- LETTER TO SENATOR CHRIS ELLISON 23/01/06 -
(from a contributor)

Senator Chris Ellison
Minister for Justice and Customs 
Senator for Western Australian 
Parliament House
Canberra 2006

Dear Senator

In acknowledging receipt and in thanking you for your out-standing welcomed letter of reply ref - M C 05/11773 dated 4th November 2005 to my correspondence dated 17th June 2005, I wish to advise as set out below.

With reference to the offending Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2005 please find enclosed herewith for your perusal just, but two of so many poignant examples of peoples dissenting letters of disquiet as published in major Australian Newspapers. Also enclosed for your awareness is an analytical article extracted from the December 2005 World Right to Die Newsletter. Via its global circulation and bilateral well reasoned deliberations concerning the vexatious Bill in question, this world wide respected organization has unequivocally reported therein on this absurd piece of Australian draconian legislation that exists nowhere else in the world.

Following the six month procedural limitation period prior to the legislation being proclaimed into law on January 6th 2006, I considered it both timely and appropriate to restate the following regarding the governments preoccupation with fettering our freedom of speech where assisted suicide for the terminally ill, as a social issue is concerned With the constituents intentionally uninformed or previously consulted concerning the formulation of this Bill, at no time in the past have I read or observed in any print or electronic media reporting, any public calling that necessitated the introduction of this unsanctioned sensor-ship, punitive legislation.

Any reasonable person, undertaking a general observation of this misguided, erroneous government initiative that was supported by Labor, on balance would have to agree that such legislation has resulted in the decay and erosion of peoples civil rights. Subsequent to the well known statistical data emanating from all past "Choice in Dying", surveys that clearly indicates 75 - 80% national majority support for autonomous dignified end of life options, such resulting public discord could have surely been well anticipated.

In this contemporary age of enlightenment and with politicians being the peoples elected personal representatives, it is disappointing that they are not doing what history would expect of them. Consequently, Australia is regrettably being led in the wrong direction and in my opinion there appears to be a need for a more contemplative and visionary political culture as politicians will not change what they wont acknowledge.

With a focus on the government, the word Liberal by definition means "Open minded, not prejudicial". As such it's reasonable to assume that a political party that describes itself as a Liberal Government thereby creates a preconception of an open-minded forward looking government of reform, especially where compassionate social issues are concerned.

As an inward looking paradigm, one only has to analyse the more liberal social law reforms that were paradoxically introduced by the more advanced UK. Labor government and Spain who both recently enacted legislation to accommodate prior discriminated against, homosexual relationships. Contra-wise and as case in point, Australia has regrettable legislated regressive puritanical laws via Christian morality that represents a mind-set from which the rest of the world is moving on from.

Having said this, it is relevant to reflect upon how, throughout our formidable years of parental upbringing and character moulding we are taught to take control of our own lives and be responsible for our actions or face the consequences. However when it comes time to make important end of life decisions when afflicted with diminished quality of life and unrelenting suffering, one instead is discriminated against via our archaic Assisted Suicide Law that forces desperate stressed terminally ill people to cruelly, endure unnecessarily against their will to the very end.

In working towards a better more empathic tomorrow, I harbour strong convictions that there should be limits of authority by the establishment over the individual where this type of legislated prohibition and other social issues are concerned, if the individual is not injuring the interest of another. This should also embrace respect for privacy between patient and doctor alike and in-teralia, for women to have lawful autonomy over their own bodies where abortion is concerned.

As death is an integral part of the life cycle, I believe the time will come when futuristically people will look back in amazement at how we discriminated against the dying and callously denied terminally ill people, internet, fax and phone counseling in their time of most need.

To conclude, via this denial of basic humanity and as life should be a right and not an obligation, but with the only right being the right to suffer, I wonder how history will judge the present day architects and political supporters of such draconian legislation. People don't fear justice, they fear injustice and this legislation is clearly unjust.

As this issue concerns personal freedom of speech and dignity, the above and enclosed is for your consideration and would you please circulate copies of this correspondence among your political colleagues for their awareness and attention.

It is in anticipation that I await a reply at your earliest convenience.

Yours truly

If you cannot see the menu, click here for an alternate menu