Cunliffe won’t reveal euthanasia stance

October 16th, 2013 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Labour leader said the coroner’s recommendation was “interesting”. Mr Cunliffe, a staunch Anglican, said he would not reveal his personal stance on legalising , which wouldbe decided by a conscience vote if itcame before Parliament.

“I have a personal view, but given my current responsibilities I’m going to reserve that until my caucus has an opportunity to discuss it.”

I’m sorry, but the Labour caucus has already discussed it. Street would have needed the permission of caucus to lodge her bill last year.

Why can’t Cunliffe just tell us his view? Is he worried that it may upset some people.

Prime Minister said he broadly supported the principle of voluntary euthanasia and would consider it if he was terminally ill.

He said the Government would not introduce it as policy because a clear party stance was required and many National MPs would not support it.

Mr Key said he would not back Ms Street’s bill because he felt it went too far.

A good contrast. Key gives his personal view, and even says how he would vote on Street’s bill. You know where you stand with him.

UPDATE: Even weirder Cunliffe has previously said he would vote for Street’s bill, so why is he now being coy?

Tags: , ,

21 Responses to “Cunliffe won’t reveal euthanasia stance”

  1. Alan (1,064 comments) says:

    It’s utterly irrelevant to party politics, I don’t see it as a partisan issue at all.

    It’ll come before the house, mps will vote, then we’ll know.

    I suspect he’ll oppose on religious grounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    Key gives his personal view, and even says how he would vote on Street’s bill. You know where you stand with him.

    Bull.

    “If I see good parent…”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. burt (7,820 comments) says:

    Hey Clint – where do I stand on euthanasia ????

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. YesWeDid (1,029 comments) says:

    Why does there need to be a ‘clear party stance’ when this is meant to be a conscience vote?

    Why does an opposition MP have to introduce the bill as a private members bill? Why can’t a National MP do the same?

    Seems to me that Key is covering both options, his ‘personal view’ is ‘broadly’ pro-euthanasia but his government will not introduce a bill and he will not support the opposition bill so clearly he is not so ‘pro’ that he wants to do anything to change the status quo.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Harriet (4,522 comments) says:

    “…..Mr Key said he would not back Ms Street’s bill because he felt it went too far…..”

    So that then reads:

    WE will decide WHO is suffering and YOU will not!

    Where’s the ‘dignity’ in that?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Harriet (4,522 comments) says:

    There needs to be ‘equality’ before the law:

    Death is an individual thing – everyone should be allowed to choose when to die – or no one should be allowed to choose!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (788 comments) says:

    David Cunliffe is showing his Prime Ministerial qualities here….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (9,442 comments) says:

    I reckon he thinks everything is a trap! hes scared to say anything!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. scrubone (3,048 comments) says:

    David Cunliffe is showing his Prime Ministerial qualities here….

    I’m sure it’s right up there with this gem.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvenqcfX1j8

    Boy is the Labour barrel shallow!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (22,851 comments) says:

    Why can’t Cunliffe just tell us his view?

    It’s difficult to get away with being duplicitous on euthanasia.

    But he may have indirectly already given us a good indication – when did Cunliffe become leader and when did Street withdraw her bill?

    The “distraction in election year” argument is thin, there’s no guarantee it would have been drawn and if it was drawn there was no guarantee it would have made it through Parliament before the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tvb (4,208 comments) says:

    This is a sign of Culiffe’s weakness as Leader. He does not want to express an opinion because he might be accused by some in his caucus of trying to influence the vote. And the caucus ordered Street to withdraw her bill. John Key meanwhile expressed his support, made it clear it was not a party issue. A National MP should introduce a private members’ bill if the Labour Party will not.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Samuel Smith (276 comments) says:

    Much less serious than John Key not remembering what he thought of the Springbok Tour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Cato (1,094 comments) says:

    Does anyone else object to the idea that it’s O.K. to withdraw this bill because it’s too close to the election? Maryan Street has basically said that she wants to avoid a major criminal law reform being considered by Parliament at the one time most voters are paying attention to the political process. She’d rather it take place when fewer people are paying attention so that MPs will be less accountable.

    This is going to be a conscience vote, not a party line vote, so the electorate MPs who are elected will have a big outcome on how it’s elected. Surely then, an election year would be the most appropriate time to debate the matter. During an election year, voters can actually ask their local candidate and vote accordingly, influencing the vote while not affecting the makeup of Parliament generally.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Paulus (2,502 comments) says:

    On the Springboks tour when asked John Key where he was and what was he doing during the tour – he said he was at University chasing girls – so
    come to
    Should the Euthanasia vote come to Parliament as a free vote it would be defeated – there are too many members with strong religious views – the largest on all sides being Catholics – there are many in the Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Harriet (4,522 comments) says:

    Cato#

    I believe the whole thing will be won or lost on 2 things.

    *The definition of ‘suffering’. – If ‘physical pain’ is the ‘real arguement’ for euthanasia, then;

    *The quality of pallitative care. – If it is very high and is improving all the time, then the bill won’t get through.

    I think Key and most others won’t pass the bill as ‘pain’ can be eleviated, and palletive care is very very high right up until people die.

    And I don’t think ‘suffering’ will be the basis of a law such as euthanasia, as governments do not legislate on matters of emotion alone – on any matter.

    To allow a law such as euthanasia to be passed where an emotion is the MAJOR factor in creating that law, then that can ONLY end in a slippery slope.

    And that slippery slope means the government allows suicide for any reason what soever, including the threat, “I’m going to blow my head off if I am not given ‘medicine’ so as to die with ‘dignity and respect’.”

    The more liberal doctors will then decide who dies and who doesn’t – not the parliment of New Zealand. And we know what happened here with abortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. iMP (2,245 comments) says:

    The Lab. caucus couldn’t agree on what to change “killing people” into. “Dignity Application” perhaps? So, its been shelved until after the public have voted, which is when most cowardly bills (ie don’t put this to the public) get ‘debated.’

    Smacking
    S-Sex Marriage
    Euthanasia

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chi Hsu (85 comments) says:

    John Key’s position is just as evasive as Cunliffe’s, and it’s a cop out for him to say he would not have voted for Street’s because it goes too far, given that voting for it at First Reading does not mean changes can’t be made. In fact, changes tend to be made throughout the readings where debate can take place in order to insert appropriate restrictions. This blog continues to run full steam on its spin machine for the National Party.

    The reality is that death with dignity bills have not been able to pass through the walls of ignorance because of parties like the National Party. Like other significant human rights reforms in the past, we’ll have the MPs of Labour to thank one day for social change and progress, and not the backwards conservative MPs DPF continues to vehemently cheerlead for. They are the ones who are responsible for the suffering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ChardonnayGuy (1,136 comments) says:

    I must agree with Chi Hsu on this one. First, the Prime Minister says that he would vote for a private members bill to decriminalise voluntary euthanasia, and now, several months after Street’s bill became available for public discussion, he suddenly triangulates his position with “…but not this one, as it goes too far.” And he doesn’t specify in what sense. Mind you, this is a safe issue to oppose- there are secular opponents of euthanasia law reform, namely the medical profession and the disabled community, who end up legitimising it. And especially in the case of the medical profession, it is their occupational capital and professional authority and expertise that counts in this debate- more so than religious social conservative opponents.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Even weirder Cunliffe has previously said he would vote for Street’s bill, so why is he now being coy?

    Easy. South Auckland & votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    All Cunliffe can remember is how to appease his gaggle, they are the ones calling the shots, and also sharpening knives . . . lay odds 5/1 he does lead the losers to next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ben (2,396 comments) says:

    why is he now being coy?

    Because he wants to talk about jobs, economy, living wage, power prices.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.