"Australia is a representative democracy. In this political system, eligible people vote for candidates to carry out the business of governing on their behalf," it says.

Representative democracy appears, on the surface, straightforward. However, it is steeped in Westminster tradition and far more complex than we give credit.

The often-quoted Edmund Burke, an Irish conservative MP, summed it up best when he spoke of representative democracy in Bristol at the conclusion of the poll on November 3, 1774. He stated:

"Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are trust from providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representatives owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Currently before the Legislative Council, the house of review in the Tasmanian Parliament, is another attempt to legislate Dying with Dignity (Euthanasia). It is rare for legislation to begin its passage in the upper house. However, this is far different from a "normal" bill because it calls for a conscience vote.

When a matter before Parliament involves life and death, it is one of those special moments when a conscience vote free from party politics is used to determine the issue.

A conscience vote is a unique opportunity for elected members who are "trusted" by their constituents to make decisions through expressing their conscience.

Put simply, our conscience is our moral compass and roadmap for decision making; it is how we distinguish between right and wrong.

Via this column, I draw no conclusions about the issue nor the vote. Rather, I attempt to explain why this vote differs from what has become the modern view of representative democracy.

There is a perfectly understandable misunderstanding across the community regarding conscience votes.

"You are, after all, my representative in Parliament," the public often say, "It's what our community expects."

"I hope you can get another job," they spew. "The opinion polling made it clear."

Members of Parliament are therefore, unreasonably expected to represent the collective conscience of their constituents. Frankly, that is impossible. So, in electing them, we trust that they express their own conscience when called upon.

Consequently, members of Parliament should not hide behind drafting issues in the bill. "I can't support this bill because it does not provide appropriate protections."

Or, "I support this issue in principle, but I cannot support this bill," are not examples of expressing your conscience.

If members of Parliament feel that way, they should send the bill to a committee or attempt to amend the legislation on the floor of Parliament.

For some Dying with Dignity is "simply" a matter of right or wrong.

However, for those politicians who support Dying with Dignity it is a dereliction of their duties if they do not ensure the legislation is the best it can be.

If we do not like the way this issue is being decided, then contest the way it is resolved. If we do not like life and death matters being decided by our elected representatives, then there are other mechanisms we should encourage them to employ.

In a party-political system major parties often bind their members to a vote via the party platform like the Australian Labor Party eventually did with same-sex marriage.

Federal Parliament can provide for any proposed change to the Constitution a referendum, and a plebiscite for non-Constitutional matters.

Referendums have included those for Federation; post-war reconstruction; democratic rights, including Aboriginal people in the census and facilitating their vote; and deciding whether our country should become a republic. In 2017, a plebiscite was used to finally pass same-sex marriage legislation. The same mechanism was used in 1916 and 1917 to test the nation's views on conscription during World War I.

The states can use similar approaches, with Tasmania employing a referendum to approve the first legal casino at Wrest Point in 1968; and to ask a question of the people regarding the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam in 1981, known as the Power Referendum.

Representative democracy is complex and flawed, but, as Churchill offered, "...democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time...."

What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor: