was denied and Loredana will be denied a very important choice. The choice to die a peaceful and dignified death.

The choice to go a little early, when death from a terminal illness is inevitable, and the suffering unbearable.

That is the choice that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill would allow. Nothing more, nothing less.

The bill is the culmination of two years work, countless hours of research, the tireless work of passionate volunteers and advocates, far reaching consultation, and the best elements of long standing schemes overseas.  I am very proud of it, and of the compassionate advocates who have worked so closely with me to get us to this point.

It is a bill for voluntary assisted dying for the terminally ill. It will provide that a person who has a terminal illness, with decision-making capacity and who is experiencing unacceptable pain, suffering or distress can choose to request assistance from a medical practitioner to end their life.

Subject to extremely stringent safeguards, this assistance would take the form of the provision of a lethal substance that the patient would administer to himself or herself or, in the case of severe physical disability, be assisted to take.

The legislative framework established by the bill will provide protection for persons providing such assistance and set up safeguards to prevent abuse of the right recognised by the bill.

To be eligible to receive such assistance the patient would have to meet a number of criteria as laid out in Clause 7 of the bill.  The patient would need to:

• be at least 18 years old
•  be a resident of NSW
•  be suffering from a terminal illness, that is, one which will result in their death, and which is causing them severe pain, suffering or distress to an extent unacceptable to the patient
•  have been fully informed of the diagnosis and prognosis of their disease and all other options, including palliative care
•  have decision-making capacity and be making the decision freely, voluntarily and after due consideration

There must be no medical measure acceptable to the patient that can reasonably be undertaken in the hope of effecting a cure. Additionally, any medical treatment reasonably available to the patient must be confined to the relief of pain, suffering and distress (or any one or more of them) with the object of allowing the patient to die a comfortable death.

The assessment to determine if these conditions have been met is extremely rigorous.

Clause 7 requires that the patient would have to be examined by two independent medical practitioners (the primary and secondary medical practitioners) who would both certify that the patient met the eligibility criteria.

In addition, Clause 7 requires that an independent psychiatrist, and if necessary an independent social worker, examines the patient to certify that they are fully informed of all medical options, able to make an informed decision, and is not under any duress from any quarter to make the request for assisted dying.

Clause 6 requires that none of the health professionals involved (or their close associates) can stand to receive any financial benefit from the patient’s death.

Clause 6  imposes severe criminal penalties for coercion of the patient by the medical practitioners or of the medical practitioners by another party.

Clause 10 also imposes severe criminal penalties for the improper certification of eligibility criteria by the medical practitioners or other involved party.

Importantly, Clause 9 makes it clear that the patient could change their mind at any stage of the process.

The passing of this legislation would not result in any health professionals being forced to participate in assisting people to die. No health care provider (whether it be a doctor, nurse, palliative care centre or hospital) is under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance to a patient under the legislation.

Therefore, the bill recognises that some practitioners have conscientious objections to the concept of assisted dying. Their right to hold such a position will be respected.

According to the Australian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics, when a personal moral judgement or religious belief alone prevents a doctor from providing assistance, the patient should be informed that they may seek assistance elsewhere, however this is not a requirement of the bill.

I will now address how the process would work, from initial request for assistance from the patient, through to the final provision of assistance and the accountability steps afterwards.

The process begins when a patient who is suffering from a terminal illness who is experiencing pain or suffering to an extent unacceptable to the patient requests the assistance of a medical practitioner to end the patient’s life. This doctor is known as the ‘primary medical practitioner’.

The primary medical practitioner then assesses the patient according to all the strict eligibility requirements and laid out in Clause 7 of the bill.

If the primary medical practitioner does not have experience in palliative care, the information about palliative care options must be provided directly by someone with experience or expertise in the area.

A second independent doctor must also examine the patient and verify the first doctor’s assessment.

Then an independent psychiatrist and, if the primary medical practitioner considers it necessary a qualified social worker, would have to examine the patient in order to verify that the patient has decision making capacity, and is not under coercion from any quarter.

For a patient to be determined to have decision making capacity they must understand the facts relevant to their illness and condition, understand the medical treatment and other options available, have capacity to assess the consequences of the patient’s decisions, understand the impact of those consequences and be able to communicate decisions.

If the patient and any of these medical practitioners do not speak the same language then a qualified interpreter is used at all stages of the process.

Following these assessments, if and when all of the eligibility conditions have been met a written request for assisted dying is signed by the patient, and by all the afore-mentioned medical practitioners, and the interpreter, if applicable.

However, an initial cooling off period of 72 hours would first need to elapse between the original oral request and the signing of the written request.

In the event that a patient is unable to sign the request because of physical incapacity, it may be signed on their behalf by another person over 18 years of age. This person forfeits any financial or other benefit they would obtain directly or indirectly as a result of the death of the patient. This must occur in the presence of both medical practitioners and interpreter if applicable.

Following the signing of the written request, a subsequent additional cooling off period of at least 24 hours must elapse before the primary medical practitioner, after being assured again that the patient wishes to proceed, provides assistance by prescribing or preparing a substance for the patient to administer to him/herself. The doctor must remain with the patient until the point of death.

In the event that both the primary and secondary medical practitioners agree that the patient is physically incapable of self-administration and all other conditions have been met the primary medical practitioner may administer the drug.

Following the administration of the substance and the death of the patient, the primary medical practitioner reports the patient’s death to the Registrar, citing both the terminal illness and the assisted death.  He/she also forwards a copy of the death certificate and relevant medical records to the Voluntary Assisted Deaths Review Panel which would be established by Part 4.

This monitoring mechanism is a specialised body that would oversee the operation of the assisted dying regime.  It would be appointed by the Minister and assisted by staff from the Department.   It would comprise a representative of the Minister and a representative of the NSW Medical Board. Additional members would include specialists in end-of life care, a legal expert and an ethicist. Every assisted death would be reported to the Panel and it would review the circumstances of each one to ensure that the procedures laid down under the legislation had been followed.

If the Panel was concerned that a possible breach of the provisions of the legislation had occurred it would refer the matter to the appropriate authorities.

The Panel would also have the function of monitoring the ongoing operation of the Act and of fostering research and keeping records about its operation. The Panel has the discretion to make a report to Parliament at any time.

The Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill will do exactly what I have just outlined. Nothing more.

But I have no doubt that members in this place will be told otherwise.

Over the coming weeks we will all hear a barrage of claims about this bill, and about existing legislation overseas, from opponents of voluntary assisted dying.

These claims often include inaccuracies, misinterpretations and misrepresentations of academic research, piecemeal ‘cherry-picking’ that presents a distorted and inaccurate picture and claims based on poor quality data or unreasonable assumptions.

These misleading claims are often the basis of the “I support the concept of assisted dying but not this bill” argument.

I am aware of dozens of these misleading claims, but I won’t go through all of them now. I will use my address in reply to address anything like this that comes up in debate.

I do however want to demonstrate to members the type of tactics used to discredit voluntary assisted dying schemes in operation overseas.

Recently Members received an email from the Hon Rev Fred Nile regarding this issue. I don’t question that the Hon Rev believed the material he distributed was academically sound and truthful. Unfortunately it was not. In fact, it is a great lesson in lies, damn lies, and statistics.

The material circulated was an article headed “Stunning 4,620% increase in Belgian euthanasia cases in ten years since legislation” by Peter Saunders. It originally appeared in the web publication, LifeSiteNews, which is published by the Life Issues Institute, an international organisation, based in the US.   This organisation is dedicated to “Right to Life” issues and campaigns against abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and similar issues.

Saunders cites statistics about euthanasia and assisted dying in Belgium and the Netherlands.  These statistics come from the 2010-11 Annual Report of the Belgian voluntary euthanasia regulatory agency to the Belgian Parliament.  The regulatory body is called the Federal Control and Evaluation Committee (FCEC).

As Saunders says, the number of euthanasia deaths in Belgium has increased from 24 in 2002 to 918 in 2011.  However, he has miscalculated the percentage increase.  The increase in the ten years is 918-24, which is 894.  So firstly the percentage increase is 3725% not 4,620%.

Additionally, Belgian euthanasia laws weren’t passed by parliament until late September 2002, which means the 24 deaths that year were in the last 3 months. That’s why the figure is relatively low. But the following year was 235, so arguably that should be the base line number. So that’s more like a four-fold increase from 2003 to 2011.

Of course, this percentage increase still seems large. But presenting the figures in this way is misleading.  It stands to reason that in the first few years after the introduction of the legislation the number of euthanasia deaths would be low since the system took some time to be understood by both the medical profession and the public.  Once it was more established annual deaths under the scheme began to increase by about 100 a year to the present level of 918, but that figure comprises only 1% of total annual deaths in Belgium according to Saunders own source.

Another way of expressing the increase in Belgium is to say that between 2002 and 2011 the percentage of deaths for euthanasia increased from 0.026% of total deaths to 1% of total deaths – hardly “opening the floodgates”!

Saunders’s other unsupported assertions is that the FCEC is now considering “extending the right to citizens who suffer from degenerative mental illnesses like Alzheimer’s and also to children”.

It is true that Belgium and the Netherlands operate a more extensive regime of voluntary euthanasia than operates in say Oregon in the United States or has been or is contemplated in any jurisdiction in Australia.  Differences include the following:

In Belgium a person who is in a permanent vegetative state or irreversible coma can access euthanasia via an Advanced Care Directive.  No such provision is being contemplated in this bill.

In both Belgium and the Netherlands (unlike Oregon) the law permits voluntary euthanasia (i.e the lethal substance is administered by the doctor – under strictly controlled conditions).  Under my bill, the physician’s role would be to assist the patient to administer the dose to themselves – the assistance being by way of prescribing and preparing the substance and remaining with the patient during the process. (The only exception would be if the patient was certified by two doctors as being physically unable to administer it themselves because of some physical disability.) This bill does not permit euthanasia.

In my bill there is no possibility of the assisted dying regime being used for children.  To qualify a person must be at least 18 years of age.

In my bill there is no possibility of people with Alzheimer’s disease being able to access voluntary assisted dying.  To make the valid request for assisted dying a person must have ‘decision-making capacity’ as I explained previously, as well as a terminal illness where the only treatment available is confined to pain management.

The claims of an automatic slide towards including new categories of eligible persons, such as people with dementia, handicapped people or children are unfounded.  The Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill proposes a highly controlled and regulated system which it would be impossible to circumvent.  No changes to the regime could be made without Parliamentary approval and further legislation.  Such changes cannot occur by stealth.

We know how strongly people feel about this issue on both sides of the debate, but feelings and convictions alone are not good bases for important decisions on law reform.

And my call to those with strong views against assisted dying laws based on their religious beliefs. You don’t have to access this law if you find yourself in a similar situation to that of Angelique or Loredana. No you don’t.

And to the church leaders who oppose this and actively campaign against it, you can urge your parishioners to not go down this path. But please do not stand in the way of those who are seeking the right to die with dignity. Please have the humanity and the decency to step out of the way.

It is time for us all as legislators to listen to the people’s call on this. The people of NSW are wanting change. They are demanding change. And that call for change will not diminish in numbers or in its urgency.

In fact, over the years, public support for voluntary assisted dying for the terminally ill has grown. Now, polls consistently show levels of support at between 75 and 85 percent.

The most recent Newspoll was in 2011 and showed 83% support across NSW.

The question asked was: “If a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing unrelievable suffering, with absolutely no chance of recovering, asks for a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to give a lethal dose or not?”

In Sydney 80.5% said “yes” while elsewhere in NSW that figure was 88.4%. There was little variance in the response among different income or education levels, or between people with children or with no children.

These figures have been confirmed during my series of forums ‘Dying with Dignity: Your Right to Choose’ that I have brought to centres around NSW to explain this bill. In partnership with Dying with Dignity, I have held events in Wollongong, Newcastle, Coffs Harbour, Ballina, Katoomba, Orange, Wagga Wagga, Dee Why and Parramatta, with more planned for Balmain, Paddington, Tweed and Mosman.

At every forum it has become painfully clear just how far behind public opinion we are. And support for voluntary assisted dying crosses the political divide – in fact in most of the forums I have done, at town halls and rooms in clubs often brimming to capacity, it is hard to spot a Greens voter among the attendees.

So clearly the arguments against law reform are not convincing the public. One of the reasons that the myths don’t have the same weight that they used to is because of the successful operation of schemes overseas like in Oregon, USA, with its Death with Dignity Act.

Oregon provides a successful, compassionate legal framework for a practice that is actually already happening in here in Australia – behind closed doors and underground. Two cases were outlined in the booklet I distributed to Members earlier this year.

Triathlon competitor, heli-skier and passionate human being Wayne McCarthy, was diagnosed with the brain disease Progressive Supranuclear Palsy, with a prognosis anywhere between 3 to 8 years of progressively not being able to walk, talk, write, eat or see properly. It results in a death by choking.

After many attempts, he managed to obtain lethal medication by stealth. His widow Ronda tells the heartbreaking story of their planned goodbye and of Wayne taking the medication alone in a hotel room while she attended church.

Ronda said: “If it had been legal for Wayne to seek assistance from a doctor, he would not have had to do it so early and we would have had him a little longer. Our family and friends would have been able to say goodbye. And it turns out goodbyes are important. I would have been able to be with him in his final moments. It would have been hard, but not as terrible as having to leave him to do it on his own.”

Robert Cordover, a marine biologist who spoke seven languages, watched his own father die of motor-neurone disease. When his own diagnosis came in 2008, he sought to find a way to escape the worst suffering he watched his Dad experience. After many months of failed attempts and lost time with his family, he finally obtained lethal medication and was liberated from the fear of a painful death for the last six weeks of his life. His son, Gideon Cordover, is now a passionate advocate for voluntary assisted dying for the terminally ill.

Gideon said: “The tragedy of the situation was that he felt like he had to die by his own hand because he didn’t want to implicate his family. He went earlier than he had to. While he could still balance a spoon on his hand and stoop, he could take the medication. He was terrified he would lose the ability to do that. It makes me angry that he had to go early. Every day was so precious with him …. Dad didn’t want to choke on his own saliva or starve to death. He wanted to die happy with his family around him in a safe way. I am bewildered that the current law allows some people with incurable illnesses to suffer so much.”

This is why having legislation for voluntary assisted dying for the terminally ill is actually a safer and fairer option. It is far better to regulate what is already happening, than to allow it to continue unchecked.

And it is going unchecked. Essentially this bill puts a framework around what is happening anyway. It allows patients and their families and their doctors to talk more openly about end-of-life choices when suffering gets to great. One of the choices available to people who are reaching the end of their lives is to withhold food and water. In other words the patient slowly starves and dehydrates to death. This can take weeks. Why is this ok, but active, compassionate assistance, at the request of the patient isn’t? Why not?

And in all of the jurisdictions where assisted dying schemes are in place palliative care is extremely well-resourced and is respected and valued. In fact, palliative care improves in jurisdictions where voluntary assisted dying is legal.

And crucially, it puts the decision about the end of life back into the hands of the patient.

Ultimately this bill is about giving the ultimate choice to dying people who surely deserve whatever control they can exercise over their own suffering, when they are nearing the end of their lives.

If we here in this place today don’t give people this choice, who will?

Are we satisfied to hear that doctors are doing this anyway, that patients are committing suicide anyway, that people are begging their loved ones to kill them anyway?

Can Members accept that as our law currently stands those who can afford it are spending tens of thousands of dollars travelling to Switzerland to achieve a dignified death? And some of those who can’t are killing themselves anyway?

If this law was passed many terminally ill people would have immense peace of mind. Some would live longer because they would then not resort to finding their own way out of their suffering.

The system around end-of-life choices is failing people and it is our job to fix it.

The vast majority of people of NSW are crying out for a legal framework to be put in place that will enable terminally ill people – people who are dying anyway, people who are facing an unimaginable, excruciatingly painful death – the right to request assistance to die that little bit sooner. With their family around them. At a time of their choosing. Instead of dying in ways that we all find too horrible to think about, to talk about.

I know some members in this place will decide that it is too much for them to legislate this. That they support the idea in general, they feel sorry for people who are telling them their story, but it is too much for them to do this. And when some of the people who helped elect you hear that it was too much for you, some of them will scream in frustration. I know they will literally scream in frustration.

Because that is our job! It is why we are here. To make the difficult decisions, to make a difference to people’s lives, to improve our society, to advance society, to keep up with the expectations that the people of this great state bestow upon us.-

This bill is about alleviating suffering. It’s about alleviating the most hideous suffering at the end of  life. I’m going to read out to members some of the suffering I am talking about that this bill is designed to prevent. I would ask members when you listen to this, why are you denying a person suffering like this the ability to ask for assistance to die, to avoid this suffering?

A person who gets cancer in the spine gets nerve root pressure and spinal collapse. This means that pain will be lancinating around the body, and also possibly into the legs (as in sciatica).  The pain will be provoked by simple movements such as turning in bed, coughing, urinating, using bowels.  Its intensity and unpredictability make routine analgesic measures inadequate.  Bedsores are a common risk.  Incontinence or inability to urinate is highly likely.  Every physical action, washing for example, is dreaded.  Such a situation can last for months until the ravages of further cancer spread occur.

The best palliative care cannot alleviate the suffering of some terminally ill patients. I read from some of the emails we have all received:

“The palliative care team that visited our home for months and looked after her for the last 7 weeks in Canterbury Hospital were very kind and supportive, but they had no answers and were shocked by her intolerance of the medication. Together we just waited and watched her gradually disintegrate to death.”

And another email:

“She said she was ready to die before she even left the hospital and wondered why she woke up each day to more pain, nausea and extreme discomfort in spite of palliative medications.”

And as members know there are so many more.

The bill before the house provides compassion and respect for the right of everyone to make decisions about their lives according to their own beliefs and values.

I appeal to all members to make your decision on how you will vote on this important and long overdue piece of legislation based on sound evidence, well-reasoned arguments and the wishes of the community.  Please think about the suffering that people from all parts of the state, from all walks of live, are asking us to help alleviate.

I truly hope that compassion and courage are the victors in this debate over fear and self-interest.

I want to take a moment to thanks the campaigners, advocates for reform & those touched by terminal illness who have dedicated so much to this bill.

At Dying with Dignity NSW, special thanks to Richard Mills, Sarah Edelman, Jill Weekes, Gabrielle Brown all the volunteers, staff and Board.

I have had the pleasure of working with inspiring people like Gideon Cordover, Ronda McCarthy, Shayne Higson, James McKay, Loredana Alessio-Mulhall and many others who have shared their deeply personal and moving stories in support of law reform.

To all those who have telephoned, emailed and written to me with your stories – a huge thank you.

Medical professionals and academics, Dr Robert Marr, Dr David Leaf, Dr Chris Ryan, Prof Colleen Cartwright and many others. Thank you.

Particular special thanks must go to researchers Liz Jacka and Carolyn Williams, without the significant hours you have invested in this bill and the supporting material we simply could not have brought it to the Parliament.

And so many others, I wish I could name you all. Thanks to Margaret Otlowski, Marshall Perron, Nicholas Cowdrey, Philip Nietzsche, Ian Wood, John Dowd QC.

And I’d like to thank Jamie Parker, Alex Greenwich and Greg Piper for agreeing to carry this bill forward into the Lower House should this bill win the support of the majority of members.

And finally back to Angelique.

Before she died Angelique gifted her sister, Michelle, 35 handwritten letters for her 35 birthday. In those letters she didn’t mention death or dying but the power of words. She wrote:

Let words be as feathers. I shall gather unto myself these paper wings, and soar to you. Such wings were not made to fly too close to the sun, but nearer the moon. For Night is the realm of magic , and the wish to fly upon winged words would be granted by the sovereignty of the stars. 

In the black ink sky I would be the pilot of my thoughts. My course would navigate itself by the compass of yearning; by the sweet sirens of the heart that draw us all our lives towards our deepest wishes.

Angelique Flowers never got to be the professional writer she aspired to be, but it was her wish, during the final horrific and painful days of her life, that her plea for sensible and humane voluntary euthanasia laws would be heard.

I commend the bill to the House.

The Welfare Rights Centre was recently told – without warning – that the NSW Government’s Community Services agency would be cutting their funding at the end of the financial year, after a 30-year partnership.

Currently, the service provides vital assistance to NSW households who depend on the Welfare Rights Service to advocate a fair outcome with Centrelink. The centre employs five staff members, who have been able to help 120,000 social welfare recipients in NSW over the past 30 years.

The centre also plays an important role at a policy development level, as well as providing expert advice to charities and community organisations.

The NSW Family and Community Services Minister Pru Goward MP has conceded that the Welfare Rights Centre plays an important role, although she does not believe it is her department’s responsibility to fund.

If you believe that the NSW Government ought to continue funding for this advocacy service for its most vulnerable families and individuals, then please write to the Minister to help save the Welfare Rights Centre.

[contact-form-7]

Greens MP Jan Barham also has a petition against the federal government’s cuts to single parent payments, which you can download and print off to collect signatures for here.

Greens MP Jamie Parker has also created a petition to present to the NSW Legislative Assembly, which you can dowload and print off here.