- LETTER TO JOHN HOWARD 29/07/07 (from a contributor) -
Mr John Howard
Prime Minister of Australia
Parliament House
Canberra – 2006
C/- Mr Peter Lindsay
Federal Member for Herbert
Cranbrook 4814
Townsville
Dear Mr Howard
In awareness of the current polls indicating faltering government support and
in recognition of your respected status as Prime Minister and head of the
liberal Party I have felt the motivation to convey my observations, as set out
below.
By way of critique, under your leadership the nation has witnessed the
introduction of both welcomed and some un-welcomed legislated government
initiatives. Nobody could reasonably disagree that you have demonstrated the
for-sight and fortitude to undertake some difficult and electorally unpopular
decisions such as the introduction of the GST and the sale of Telstra, as but
just two examples.
In focusing on the governments waning electoral support and with the
treasurer’s past fiscal initiatives having retired your inherited two billion
dollar Labor’s foreign debt coupled with prudent successive strong budgetary
surpluses, the lowest unemployment numbers and interest rate figures in forty
years, the establishment of the Futures Fund, plus the welcomed review of the
superannuation guidelines, etc leaves on wondering to say the least.
However in retrospect and in searching for answers, it would be reasonable to
say that some questionable government initiatives, legislated into draconian
Law did not translate, into well reasoned humanitarianism and could have
contributed to the present malaise.
In searching for reasons, it is in quiet contemplation of some general
observations which includes for example, public concerns with the deregulation
of the labor market and the introduction of Work Place Choices and the
subsequent downgrading of the Industrial Commission. Also the perceived
slowness to act on climate change and global warming, the past very public
international Wheat Board scandal, along with the government having allowed
itself to be led down a misguided path to war with Iraq based on false US
intelligence etc, are all surely aggravating factors.
As the leader of a major political organization namely the Liberal Party and
with the word liberal by definition meaning “Open minded, not
prejudicial” ostensibly projects a government of progressive social
reform. In engaging with the realities of peoples everyday lives and when
focusing on Australia’s wanting social and civil liberties issues, the
government stands exposed on it’s unethical reticence to address the many
outstanding human rights issues overdue for legislative reform.
Further and more to the point, with politicians having displayed ignorance
over educated enlightenment in some instances, I feel it befitting to focus on
and highlight a few social justice issues where the government, via political
indifference has been remiss.
For example, some human rights issues that quickly come to mind is the
governments discrimination against Gay civil rights, abortion on demand as a
women’s rights issue, the intransigence by the relevant Minister and other
government members to support the deserving issue of scientific stem cell
medical research along with some government resistance to make the RU- 486
abortion drug freely available to women, etc.
With reference to Gay rights and as a progressive human rights paradigm, one
only has to analyse the recent social reforms that were introduced by the more
liberal minded UK and Spanish governments. In respect for equal rights and
civil liberties these two countries justifyably enacted anti-discrimination
legislation to legally accommodate homosexual relationships. However,
conversely the Australian government regrettably legislated perverse
puritanical laws against gays, via misguided Christian dogma that represents a
mind set from which more enlightened societies are now moving on.
With reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which Australia
adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly resolution 217A (111) of 10th
December 1948, I wish to amplify and focus on the following as contained
therein, which is set out below verbatim for the attention of all concerned.
“Whereas the people of the United Nations have in the Charta reaffirmed their
faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
person and in the “equal rights of men and women” and have determined
to promote social progress and better standards of life in the larger
freedom.”
The United Nations Article (21) – Subsection 3 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights reads in part verbatim as set out below.
Subsection (3) :- “The will of the people shall be the basis of the
authority of Government”
In order to address the vagaries of past indecisive politics, after 59 years
of Australia becoming a committed signatory to the Declaration and
not-with-standing our nation’s expected commitment to the principles enshrined
therein, in the absence of contemporary social reforms the government as the
incumbent, has failed to addressed the unfair discriminating aspects of
society in so many areas.
On the question of the relevant Health Minister and other government member’s
resistance to support Stem Cell medical research based on Christian beliefs
provokes the following. As we all realize, religion is a belief system and not
evidenced based. Practically everything for century’s that people believed to
be true, has since been proven false or incorrect by subsequent on-going
scientific research discovery.
Embedding Christian values or the values of any other religion for that matter
into the political process, regarding decisions not to support important
medical research, will not solve the many problems facing Australia, in fact
on the contrary and the government would do well to give a voice to reality.
As we are constantly seeing religion misrepresenting scientific enlightenment
and majority supported public opinion issues, dictates that the government be
self-effacing by rethinking its position in developing more liberal policies.
With Australia now a secular society and instead of the government shrinking
from what’s expected where life’s uncertainties are concerned, in my humble
opinion it would be electorally preferable for the government to distance
itself from the interfering suspect influences of orthodoxies.
A case in point was the past shameful episode of the government’s support and
elevation through the House of the 1996 Kevin Andrews Private Members Bill
that had its genesis inspired by interfering moralizing sectarian pressure
groups which subsequently resulted in the revoking of the NT –ROTTIA Bill -
(Rights Of The terminally Ill Act).
As the frail aged and terminally ill have always been under represented in
public life and to avoid the terminally ill being forced to endure
unnecessarily against their will, it was via the NT government’s desire for
change to protect the most vulnerable in their society and allow choice in
dignified end of life decisions, that saw the Marshal Perron - 1996 ROTTIA
Bill pass into Law.
In the absence of anyone State complaining that their interest had been
injured by the introduction of the N.T. - ROTTIA Act, then the government’s
revoking of this N.T. legislation via the Kevin Andrews “Euthanasia Laws
Repeal Bill”-1996 unquestionably represents both a travesty in NT Social
Reform and an infringement of the Territories civil and democratic rights.
This inappropriate heavy-handed government action via political duplicity by
politicians on their own terms, was enacted with total disregard to their
electorates prior well known national majority support for such compassionate
legislation. With nobody able to say that the government’s actions were
impartial to fear or favor and with politicians disconnected from the cycle of
life, it quickly came to pass that this contemptible unwanted act was seen
nationally as a very unpopular government initiative indeed and a mistake of
the most grievous kind. As conscience votes belong to the people, politicians
exercising such votes do not necessarily represent or express the majority
will of the people: They express their own beliefs and frequently, the beliefs
of other sectarian institutions representing moralizing special interest
pressure groups.
Another issue of great concern by society was the government’s unsanctioned
punitive sensor-ship of internet and phone counseling concerning end of life
options, via the absurd, legislated Criminal Code – “Amended Suicide Related
Material Offences Bill – 2004”. It’s pertinent to say that at no time in the
past or up to that point in time, had anyone heard or observed in any print or
electronic media reporting, any public calling that necessitated this suspect
government initiated legislation. In highlighting this vexed situation and as
the nations constituents had not called for such unwanted legislation, or had
received prior government consultation, then it’s predictable enough that the
government’s actions of the past could cast long shadows regarding future
voter support.
With the terminally ill confronted with limited options, with the only one now
being the “right to life” and the government decreed “obligatory
right to suffer”, the people consequently want the right and freedom to
communicate electronically and be counseled on all aspects concerning end of
life realities including self-determination.
As politicians are the personally elected representatives of the people and in
citing the above, prompts a focus on the revered political words of Abram
Lincoln that saw the peoples House of Representatives adopt his words as the
political standard of good government and that being “of the people, by the
people, for the people”?.
I expect that like so many others, I too harbor strong convictions that if the
individual is not harming the interest of another then there should limits of
authority by the establishment over the individual. All should be mindful that
“People don’t fear justice, they fear injustice and along with the above, the
lack of overdue government social reform must be viewed by the populace as
wanting and unjust.”
Australians, as freedom loving people are supposed to live in the lucky
country, yet whilst we militarily fight in support of democracy around the
world, their own government undemocratically decrees they be denied autonomy
to seek knowledge by way of electronic counseling for themselves, from people
whose only wish is to extend merciful support. In saying this, there is no
personal gain here, just a government pre-occupation to discriminate against
those who, in place of shameful political abandonment, selflessly and caringly
render assistance to the marginalized suffering unfortunates in our society
In good conscience and as a moral imperative, the peoples elected
representatives should be asking themselves one very poignant question. The
question being, “why should irreversible ill people experiencing
unimaginable unrelenting suffering as a miserable prelude to death be denied
via discriminating legislation, un-fettered access to merciful internet and
phone counseling facilities in their time of most need."
Undoubtedly end of life decisions are becoming more topical, with all past and
recent surveys indicating approximately 80% upwards majority support for (PAS)
–“physician assisted dying”. As such, I believe that in accord with the notion
of fairness and justice, there is an onus on all our behalf’s including
politicians, to have a duty of care to do what we can to help the irreversible
ill, by extending the freedom and respect for a personal dignified choice.
Doctors, who are at the front of social issues involving health have had to
confront a new problem and that being that their efforts to promote health has
led to a situation, of, prolonging suffering. Ironically, doctors guided by
the Hippocratic Oath which involves an undertaking to relieve suffering while
at the same time promising to prolong and protect life, in all too many cases,
only prolongs suffering This is especially so when afflicted with alzhimers
and in a demented vegetative state of hopeless existence with nothing to come
back to, this is not living.
How people die remains in the memories of those who live on, but sadly for so
many, those memories can be filled with horror, shame and even anger when
considering the social injustice associated with the forced extension of the
cruel dying process.
It was Edmond Burke who in 1780 made the following statement “Bad laws are
the worst kind of tyranny” and when confronting existing prejudices that
are discriminatory in the area of civil liberties and against the frail aged
dying, then his words are as valid today as when first spoken.
Against all good reasoning, it is incompatible with public realism to prevent
the irreversible ill and those experiencing unrelenting suffering from
accessing autonomous end of life options that should an inalienable civil
right beyond debate, for choice in how people die and not for others to make
that decision for them.
With reference to the current polls it was somewhat surprising to hear the
media report how it was the 23 -24 year olds who appeared to be most
disenchanted with the government. As what could be seen as having some
correlation, following the “Victorian Steve Guest dying with dignity rally”
most recently conducted on the steps of the Victorian Parliament, a subsequent
media release dated 20th June 2007 reported the following which is paraphrased
below:- Please note.
“Young Labor and young Liberals tabled a “Dying with Dignity Bill” in
youth Parliament last year. Youth Parliament is held in the Parliamentary
House and debate is conducted strictly in accordance with the House rules –
great practice for up and coming politicians. After due debate, the Bill was
passed. Had this been Victoria’s actual Parliament rather than Youth
Parliament, the Bill would now be Law.”
To summarise on the above and with the burdensome prolongation of life being
so topical, government apathy is a luxury no longer affordable in these
contemporary enlightened times thus requiring a political cultural shift for
more liberal policies. I trust that the content of my letter, in a calm and
respectful way will not go unheeded and be of assistance to encourage the
adoption of a constructive new direction. In stating this I consider that it
would be politically advantageous and electorally appealing for the government
to seriously consider advancing social reform, pertaining to the above
mentioned civil liberties and human rights issues on to their electoral
platform
To conclude, it would be appreciated if you would please circularize the
content of this letter amongst your political colleagues for their awareness
and consideration and it is in anticipation that I await a reply at your
earliest convenience.
Yours truly
RB
Senior middle of the road voter.
July 29, 2007
If you cannot see the menu, click here for an alternate menu