It was folly for the Labor Party in the ACT to adopt euthanasia as part of its official policy in 1991, whatever one thinks of the ethics or merits of active euthanasia. It was folly because, once it is part of official policy, Labor MPs are bound by it. For many years the Labor Party has had various items on its official platforms … at state and national level … which it just does not bother to do anything about. Often they become policy as part of factional deals or feel-good motions at conferences. Official policies on uranium, public ownership and various moral issues have been made policy … usually while the party is in Opposition … and Labor Governments have just conveniently failed to get around to putting them into effect. Appeasing a party faction is one matter; alienating a portion of the electorate is another.
This strategy has worked well elsewhere. In the ACT, however, it is a time-bomb. Since self-government, the ACT Government has always been in minority or an unstable coalition. It is ripe for a minority or independent MLA to test the sincerity of a policy item of a major party through a Private Members’ Bill, especially when that policy item is dear to the independent. Michael Moore has done this with consummate skill over the past six years … embarrassing both the Labor and Liberal Party with their own policies.
The Labor caucus was quite right this week to insist that its MPs must comply with the platform. When candidates stand under a party banner, voters are entitled to expect then to support the broad intent of each of the items in it, unless the platform itself contains some form of sort of disclaimer that MPs can exercise their conscience on individual issues.
The problem is having such things as euthanasia, abortion and other fundamentally moral and ethical issues on the platform of a broad-based party in the first place. It is fine for an independent … dealing with only one conscience … to put a firm position on these matters to the electorate.
Labor is to some extent captive of its traditions. The early labour movement in Britain and Australia required solidarity to be effective. Without it labour would be exploited by capital. The tradition remains strong but has outlived its purpose. The Labor Party is now much more broadly based and no longer needs such absolute solidarity. Indeed, it is a hindrance. The party is seen as doctrinaire. It plays into the hands of power-brokers and numbers men. And it sometimes locks people into untenable positions, as with Terry Connolly this week.
The party would do well to either have a broad conscience clause or to exclude issues like euthanasia and abortion from being part of a binding platform. This is especially the case as independents and minority parties occupy the balance of power in more houses of Australian Parliaments and can put major-party policies to the test.
Allowing more conscience votes is a position that can comfortably be adopted by people on either side of the euthanasia debate. An interesting aside, though, is that this week the opponents of euthanasia have called for freedom of choice by MLAs while opposing freedom of choice by dying people to get medical help to die at a time of their choosing.