A Shot Across the Bow?

1 August
The first debate was held last night. David Seymour's Supplementary Order paper limiting the bill to people who are "terminal" was  not unexpected but very sad. In the EOLC movement we have a number of people who have long-term irremediable conditions and might have hoped the bill could apply to them. The Green Party was not up to any kind of compromise, refusing to support the bill unless it was for terminal patients only. So, David and our supporters for EOL Choice have to accept that half a loaf is better than no bread, I guess. Anyway, the compromise was well received by the House.
A whole string of seemingly innocuous SOPs kept the House in session until 11.45pm.  One was that the definition of a psychiatrist should include five year's experience. Well, heck, you don't get to be a psychiatrist of any kind without an awful lot of experience. Each of these SOPs required a personal vote, some of which took nearly fifteen minutes. It looks already as if there is a deliberate attempt to slow the decision-making process down.
Next opportunity for debate is afternoon/evening of Wed 14 August.  Or maybe a week later, it seems.


29 July
Last Wednesday I was fascinated to hear the Speaker of the House read out a statement about how the debate for the End of Life Choice Bill would be handled.
He specially indicated that Part I of the debate would contain a few significant clauses which would, in effect, determine the substantive issue. No subsequent debate on what seems likely to be an extensive Bill would be able to contradict or undo an affirmative decision on the principles in Part 1.
He also provided a lot of detailed advice on the use of proxies, pointing out that if an MP was going to seek a proxy the member had better be sure how that person would vote.
I haven't ever heard such a specific and detailed statement of guidance from the Speaker. It looks as if he will manage a good debate and give fairly short shrift to Members who try to wear it down with unnecessary duplication and irrelevancies.

Update of End of Life Choice

THE BILL
At the end of June the End of Life Choice Bill passed its Second Reading 70-50 but it was clear that quite a few Members voted only for it to be discussed for another few months rather than confirmed as Law. There were some moving speeches and an accepting atmosphere in other normal antagonistic House and the issue is by no means dead.
Already a dozen proposals have been formally lodged for amending it, and the sponsor, MP David Seymour himself has produced a 70 age document of changes he'd like to see made. The debate could be long drawn out around the few hours a month that are permitted for Private Member's Bills.
It has become apparent that the deluge of submissions made to the Justice Committee has been matched over recent weeks by pro forma emails being sent to MPs. The Society has asked us to give them a break which does seem to be reasonable. In some ways, everything that can be said has been said and we just have to wait out the parliamentary process.
QUEENSLAND?
It was interesting to hear that the Queensland parliament is hearing submissions on their bill and some 80% appear to be running in favour of Choice. What a contrast to the NZ position where 80% of submissions have been against. For a relatively conservative state it would seem Queensland's conservative component is not as well organised as its counterpart in this country.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE
The issue gets more and more personal for me as my health and comfort deteriorate. But we still have plans for an intimate family recognition of 60 years of marriage in November....