Labour and the referendums of dread
The oddest thing happened in Parliament on Wednesday. A cross-party group of MPs that had coalesced fought hard for the passing of a bill to legalise euthanasia and won the vote. But that bill will become law only if a majority of New Zealanders agree, at a referendum on the same day as next year’s general election, that they want to legalise euthanasia.
Polls have consistently given the issue around 70 per cent support. Intuitively, however, that feels wrong. It’s very hard to get 70 per cent of voters to agree on anything. Take the MMP referendum in 2014. In that vote only 57 per cent of voters favoured keeping the system and that was just around how we vote, not around, quite literally, an issue of life and death and whether or not the state should be in a position to sanction – and then assist – in the ending of a life.
In the superannuation referendum put up by Winston Peters in 1997 to create a compulsory, Australian-style superannuation scheme the question ‘‘Do you support the proposed compulsory retirement savings scheme?’’ got smashed. More than 90 per cent of voters voted against it with a voter turnout of over 80 per cent.
Back in 1992, nearly 85 per cent of the voters wanted a new voting system, and 70 per cent wanted MMP. But in the 1993 referendum to move to MMP, our current electoral system only enjoyed 53 per cent support. Those opposing a new flag in 2014 only got 53 per cent of the vote.
Delving even further back into history, votes to extend the parliamentary term were defeated in the late 1960s and early 1990s. Going even further back, in 1949 Kiwis voted 3-1 to keep the 6 o’clock swill, but 15 years later voted to extend closing hours by a margin of two to one. The public is fickle, attitudes change.
The point is that it’s very hard to get 70 per cent of the nation to agree and vote on anything.
Based on the euthanasia polling, you wouldn’t expect that vote to narrow so much for it to lose, but by the time of the election later next year there could be other variables swirling around. And there is a world of difference between people agreeing in abstract that euthanasia is a good idea, and then keeping that view when they turn up to the ballot box. People tend to be inherently small-c conservative: that’s why reforming governments are so rare. Politicians, mindful of their future careers, usually don’t wish to push the barrow too far. Those who do are remembered precisely because they did.
Next year’s general election will be unusual because, quite aside from voting for an MP and a party, voters are being asked to also vote in two referendums: on legalising euthanasia and cannabis. One represents the state’s right to sanction death, and the other deals with public health and black markets.
Viewed dispassionately and rationally, drug laws function in exactly the same way that any other prohibition throughout history has: be it booze, gambling or prostitution. There is no obvious moral reason why cannabis is any worse than, say, alcohol.
Prohibition inflates the prices, empowers criminal organisations and has the effect of criminalising addiction. The negative effects of this prohibition are almost always felt at the bottom of the income ladder where the legally induced higher drug prices create a pretty attractive career path.
Yet the politics of drugs don’t operate like that. They are both emotive and value-laden: drugs are bad, they dull the mind, and the state shouldn’t encourage them. It’s a head over heart issue. Your head might say there’s nothing wrong with legalised drugs . . . up to the point when someone close to you becomes an addict.
Both of these referendums are a potential problem for the Government, and not insignificant ones. The first and most obvious reason is that cannabis and euthanasia could crowd out whatever issues the Government is running on: be it the Zero Carbon Bill, trade deals, a strong economy, low unemployment.
This could, of course, be a problem for both the Government and the Opposition. At key points before or during the campaign, either party’s momentum could be stalled if the wrong drug or euthanasia issue crops up.
But the political downsides are potentially much worse for the Government. First, and most obviously, National has a leader who genuinely and simply opposes both of these things.
And secondly, as this column flagged a couple of weeks ago, National is going to sharpen its focus on cost-of-living issues, which it sees as of key importance for voters. It can effectively paint any focus away from those things as a distracted Government concerned with peripheral issues.
The euthanasia bill is probably not so much of a problem – it wasn’t the Government’s idea and it was supported by MPs across the political divide. Cannabis is a different story – this could be a loselose issue for Labour. Lots of Labour voters, and the prime minister has said this of her own experience growing up in small rural towns, know the damage drugs can do.
While Ardern may see merits in legalisation for health reasons, she is very far from being some sort of pro-drug flag-waving leftie. Essentially, she wants to be a citizen like everyone else in this issue, in all the difficulties it poses. The problem is that, in the heat of a campaign, that could be politically difficult.
Yet as the election moves on, the issues could prove hard to avoid and there is probably no ‘‘right’’ side of the argument for Labour. It could potentially lose votes either way.
It has been a busy week in the Beehive but who came out on top?
UP Jan
■ Parliamentary Under-Secretary has been spearheading reform on domestic and sexual violence issues. She and Justice Minister
announced a new law to improve the court system’s response. The Sexual Violence Bill passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday.
■ Immigration Minister reversed an Immigration NZ change that affected how visa applications for culturally arranged marriages were processed. The minister says he has ‘‘fixed’’ the issue to ensure people with legitimate arranged marriages can visit, while preventing any rorting of the system.
■ It was probably the biggest victory for the small ACT party when the End of Life Choice Bill, sponsored by lone ACT MP passed 69-51 on Wednesday evening. New Zealanders will now vote in a referendum on whether to allow the terminally ill to request assisted dying.
Logie Andrew Little DOWN Iain LeesGalloway David Seymour, Shane Jones
NZ First MP just can’t keep his opinions to himself these days and refuses to back down over recent outbursts. His latest rant saw him describe farmers protesting on Parliament as ‘‘rednecks’’ . It follows backlash about comments on the visa changes, where he said those in the Indian community who didn’t like the policy should go ‘‘home’’.
■ Broadcasting Minister has kept quiet about his intentions for a new media strategy, but was left red-faced this week when it was leaked to RNZ that a plan had been formed behind closed doors that could be the biggest shake-up in broadcasting for 30 years; that the Government was considering disestablishing both RNZ and TVNZ and creating an entirely new public media entity.
■ Police Minister proposed Firearm Prohibition Orders (FPO) received a mixed response. Concerns were raised that the regime, aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of high-risk offenders, would impinge on human rights. The Government has issued a discussion document to find out what the public thinks.
Kris Faafoi Stuart Nash’s
Cannabis is a different story – this could be a lose-lose issue for Labour.