The Northern Territory euthanasia laws have been open to Federal Government veto since they were passed and there has been no need for separate legislation or a private member’s Bill to override it.
The Northern Territory Self-Government Act makes a provision for the Governor-General (which means the federal government or the federal minister for territories) to veto any law of the Northern Territory within six months of it coming into effect.
It could have vetoed the first Bill in 1995; or the subsequent amendments in February this year which were necessary to make it effective could have been vetoed; or it could veto right now the regulations, also needed to make it effective, which were assented to by the Northern Territory Administrator on June 28, and came into force on July 1.
Prime Minister John Howard says it is a conscience issue, and that for him conscience is more important than territory-states rights so that when it comes to the private member’s Bill to override the Northern Territory law he will vote in favour. Apparently, though, that conscience will not run to using his undoubted power to override the law by executive action without the need for an Act of Parliament which has the drawback (from the anti-euthanasia point of view) of requiring Senate approval, which many observers think unlikely.
The Northern Territory and Norfolk Island are more under the federal government’s thumb than the ACT. In those territories the federal government on its own can veto any territory law. In the ACT any veto is subject to be over-ridden by either House of Parliament. In effect that means the Senate must concur with the overriding of ACT law, but the Senate does not get a look in if the federal government vetoes a Northern Territory law within six months of it being assented to.
The Antarctic Territory and Jervis Bay take most of their law from the ACT, but the federal government can make law by ordinance directly for them and override any existing law applying to those territories.
The private member’s Bill changes the de-facto status of the Northern Territory. The Labor Government of Paul Keating made it clear that it would not permit legislation to override Northern Territory laws, except in four areas which were reserved at the time of self-government: Aboriginal land rights, uranium mining, industrial relations and Commonwealth National Parks.
A letter from Mr Keating’s office to the Northern Territory Voluntary Euthanasia Society said, “The Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 provides for self government in the Northern Territory. Specifically, it provides for the establishment of a Legislative Assembly with the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the territory. . . . The Commonwealth Government believes that the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 is a valid law of the Northern Territory and that it is up tot he people of the Northern Territory to express their views on that legislation, rather than the Commonwealth.”
Northern Territory government sources say the Keating Government was lobbied by both sides in the euthanasia debate. One side wanted it to use the Commonwealth Government’s veto power and the other wanted it to allow the Northern Territory’s law to stand.
It seems that the anti-euthanasia forces realised that the option of veto by the executive looked a bit heavy handed and that it might be better to push for some Christian right MPs to propose a private member’s Bill based on the Commonwealth’s overriding constitutional power to make laws for the territories on any subject whatever _ the very power which was used to give the Northern Territory self-government in the first place.
After self-government the Federal-Attorney-General’s Department wrote an opinion stating that the question of federal overriding of Northern Territory legislation was “”theoretically possible” but “”unthinkable” except in cases of riot, bloodshed or civil unrest.