Division erupts within NT government as MLAs clash in parliament over VAD

A significant rift has emerged within the Northern Territory government as politicians engaged in a heated debate over the long-awaited voluntary assisted dying (VAD) legislation. The Country Liberal Party's (CLP) bill became the focal point of contention on Tuesday, with NT government backbencher Tanzil Rahman accusing his colleagues of inauthenticity and misrepresenting the VAD debate.

“

“a very narrow VAD act, that will take us 10 years back in standard”.

Dr. Rahman, who chaired a parliamentary inquiry into VAD, expressed personal distress over the perceived behavior, describing the CLP's bill as "a very narrow VAD act, that will take us 10 years back in standard." He specifically targeted Attorney-General Marie-Clare Boothby, the bill's introducer, for its "safeguards." These include a clause restricting VAD access to individuals with 12 months or less to live and a "doctor gag clause" that prohibits medical professionals from initiating VAD discussions with terminally ill patients.

“

“safeguards”, which include a clause that will restrict VAD access to people with 12 months or less to live.

Challenging these provisions, Dr. Rahman announced his intention to move amendments on Thursday to remove both clauses, which he argues contradict the inquiry's recommendations. He also seeks to amend the bill to prevent care facilities from withholding VAD information from residents. Dr. Rahman asserted that a patient's "terminality" is often subjective and difficult to quantify within a strict 12-month window.

“

“Today, the attorney-general said, 'I make no apologies for the safeguards I put in place and similarly, the 12-month prognosis period … is so important. Without it, terminality is subjective and we just can't have that'. Respectfully, I also can't make any apologies for the fact that I have to challenge that. Because the fact is, terminality is completely subjective and everybody knows it.”

Deputy Chief Minister Gerard Maley swiftly rebuked Dr. Rahman's stance, defending the 12-month timeframe and accusing the backbencher of unfairly attacking the Attorney-General. Maley highlighted the perceived hypocrisy in Dr. Rahman's proposed amendments, pointing out that Rahman's own wording, such as "the person is approaching the end of the person's life," is also subjective. Maley concluded that Dr. Rahman's approach was fundamentally flawed and his arguments contradictory, stating he would not support the proposed amendments.

“

“I think [Dr Rahman] unfairly attacked the attorney-general, saying that he couldn't support [the 12-month timeframe], because I think his words were it was 'subjective', '12 months'. He put a proposal in his amendments, which I'll just read one of the lines: 'The person is approaching the end of the person's life', that's subjective! So he's replacing, in his view, a 'subjective' sentence with another subjective [sentence]. So it really shoots his own argument in the foot.”