As predicted last year, the New Zealand Christian Right has moved onto other pastures- euthanasia law reform and children's right to nonviolent parenting. At the moment, euthanasia law reform appears to be heating up once again as a contentious social issue. Across the Tasman, the Howard administration has just passed a Criminal Code Amendment (Suicidal Related Material Offences) Act, designed to prevent publication that might 'assist' suicide through discussion of suicide methods, including workshops or websites on the subject. As Australia has no Bill of Rights, it will remain there until repealed. As one might guess, United Future's Gordon Copeland is up to his old tricks again. After having failed to ban non-existent same-sex marriages, he has approached the Ministers of Immigration and Information Technology, trying to keep Australian euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke from either settling here, or basing his workshop in this country. I suspect that if that doesn't work, Copeland will probably try to introduce a Suicide Related Material Offences Bill of his own into our own Parliament. I think the rationale is dubious. Why is it the case that someone contemplating assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia should be reading only material about suicide related methods? Surely the answer to this situation is greater availability of palliative medication, not anti-euthanasia political censorship, against a particular viewpoint in this debate? One suspects that it would also fall afoul of our Bill of Rights, and its free speech clauses. Moreover, Peter Brown (NZF) has said he'll be seeking to reintroduce his Death With Dignity Bill in the private members bill ballot, and this time, there might be enough support to progress it to select committee stage, although New Zealand Medical Association opposition would render its future survival questionable. Meanwhile, Sue Bradford's antibeating bill is currently lodged in the hands of the Justice Select Committee, where it is receiving submissions from interested parties. Unlike the prospect of euthanasia law reform, the Bradford Bill has overwhelming support from child health and welfare professionals, and the opponents of her bill will face an uphill battle. At present, anti-repeal groups seem to cluster around Palmerston North's Family Integrity, although Otago University Law Lecturer Rex Ahdar and Wanganui fundamentalist activist Garnet Milne also oppose it, as does Wellington's Society for Promotion of Community Standards. It'll be interesting to watch conservative Catholic reactions, given that many church social service agencies support the bill. I predict passage of this legislation, which appears to have passed without Maxim Institute homepage establishment. Why? With the departure of Bruce Logan, has the Christian Right abandoned family policy altogether? Or is there strategic dissent over priorities? Watch this space. Craig Young - 5th February 2006