Queensland Labor, which has ducked hard decisions in government, has become bold with its campaign promise to legalise euthanasia, giving voters the right to make the hardest decision of all — life or death.
The promise comes too late to turn this election into a virtual referendum on euthanasia, but it presents a challenge the LNP opposition will find hard to mount. And that’s the life or death conundrum for its campaign.
While the LNP says it supports a conscience vote of MPs on whatever laws are proposed, it’s almost certain that it will not commit to introducing any laws at all if (as appears increasingly unlikely) it forms government after October 31.
So there’s the choice. If you want voluntary assisted dying (VAD) laws, vote Labor. If you don’t, vote LNP — although it’s unlikely either side will express the position so starkly, particularly given polls show up to 80% of Queenslanders support some form of euthanasia.
But the move, announced as part of Labor leader Annastacia Palaszczuk’s weekend reelection campaign launch, is as bold as it has shown in the last 24 hours to be campaign-changing.
Up until now, it’s been borders, borders, borders. The LNP has tried to wrangle the issues back to state priorities, like unemployment and electricity and crime. But borders keep surfacing as the winner for the ALP, and the only genuine policy divider.
Labor’s promise to fast track VAD laws throws up a new wedge between the parties, and shows how Labor is becoming increasingly confident of being reelected.
Only 48 hours earlier, the Queensland Law Reform Commission had released a consultation paper, and called for submissions on that topic. That was in response to a request by Queensland’s parliament early in the year to develop a framework for such laws.
That report was not due to report back until March next year, which meant euthanasia, which already operates in Victoria and is set to be allowed in Western Australia, would be muted as an election issue.
But Palaszczuk changed all that with her announcement that she would introduce legislation in February. That means the commission is now likely to fastback its deliberations.
This week it meant campaigning turned on its head; right-to-die laws became the water cooler conversation, and robbed the LNP again of the ability to control the campaign agenda.
Voters’ response was predictable. Some took to talkback to call it a cynical election ploy, arguing that an issue like euthanasia should not be part of a reelection strategy. Others, many with deeply personal stories, thanked Labor for promising a quick route to parliament for such laws.
This is a much easier issue for Labor. Only a few years ago, the LNP’s executive threatened to disendorse members if they supported the decriminalisation of abortion in a free vote. Enough Queensland MPs supported it to make it law.
These laws raise that tricky issue again for the party, but it also puts on the campaign agenda an issue it does not want to discuss, and an issue on which the LNP is unlikely to bring a bill to the floor of parliament.
That’s because the party doesn’t want VAD laws. And that ties the LNP and its leader in knots, taking away any real chance of other issues gaining traction in the next few days; a crucial period as voters line up at pre-polling booths.
Yesterday Palaszczuk said she would vote personally for the laws. LNP leader Deb Frecklington said no one should die in pain, but refused to say whether she would personally support euthanasia.
This now provides one of the few ongoing issues (apart from borders) where there is a substantial policy difference between parties.
But how might these laws work? What protections would exist? How do we balance individual rights against the preciousness of human life? Where does it place health care professionals? What’s been the impact of Victorian laws?
All legitimate questions being asked by voters yesterday; and all deserving of valid answers — from both sides — before polling day.
The VAD laws went to the Law Reform Commission in 2019. There is nothing quick about their introduction. It has been Queensland Labor policy for four or five years. Journalists are very ignorant about many facts but there really is no excuse for this sloppy reporting.
King’s Limited News Party arguing that they’d ‘never agitated for opening the borders’ a couple of weeks ago was worth the price of admission.
Why isn’t she writing about their blatant, demonstrable hypocrisy – and their record under Newman (when “Freckle” was Assistant Minister for Finance, Administration and Regulatory Reform, and Assistant Minister to the Premier)?
The promises they “didn’t” make – after they get elected? … Make Honest John Howard and his non-core promises look like a Vatican sermon.
Labor’s interstate metro ‘base’ should take a close look at Palaszczuk’s coal interventions, in particular its secret royalty deal with Adani and its whole-hearted support if not subsidisation of Galilee Basin thermal coal development. It might seem like clever politics (and it is) but Albo will have to account for this within the next year or so and it will be an overwhelming albatross for federal Labor. Sydney and Melbourne Labor voters so stunned by last year’s federal poll can watch in awe as the next federal election goes up in smoke – coal smoke from Queensland. Don’t say you had no idea.
SE QLD would be wise to vote in a few greens for balance of power. ALP can blame them for not approving further planetarial destruction and get some progressive policies through.
Also, would be good if the ALP can use the same trick for legalising marijuana.
But Heartshunter to “vote in a few Greens”, Greens voters will have to put Labor last. That goes against everything 80% of Greens voters usually do. They religiously send their second preference to Labor even after Labor has spat on them every single day between elections. And the best opportunities are actually in NQ where the most marginal Labor seats are – specifically Townsville and Mundingburra. But Greens voters are sort of stuck with their Stockholm syndrome – like farmers who vote for the Nationals – they give their preferences to the party that actually causes them the most grief.
I would say that the LNP would be worse. Can you still just give one preference in Queensland? That would be the way to go.
Goin’ down to tonight – putting our local member 4th, behind the Greens, Marijuana and progressives – but ahead of Pauline’s puppet, Palmer’s punk ‘kin and Freckle’s friend.
I’m in the LNP Sinecure of Moggill. They’ll go ahead of One Notion on my ballot paper, but are unlikely to receive a fraction of my preference.
Greens actually are the most aggressive and unpleasant campaigners. Their supporters abuse Labor volunteers and accuse them of corruption. This goes on all year round and their constant attacks and inventions of ‘facts’ about Labor’s coal policy is accepted as an article of faith by Greens supporters. Fact no longer matters. They behave like a cult. They never campaign against the LNP.
Not true. Here in Victoria the Greens won the state seat of Prahran off the Liberals, for example.
You might at least ask your LNP handlers for a new crib sheet.
he he he
Imagine if Shorten had explained that the relatively few jobs in mining would be far outnumbered by the jobs in ethanol, renewables and hydrogen.
However, that would have required vision so AA is a non starter – he makes Shorten look like a live wire.
So sad, so true… Who was it said that the next Labor PM probably hasn’t been born yet?
Madonna…If 80% of Queenslanders want VAD, what right does ANY politician have to refuse them?
Time for those pollies who do refuse to remember that they work for the residents of Qld…NOT the other way around!!
Thanks for nothing, Crikey.
Moderated for telling the obvious truth…what is wrong with you people???
It can’t handle the Truth.
The number of angry moderated seems to have reached an all time high.
As usual, total silence from boss@ – no explanation, no apology, no respect for subscribers or readers.
Thanks Dounrey…I have been too angry to check back with this saga until now. NO explanation from Crikey just makes things worse.
Don’t think my first comment on this article was at all out of line, as it is just stating the bleeding obvious. Who do these pollies represent if they refuse to accept the view of 80% of the electorate? Isn’t democracy based on 50% + !? Or is it ‘different’ if the pollies agree with the remaining 20% in this case???