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