September 05, 2006 12:00am

JOHN Ferguson writes: Philip Nitschke, Australia’s self-styled euthanasia guru, clearly knows a sucker when he sees one. No doubt, he is also aware he needs to latch on to anything he can in his drive to resuscitate a dying cause. A decade after the Northern Territory voluntary euthanasia legislation was thrown out by Canberra, the euthanasia issue has stalled.

Evidence of its demise can be found in Nitschke’s own propaganda.

Barely a dozen people, joined by two dogs, marked the 10th anniversary of the voluntary euthanasia legislation’s enactment in Darwin in July.

Despite his claims to the contrary, there is no compelling evidence that enough Australians want a change to the law.

However, this doesn’t mean Nitschke is giving up. Many backing voluntary euthanasia see it as a fight by the secular against the religious.

It is, of course, nothing of the sort. The suggestion that only the religious are uncomfortable with the concept of doctors being given the qualified power to kill patients, including infants in Europe, is glib.

The idea that the religious are somehow clouded by their beliefs is no more than a convenient wedge used by Nitschke to distort the debate.

While religion might motivate some to oppose voluntary euthanasia, there are many others who will find the question troubling.

It is tempting to dismiss Nitschke as irrelevant, but he is in fact a significantly powerful figure in the global debate, influencing discussion through his New Zealand-based website.

That website was set up across the Tasman in part to evade new federal laws here that sensibly make it harder to tell people how to kill themselves.

Selling himself as the first doctor in the world to legally and voluntarily end the life of a patient, Nitschke’s catch-cry is: “A peaceful death is everybody’s right.”

If only it were that simple.

As far as Nitschke suckers go, Sandra Kanck is straight from central casting.

Kanck is an Australian Democrat, who sits in the sleepy backwater of South Australia’s Upper House.

Last week, Nitschke jumped on a jet and witnessed Kanck committing one of the worst possible breaches of parliamentary privilege.

Earlier in the year, Kanck had spruiked the merits of the illegal drug ecstasy over alcohol. Last week, with Nitschke looking on, Kanck used the cover of privilege to tell people how to commit suicide.

The speech was eventually struck from the parliamentary internet site because it was feared it contained advice that could have triggered a death or deaths.

A top mental health official had spoken to Kanck before she got to her feet, imploring her not to follow through with the loopy plan.

Kanck stupidly ignored the plea, arguing that her problem was with the Howard Government’s Suicide Related Materials Offences Act. The Act makes disseminating information on ways to commit suicide via the internet and phone a crime.

Its purpose is plain enough: to stop people assisting others to kill themselves, principally through the internet.

The Howard legislation treads on difficult freedom of expression ground, but the intent of the law is obvious.

Not, however, for Kanck, who was pathetic in the defence of her actions.

Asked how she would feel if her public stand led to a suicide, Kanck said: “Then I’ll have egg on my face.”

Wrong. It would mean she had helped someone commit suicide.

And where was Nitschke during all this?

Adelaide’s Sunday Mail reported that he had visited Kanck in her parliamentary office several weeks earlier.

Which explains why her speech appeared to follow, in part, some of what Nitschke’s lobby group has been banging on about for years.

Kanck appeared to give little or no thought to the idea that physically well but mentally vulnerable people might follow their advice.

Then again, Kanck is the same ageing MP who said rave parties were a far better environment than a hotel bar.

It must have been a long time since she has been to a decent pub.

Just because Kanck is in the South Australian Parliament doesn’t mean her actions don’t count.

Her words will already have been read around the world by many after they were downloaded on the internet soon after they were uttered.

No doubt there will be support for voluntary euthanasia in the Victorian and federal parliaments.

Given that Labor is about to hand over its power to the Greens in Victoria’s Upper House, it would be interesting to know where these candidates stand on the issue.

Given that Greens federal leader Bob Brown received a gong by Nitschke’s organisation, for services to the right-to-die movement, it is a fair bet several candidates will back the move.

Maybe Nitschke could campaign for the Greens in November.

That would be fun. It might also shed more light on an issue of critical public policy importance.