How rare, Mr Bridges?

The case against reforming abortion law in New Zealand is a highly pragmatic one. On an issue so sensitive, so divisive, why risk the angst involved in reform when ultimately women can access the procedure safely? Under a law passed more than 40 years ago, abortion is in general illegal (and punishable as a crime). However, a woman can have an abortion if she can convince doctors that continuing the pregnancy would result in serious danger to her physical or mental health.

This may truly be the case in some circumstances, but for decades New Zealand has known, deep down, that in most cases, the approval of an abortion involved deception.

In what could become the key social issue of this term of the Government, Labour has tested moving further, asking the Law Commission to examine changing the law to make abortion a health issue, not a criminal one.

As news of Ireland’s referendum on abortion sank in, signalling change in a traditionally conservative country, National leader Simon Bridges may have put himself in a position he will regret.

Bridges’ argument, like that of his predecessor, Bill English, is effectively that the current system is acceptable, because in the end, the law works okay.

National has long been more about outcomes than process, so it is, in a way, consistent.

On TVNZ Bridges said he was ‘‘loath’’ to remove abortion from the Crimes Act. On RNZ he said repeatedly he wanted abortion to be ‘‘rare’’.

In doing so, he begs an obvious question: How rare? What number is okay?

Bridges, who has voted conservatively on gay marriage and other issues, points out that New Zealand’s legal starting point was nothing like that of Ireland’s, where women were forced to go overseas for the procedure.

But the current system, even if you accepted it works, is built around lies. Women are made to lie. Doctors are made to lie. When everyone in any interaction is lying, is that really acceptable?

Everyone lies, every day. Yet to add this lie to what is already a traumatic experience does not bear the hallmarks of a law that is just. It seems likely that, were men somehow confronted with the risk of that kind of humiliation, the situation would have been sorted out already. Even ardent pro-lifers must see the rank hypocrisy of the law.

In political terms, New Zealand’s abortion law may have worked for as long as it has because politicians were not willing to confront the issue.

If it was not going to be put to a vote, what does it matter which side of the debate a given MP is on?

Once again though, National may be forgetting that it lost power, and, with it, control over what is up for debate. Suddenly, which side you are on may become highly relevant.

While much of the political narrative may be dominated by unexpected events, from strikes to biosecurity incursions, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern still gets to control a huge chunk of the agenda in 2018. If she decides abortion is a political issue up for debate, it is headline news.

If Bridges then takes the opposite stance to Ardern, it will dominate the news agenda for weeks, in a highly divisive way.

English managed his Catholic faith and the pressures of leading the country with surprisingly little trouble, even as he abandoned his opposition to gay marriage the day he became prime minister.

But National got its support well above 40 per cent not by lagging the country on social issues, but by being up to speed, under Sir John Key.

It was Key who allowed the National Party to catch up with New Zealand on physical discipline of children, by building a bridge with Labour to support anti-smacking legislation.

It was Key who made the legalisation of gay marriage inevitable by signalling early in the debate that he would be voting yes.

Although in a conscience vote he represented less than 1 per cent of MPs voting, his stance effectively sealed the fate of the legislation.

MPs who were on the fence were able to vote with the direction New Zealand at large was headed, protected by the fact that they were following the leader.

Combined with National’s narrative of prudent management of the economy in difficult times, Labour was left all at sea, because Key made it okay for urban women to support National.

So far, National’s support has held strong in Opposition, but this should not be taken for granted. Polls conducted by both Family First and the Abortion Law Reform Association found New Zealanders are broadly pro-choice. The issue will be vexed, but law reform is arguably catching up with New Zealanders’ views.

Bridges is now emphasising that he would look at what the Law Commission recommends.

But if Labour pursues the issue, and manages it well, he faces a difficult choice – either work out a way to change his stance or risk finding himself on the wrong side of history and virtually dare many of his supporters to vote for Ardern.