X-Message-Number: 7093
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:43:49 -0700
From: David Brandt-Erichsen <>
Subject: Australia update

The following is reported by Lynda Cracknell, President, Northern Territory
Voluntary Euthanasia Society:

Following debate in the Australian federal parliament yesterday, some of
today's newspapers are running incredible headlines which defy the
imagination if you are aware of the facts.

The Sydney Morning Herald for example is headlined "Pro Euthanasia Forces
Reeling after Bill Defeat".

Uhh?

An Associated Press report (not sure whether it got picked up anywhere) says
that the bill was referred to a committee - wrong! - the vote to refer it to
a committee was lost.

I can't believe all the media drivel on this issue. One of the drawbacks of
relying on the media for information is the mischief caused when the 'news'
gets it wrong. In the case of todays news stories we have everything from
blatantly incorrect reporting of the facts, to strange interpretations which
have little bearing on reality.

The facts are:

1. The Andrews bill was introduced. It seeks to change the Territory Self
Government Act so that the NT (plus two other Territories) would not have
the power to pass VE legislation - although the States would still be able to.

2. Three pro and three anti members spoke to the bill, for a total of about
2 hours.

3. The government, which has the numbers to control procedural matters, had
ealier decided to schedule the remainder of the debate to occur in a
secondary chamber rather than on the main floor of parliament.

4. A vote was taken to try to continue the debate in the main chamber,
rather than hiding it away in a secondary chamber normally reserved for
non-contentious business. That vote failed. ie:- the remaining debate will
occur in the secondary chamber. (I have heard that is scheduled for Thursday)

5. Another vote was taken on a motion to refer the Andrews Bill to a House
of Representatives Committee. That vote failed by 100 votes to 35.

It is the above vote which is being read, I believe incorrectly, as a vote
in favour of the Andrews Bill. I believe there is no valid correlation
between the two. Many supporters of VE who are against the Andrews Bill do
not want the matter referred to a House of Reps committee. I have spoken to
Marshall Perron who agrees there is no relationship, and also our now Chief
Minister Shane Stone made similar comments on radio this morning. I have
also gone public on talkback radio to refute some of the media
'interpretations.'

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the vote was "a disaster for the
pro-euthanasia forces, which had been hoping that a delay would give them
time to lobby against the bill". This certainly isn't true for most of the
pro-euthanasia forces that I'm in touch with. If anything, I would argue
that a delay would give the opponents more time to make mischief and would
achieve little.

The report from Associated Press is completely wrong. Maybe a reporter had
prepared a draft story ready for the eventually of the bill being referred
to a committee, and sent it by mistake?

Hope this helps to set the record straight. 


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7093