Euthanasia: The debate the Greens don't really want us to have!

#euthanasia #greens

Greens leader Senator Bob Brown announced yesterday that one of the Greens first priorities would be to overturn a ban on the two Territories legislating in favour of euthanasia.

Senator Brown told the Ten Network that this was more about the rights of the Territories than an advocacy of euthanasia.  He said of the Howard government’s decision to ban euthanasia in the Territories:

“… was a taking away of the democratic rights of the people of the two territories.

"This won't bring in euthanasia but it will restore the rights of the territorians to be able to legislate for euthanasia the same as everybody in the states."

I support the Territories Rights argument but I don't believe this is the real reason for his Bill.  I believe he is pushing the pro-euthanasia agenda.  I have no problem with this debate, I just think that Senator Brown should come out and advocate for the position instead of doing shadow boxing saying this is about Territories rights.  Although, I am probably being too harsh, because his Bill (previously defeated and set to be re-introduced) is called the Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation) Bill 2008.

But my main question of Senator Brown is what will be the true effect of his Bill. 

It was reported today on ABC online that, “Dr Philip Nitschke says even if the Commonwealth changes its stance on right-to-die laws he does not expect the laws to be brought back to life in the Northern Territory.” 

It was similarly reported later in the story that the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Paul Henderson, is of the same belief.  He released a statement saying “that for the Territory's Labor MLAs any vote on a euthanasia bill would be a conscience vote.” 

On Sunday the Panel on Insiders discussed the issue and they were all of a similar opinion that this would allow the Territories to re-legislate and authorise Euthanasia.  

I hold a different opinion.  I believe that if Senator Brown’s Bill is passed it would mean that euthanasia would automatically become legal in the Northern Territory.  However, I am not a Constitutional Scholar or Lawyer.  But here are my reasons (very simplistically).

1. The Northern Territory passed Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (the Euthanasia Law).
2. The Howard Government then amended the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (the Prohibiting Law) and inserted section 50A which reads:                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (1)  Subject to this section the power of the Legislative Assembly conferred by section 6 in relation to the making of laws does not extend to the making of laws which permit or have the effect of permitting (whether subject to conditions or not) the form of intentional killing of another called euthanasia (which includes mercy killing) or the assisting of a person to terminate his or her life.
3. This amendment basically limits the scope of the Legislative Authority of the Territories. 
4. As The Euthanasia Law was not repealed it was simply made ineffective by virtue of the law limiting the scope of the Northern Territory’s Legislative Authority.  It would therefore come back into force if the Prohibiting Law law is repealed. 
5. If Senator Brown’s Bill were passed this would be the likely effect and Euthanasia would be legal again in the Northern Territory. 

If I am right (which I don't profess to be) Senator Brown isn’t looking for a debate on Euthanasia at all. 

He is looking to tell us how the debate ended and who won.  Namely him!

 

UPDATE:

Peter Black, Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law at the Queensland University of Technology has confirmed my view that if the Euthanasia Law is not repealed and the Prohibiting Law is repealed then the Euthanasia Law becomes enlivened and euthanasia would be legal in the Northern Territory.

The website of the Department of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory  has a list of current legislation.  In this list is the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 which legalises euthanasia.  This legislation has a note at the beginning saying, “The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 has no force or effect as a law of the Territory; see Schedule 1 of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (Cth) (No. 17, 1997)”.

I cannot see any reason why the Euthanasia Law would not be enlivened if the Prohibiting Law is repealed. 

The Chaser Decides Fast Talking Election Campaign

I love The Chaser!

Talk of an illegitimate Gillard Government is just not legit!

#ausvotes

The Liberal party, distraught with the decision of the Independent's on who should govern Australia, are telling anyone that will listen that the Gillard Government is illegitimate and unstable.  George Brandis claims that the "most Australians wanted a change of government. Your government has as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team."  A very funny comment but it’s not accurate.

Talk back radio is also in uproar.  Former Howard Government Minister turned fill in talk back host Gary Hardgrave told listeners last week that more people voted for the Coalition and that they should be in power.

But is this actually true? 

The arguments for these assertions are:

1. The ALP received less first preference votes than the Coalition
2. The ALP are losing the two party preferred vote (or at least they were last week)
3. The Coalition won more seats in the House of Representatives

 

Based on these three criteria the arguments made by the Coalition and their supported are right and also wrong. 

It is true that that the Coalition received more first preference votes than Labor.  However, when you break it down, the Coalition is made up of four separate groups.  The liberal Party, the National Party, the Queensland LNP and WA National (who claimed to be independent) Tony Crook.  The Coalition believe they are one group based on their Coalition agreement.  I guess that is fair.  But why then aren’t Labor and The Greens allowed to do the same.  Labor and the Greens have now formed an alliance not based solely on preference deals at election time.  Looking at the figures (which are not yet complete):

	First preference Vote
Australian Labor Party	4,711,369
The Greens	1,459,002
	6,170,371
Liberal	3,777,391
Liberal National Party of Queensland	1,130,525
The Nationals	462,391
	5,370,307

As at 15/9/10

Based on this Labor/the Greens have it won hands down.  But this doesn’t even take into account the 861, 724 people who voted for one of the other parties/independents at this election.   This is why the 2PP method is employed in Australia.  (Incidentally the UK is talking of introducing this method rather than their first past the post method)

On the second point, the 2PP vote is fluctuating daily.  Just last week the Coalition were ahead, but now Labor is back in front.  But the AEC website still doesn’t provide a clear picture of where the 2PP will land once counting stops. 

Paul Howes commented in the Sydney Morning Herald that:

The Australian Electoral Commission has the two-party vote neck and neck between Labor and the Coalition, but this count doesn't include the eight or so seats that are not contests between the major parties - those between Labor and the Greens or the Liberals and an independent.

The bulk of these seats are Labor, and once they're added to the final two-party vote when the counting is finished, Labor will have a clear majority.

Don't just take my word for it; just about every electoral expert, including Antony Green, agrees.

Antony Green makes his assessment of the AEC 2PP figures here.

That the 2-party preferred total displayed on the AEC's website is meaningless can be seen if you tally the members elected in these 142 electorates. You get Coalition 72, Labor 70. Missing are four Independents, a Green, a WA National and two Labor MPs.

The reality of forming government in the newly elected House of Representatives depends on those eight elected members, but the AEC's total of 2-party preferred vote currently excludes all votes cast in these eight electorates, the eight electorates whose elected members will determine who forms government.

Which illustrates why the AEC's incomplete 2-party preferred vote is pointless.

 

The third argument that the Coalition won more seats than Labor is true.  But this is not the basis on which elections in Australia are won or lost.  It is a complete distortion of how our system of Government is constituted.  Our system is one where the party who controls a majority of the votes in the House or Representatives forms Government.  This is the system and it may seem to have flaws at times, but generally the people who think it is flawed are on the losing side of a close election.  One like we saw this year. 

There is no easy way to decide on who forms Government.  No way that everyone will agree on.  The only way we can do this is by electing representatives who then vote according to their own beliefs at the time.  That may be along party lines or if independent this may be which ever way they choose.  That is what the Greens and the Independents did.  If there respective communities disagree with their choice I guess they will lose their seat at the next election.  That is the basis of our democracy.

To float statements like “utterly without mandate” or “illegitimate” are wrong and contemptuous of our entire system of Government.  The Gillard Government was formed according to the correct principles and conventions of the Westminster system.  They have a mandate to run the country.  If the Australian people disagree, they will surely change it at the next election.  That’s democracy!

What’s $10.6b between friends?

#ausvotes #auswaits

The Australian public learned today why the coalition failed to release their election commitments to treasury prior to he last election.  Because their figures were bogus.  All the shadow boxing about treasury leaks was a great diversion for the real fact that while they claim to be the best economic managers, without the treasury holding their hands, they are incompetent and reckless and will, like the Howard Government before them, spend to win office.  Here is what the couriermail reported today:

TONY Abbott's budget credibility was under fire last night with Treasury saying there was an error of up to $10.6 billion in his election promises.

Tony Windsor, one of the three independents who asked for the costings, last night described it as "a black hole''.
But Mr Abbott stood by his election costings and insisted he would improve the Budget bottom-line by more than $11 billion.
The Treasury documents released at 10pm by the independents found the Coalition would improve the Budget bottom line by $863 million over the next four years - well below the $11.5 billion improvement predicted by the Liberals.
The Liberals would deliver a Budget bottom line that was eight times better than Labor, but only a fraction of what they had promised.
The Treasury's five-page report on the Coalition's costings suggested the bottom-line could rise from $863 million to $4.5 billion if other assumptions were made. Mr Abbott said those other assumptions could be "responsibly achieved through prudent economic management''.

The Treasury said Labor would improve the bottom-line by $106 million - double its prediction of $44 million.

Mr Abbott refused to submit the Coalition's costings to the Treasury during the election campaign.  "I think we understand now why he wasn't interested in releasing the numbers," Mr Windsor told the ABC's Lateline program.

"(It's) what I call a black hole anyway of probably somewhere between 7 and 11 billion in terms of difference between what the Coalition said their costings were and what the Treasurer would suggest in terms of an incoming government for their bottom line."

Read more here