State takes lead
VICTORIAN Premier Daniel Andrews announced this week that our state parliamentarians will soon be voting on a Bill to legalise euthanasia.
There is no fixed date, but the Bill will be introduced to Spring Street by the end of this year.
If they vote in favour of a law for dignity in death, Victoria will become the first Australian state to legalise voluntary assisted dying.
This is leadership on a national scale.
The debate is not about real estate affordability or tax breaks, it will go to the heart of the way that we see ourselves.
What is our society, what do we value and how will we enshrine these beliefs?
A real-life grown-up conversation about ethics and the way we live and die. These are Australian values.
Premier Andrews said it is “time to get out of the way” of people who wanted a dignified death.
State politicians will be granted a conscience vote.
The issues and ramifications around this proposed law are not new to our social discourse. There are other countries around the world who have engaged in this debate.
Some have made it legal and some have decided they are not ready. But thanks to this international discussion we can have an informed discourse.
There is little that can be classified as new that will be brought to our discussion.
Most of us have a position on dying with dignity. This is why it’s the perfect time to make our decision.
There will be voices of support and dissent in the forthcoming months and the Premier is aware of these divisions and so he has called for a “respectful” debate.
We will be having a difficult discussion and then our elected representatives will vote. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? It is.
This is the way it’s supposed to work in a democracy.
We participate in discussion, we vote for our representatives and then to vote on legislation for our laws.
They work with our interests at heart and if they get it wrong, we kick them out. The mechanics are robust and this is how a peaceful, sophisticated society functions. It’s about the people, not about the political factions.
Meantime in Canberra; Peter Dutton the new minister for everything is suggesting that the issue of marriage equality could be informed by a non-binding postal vote.
It’s hard to see how this is a serious suggestion.
Nobody under 30 writes letters.
Australia Post delivers packages that have been bought on the internet.
It is no longer the trusted friend of pen pals. Mail gets lost. Mail can be hacked.
The concept of a non-binding postal vote is designed to distort the numbers and then (thanks to the non-binding nature of the system) help the pollies to not make another decision.
The Federal Government has been complaining that the Senate has blocked their intention to drag their heels on marriage equality.
The policy the LNP took to the last election was rejected by all those who voted for parities other than the Coalition.
This is 50 per cent of the voting population. It was no surprise that their preference for a non-binding plebiscite was rejected by our Senate.
The common view in the parties outside cabinet is that parliament is more than qualified to make the decision to reinstate equality in marriage in Australia.
PM John Howard didn’t need a non-binding plebiscite to rewrite the legislation to remove the right, so why do we need to spend those millions now?
Malcolm Turnbull was the first PM to walk in the mardi gras parade, and he was the first PM to be uninvited due to his lack of leadership on marriage equality. His refusal to present an opinion beyond the Tony Abbott-written promise of a non-binding plebiscite points to his inability to lead our nation through a difficult and respectful discussion.
In Victoria the dying with dignity legislation will not be decided on party lines, there will be voices from both sides of the aisle joining to create a true reflection of the social will.
This week our state parliamentarians demonstrated that they are willing to fill the leadership void and lead us in a discussion about our real Australian values.