Adam Bandt will ask a question on euthanasia next week in question time as a result of the OurSay People’s Question process.
Ella Ridd’s question on federal Parliament taking over the issue of end-of-life decision-making, which garnered more than 500 votes, was the question chosen from dozens of questions submitted by voters. Euthanasia issues were also raised by other submitters.
As Crikey noted last week in profiling the euthanasia questions, the issue is one where politicians and the community differ the greatest, with consistent strong support for euthanasia rights for the public and continuing opposition from elected officials.
“I am a long-standing supporter of people’s right to die with dignity,” Bandt told Crikey. “Every opinion poll since the eighties shows the vast majority of Australians back voluntary euthanasia legislation along the lines of that in the Netherlands and Oregon.
“Ideally we would have uniform national legislation, but it is likely change will need to come via the states and territories. Bob Brown has been campaigning for change for years and the Australian Greens have introduced bills in many of the states.”
As a non-major party MP, Bandt has the freedom to ask questions bearing on actual issues rather than questions that form part of the government and opposition tactics for each question time. Recently, government backbenchers have begun asking ministers supplementary questions intended to reflect on their individual electorates, but the tactic has only served to draw attention to how little ability government MPs in particular have to ask about issues outside the day’s agenda dictated by the prime minister’s office.
“I am really pleased to be part of the People’s Question and pleased to be able to ask the Prime Minister about this,” said Bandt. “The old parties have vacated the political battlefield of ideas, so they shy away from advancing issues like dying with dignity, equal marriage and even funding better services through a bigger tax base, despite having popular support to do so.”
Bandt wants a serious overhaul of question time. “Along with the independents the Australian Greens were able to secure some important reforms to question time as part of the agreement to support minority government. Recently we have seen further improvements with the shift to a new speaker, but more reform is needed.”
The Greens MP pointed out that up to half of question time was currently being lost because of the opposition’s censure and suspension motions and Julia Gillard’s curtailment of question time afterwards.
“The UK parliament has a much better culture of government backbenchers using question time to take government to task,” he said. “We somehow need to get rid of Dorothy Dixers which just allow the minister to make a statement. The next step in question time reform needs to put a clamp on this.”
The debate is on VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA !
Joyce,
Looking at the opposition, I’m not sure it should be voluntary at all.
I’m thinking of a weekly poll of tweets nominating the politician of our choosing to be loosed from his or her mortal coils. Like “Survivor” but more permanent.
More seriously this is an issue of deep concern for those confronting the unbearable. But it is also an area shrouded by irrational fears, moralising bishops and paranoid suspicions. I’m pretty sure no government will ever be able to reach a principled position or even take the risk of unleashing the sort of argument that this issue provokes. Look what happened to the NT.
It will come but only after the public have shown the pollies what the overwhelming majority want. A failure of leadership and principle. Again.
The primary need in the current euthanasia debate is for the Australian community to better understand what is and isn’t euthanasia. Today, everyone has the right to make their own choice on how they live their life within the bounds of Australian law.
Let’s be clear …
EUTHANASIA is the deliberate killing of someone by a specific act or ommission, with or without consent for so-called compasionate reasons.
PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE is where a medical practitioner, at the specific request of a terminally ill patient, deliberately adminsters or withholds particular treatment that hastens the death of that patient.
It is not euthanasia where a relative or friend takes deliberate action to end the “suffering” of a loved-one which results in the death of that person. That is murder at worst or manslaughter at least.
It has become common practice to compare the rights of humans with the accepted practice of euthanasing frail or sick animals. The key point in this argument is that the particular animal had no say in that process and the action is based on the decision of the person not the victim.
The current debate is a very worthwhile discussion to have on what is a very complex issue. I do not believe it is as simple and clear cut as many people seem to think.