MELBOURNE, Australia, April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) — The latest attempt to legalize euthanasia in Australia is underway with Greens MP Colleen Hartland introducing a motion “to refer the matter of voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill people to the Victorian Law Reform Commission for inquiry, consideration and report by December 2015.”
LifeSiteNews is able to reveal that the motion is set to fail with the Labor government MPs deciding in caucus to vote as a block against the motion. Debate on the motion is presently held over until the next sitting week of Parliament in May.
The strategy to refer the issue of euthanasia to the Victorian Law Reform Commission has never been successful before as the independent body is only a legal one whose role is to review and craft legislation for Parliament. Normally a request for legislation or a report from the VLRC will only come after Parliament has signalled its intention, via a substantive vote, to legislate the matter.
Under the motion, which was originally tabled in December 2014 and later “withdrawn indefinitely” when due for debate in mid-March, the issue of euthanasia would have been sent without Parliament having expressed a clear view for change. A returned report from that body would have carried with it the inference that the form of legislation was safe and able to be voted in to law. Additionally, it would have had the advantage of being introduced to Parliament as a government bill instead of a less important private member's bill.
In bringing the motion back for debate, Greens MP Colleen Hartland would have felt that she now had the votes required to get it passed. However as MPs spoke to the motion it would have become apparent that the situation had changed dramatically. As the member who put the motion forward, she could stand at any time and ask for it to be voted on. Hartland allowed discussion to continue until the allotted time was exhausted.
The first MP to speak to the motion was Mrs. Inga Peulich for whom the matter has been literally nauseating as she had lost a number of family members during World War 2. She called out Hartland for grandstanding and wasting the time of the chamber. She went on to explain that there was nothing preventing the Greens MP from personally writing to the Victorian Attorney-General to ask for the referral to the VLRC.
The legalization of euthanasia would fulfill an election promise of the Greens party.
Dr. Rachel Carling-Jenkins, who spoke against the motion, had spoken to the chamber the night before on the issue of elder abuse. It was felt that the timing of this had an effect on the members of Parliament when the issue of euthanasia came up the following day.
A number of MPs spoke of being “inundated” with thousands of emails over the motion to refer. Mr. Shaun Leane, MLC, even intimated that the mass emails were being generated via a single point and should perhaps be considered as one.
Organizations such as HOPE: No Euthanasia, Australian Christian Lobby, and Right To Life Australia had encouraged their membership to contact their members of Parliament to express their concerns over the issue.
Australian Christian Lobby Victoria director Dan Flynn was thrilled with the result, stating, “Clearly Parliamentarians are not convinced that euthanasia can remain voluntary and be made safe.” He also agreed it was inappropriate of Ms. Hartland to seek to bypass Parliament’s committee system and have the VLRC move the issue straight to draft legislation.
Sex Party MP Fiona Patten has put forward a competing motion that would call for a parliamentary committee inquiry rather than referring to the VLRC. This was in part influenced by constituents who had emailed asking her to not support the current motion. She replied to them with the alternative joint parliamentary committee option, which was readily agreed to, including in the two email responses she read to the chamber during her speech.
This alternative motion is preferred by those campaigning against euthanasia. The prevailing view is that the longer an inquiry goes for, the better the chances are of a decision coming against its legalization.