May 9th 2015

  Buy Issue 2947

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY Defence minister commits to future of naval shipbuilding

CANBERRA OBSERVED Labor's deputy leads party to dead end

SOCIETY Christianity the cornerstone of democratic values

CULTURE World war to social media: how we were secularised

SOCIETY Greens' euthanasia push dead in the water

EDITORIAL Behind the latest push to redefine marriage

ECONOMICS Mainstream squabbles: much ado about nothing

CINEMA The heroism of healing: plus robots: Big Hero 6

THE ENVIRONMENT Busting the 'ocean acidification' myth

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Advancing Indonesia should abolish death penalty

EDUCATION Taking Australian history out of the curriculum

AUSTRALIAN HISTORY Thomas Playford: ideology no barrier to development

EUROPE Greek tragedy takes another twist

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Atheists purge Christians in US armed forces

BOOK REVIEW Extraordinary operation by Special Ops

BOOK REVIEW Presumed Guilty, by Bret Christian

Books promotion page

Greens' euthanasia push dead in the water

by Terri M. Kelleher

News Weekly, May 9, 2015

On Wednesday 15 April Greens MLC Colleen Hartland brought on for debate her motion to refer the issue of euthanasia to the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC). To do this she must have believed she had the numbers to get the motion passed.

Rachel Carling-Jenkins

The Australian Family Association (AFA) ran a strong campaign opposing the motion on the basis that referral of this very contentious and fundamental social issue to the VLRC was not just an administrative step but that there were substantial and serious reasons why this was not the appropriate way to deal with the issue

In the first place, the VLRC does not represent the Victorian people. Members of the commission are not elected. The VLRC is not representative of the Victorian community in the way that parliamentarians are.

Accountability is one of the key checks and balances in our system of government. The VLRC, while it is funded by the Government, is by its own admission, independent and therefore unaccountable to the Victorian public.

Second, to refer anything to the VLRC, “a problem with the current law” has to be identified. The VLRC itself points out that it starts from a premise that the law needs to change rather than from any transparent sense of inquiry. What indications are there that the law on euthanasia needs to change? This motion is the first time that the matter has been raised since the same motion by the same MP was defeated in 2011.

Numerous inquiries over 20 years, in Australia and overseas, have recommended euthanasia not be legalised. They have decided there are no adequate safeguards to protect the vulnerable: the elderly, the frail, the disabled. Where euthanasia has been legalised it has expanded beyond the terminally ill and beyond voluntary euthanasia to those such as those suffering from dementia, who cannot give consent.

Finally, the proper place for any review of euthanasia is a committee of Parliament itself, drawn from elected members charged to examine the matter in detail and contribute to a report to Parliament based on their finding for the consideration of Parliament. The VLRC, in contrast, has a much narrower focus. It has only to consider what changes to the law it would recommend.

The euthanasia motion was debated on Wednesday 15 April but did not go to a vote. Ms Hartland could have called for a vote at any stage but chose to allow the allocated time to be taken up with members making their submissions.

DLP member Dr Rachel Carling- Jenkins spoke strongly against the motion, and you can read her contribution to the debate on her website ( Dr Carling-Jenkins thanked those many voters who emailed her on the issue for taking the time to contact her and for having the courage to stand up for their principles.

The Opposition MPs who spoke to the motion were divided in their views. Some indicated that they were in favour of the motion and others that they were against. So the Opposition would not have voted as a block if the motion had been put to a vote, in contrast to its position on a similar Greens motion in 2011. Instead, their members had a conscience vote. Several prominent Liberal MPs stated they would support the Greens motion.

In bringing the motion on for debate Ms Hartland must have been confident she had the numbers and it would be passed. Perhaps she assumed Labor would support the motion. However, as the debate wore on and ALP members got up to speak, it became clear that the government was going to vote as a block against the motion.

With no chance of success and facing an embarrassing defeat, the third after 2008 and 2011, the Greens retreated from the debate and did not call for a vote.

After the debate the Greens stated publicly that a vote would be held in May. With Labor members already stating they did not support the matter going to the VLRC it was unlikely the Greens would risk another embarrassing defeat and, intelligence is that the motion has been withdrawn.

Labor policy on end-of-life issues, which they took to the election in November 2014, is to make Advance Care Directives legally enforceable. The party had no position on euthanasia on its election platform. This may explain the Government’s opposition to the Greens motion.

Why the Liberal Party did not oppose the motion as a block as it did a similar motion in 2011 is not clear.

Terri M. Kelleher is national president of the Australian Family Association.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am