The Mercury had an excellent Editoral in today’s paper (24 June 2010), titled: Births, deaths and political marriages. My thanks to Philip Young of the The Mercury for emailing the editorial, as below: 

THE Labor State Government has lost none of its zeal for radical change.

It has been punished by voters and become a rump in State Parliament. Its Budget reveals that the economy is fragile and government finances are stretched. Already Labor has been forced to wind back its controversial education reforms.

Yet how does it start its new stint in government? By announcing the most ambitious program of social legislation ever attempted.

Deputy Premier and Attorney-General Lara Giddings wants to make Tasmania the first state in Australia to legalise euthanasia. She wants to allow surrogate mothers to have babies for childless women and she wants to introduce a Charter of Rights, the biggest change to Tasmania’s legal and constitutional arrangements for many decades.

None of this featured in Labor’s recent failed election campaign yet Ms Giddings says she believes there is strong support for the changes in Tasmania.

If that is true, why did Labor not highlight these ideas before the March election, when it was so busy raising the spectre of the Greens and their hidden agenda for radical change?

The State Parliament rejected euthanasia legislation just a few months ago yet here it is again, back on the agenda of the new “progressive” Labor-Green love-in that now governs this state.

Legalised euthanasia redefines the very nature of our society and its principles. The legislation is extremely difficult to frame. Yet such is the know-it-all self-importance of Tasmania’s politicians that they believe Australia’s smallest state parliament should lead the national debate, a debate which is sure to be deeply controversial.

At least euthanasia generates passions. The Charter of Rights is less a debate than a campaign by lobby groups. It is not an issue that preoccupies most voters and it would not stand a chance in a referendum.

If a Charter of Rights is so popular, why has the Federal Government shelved its own plans for a national version?

This newspaper opposes a Charter of Rights because its gives too much influence to the legal system and unelected, unaccountable judges. No one believes that politicians get it right all the time but at least they can be voted out and it is through this democratic system and in parliament that decisions should be made about legislation.

Tasmania is a small and vulnerable state with a lot of work to do to strengthen its economy in difficult times. It needs sensible, down-to-earth policies and clear planning to restore business confidence and reassure voters that a minority government can work for them.

It needs a government that manages change carefully and capably, not one addicted to ambitious reforms that cause enormous upheaval and often fail to meet expectations.

After years of change, the education system has to be stabilised, crowded hospitals need more support and infrastructure must be fixed. These are the issues that have preoccupied voters. The Government should focus less on social engineering and more on helping get Tasmania back on its feet.

In her proposed Charter, Ms Giddings wants to enshrine the right to housing, health and education.

Instead of indulging in such lofty aspirations, it would be better to get on with the business of providing real housing and good hospitals, schools and social services.

See also New life in death Bill