MPs paid to make these calls
MPs will decide tomorrow whether to give us a referendum on the End of Life Choice Bill. It’s a big deal for many, and especially for NZ First, who even elevated it to their coalition agreement with Labour, stipulating that MPs will be given a conscience vote on whether to hold a referendum.
NZ First MP Jenny Marcroft has put forward referendum proposals, saying the decision is too important to be left to ‘‘temporarily empowered politicians’’. But that temporary empowerment isn’t a bug, it’s a feature, and a referendum on this issue would be a bad idea.
One of Marcroft’s proposals contains this referendum question: ‘‘Do you support the End of Life Choice Act coming into force?’’ Supporters might argue a referendum on a specific law is ideal, rather than asking generally about support for assisted dying. Actually, it’s not so clear-cut.
Voters would understand that the referendum is about that law, but not necessarily the details of the law or its potential consequences.
There’s still vigorous disagreement about the meaning and implications of the bill among those who have been following its progress in detail for years. This question might be better than a general question because it might reduce ambiguity, but it wouldn’t remove it.
In fact, MPs are much better equipped than the public to understand and evaluate the bill’s proposals.
They have had experts, advocates, and constituents from all sides of this issue beating a path to their door for years, presenting them with information, advice, and perspectives to allow them to consider the issue in all its complexity. Parliament has received 39,159 written submissions on the Alex Penk says David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill being put to a referendum would be a case of MPs passing the buck.
Bill, heard 1350 oral submissions, and spent hours and hours debating the issue, supported by professional staff to weigh and consider everything they’ve heard. This kind of deliberation is why we have a Parliament, and it’s one of the main things we’re paying MPs to do.
That doesn’t mean every MP has become an expert, and the bill’s process hasn’t been perfect, especially as significant amendments have been introduced late in the piece and without proper public scrutiny. Despite this, MPs have still had far more opportunity to gain understanding than most of us would.
For example, a 2017 poll showed that a majority of the public thought
that ‘‘turning off life support’’ and ‘‘stopping medical treatment’’ were both forms of assisted dying. They are not. Euthanasia and assisted suicide involve a doctor administering, or a patient selfadministering, a ‘‘lethal dose of the medication’’, to quote the bill.
Given this lack of basic knowledge, it’s simply asking too much of the public to grapple with all the serious concerns about the bill. For example, how do we expect voters to evaluate the disability rights commissioner’s concerns that, even though the bill has been narrowed to focus on terminal illness, it still poses risks to people with disabilities?
The public campaign about a referendum would start from and feed off this lack of knowledge. As the Ministry of Justice has said, a referendum would be likely to attract ‘‘intense interest from lobby groups’’.
Imagine the blizzard of campaign advertising we could expect from every side, and the difficult task of trying to make an informed decision after being fed a diet of slick collateral and catchy slogans.
That’s why we don’t expect MPs to kick for touch by opting for a referendum on bills like this. Where MPs could benefit directly from a law change, like switching voting systems, it makes sense to put those issues to a referendum to avoid a conflict of interest. But otherwise it’s an MP’s job to make decisions like this one, as our representatives, even when the stakes are literally life and death.
The bill’s second reading in Parliament showed how seriously MPs are taking this and how hard they are grappling with their consciences, their electorates’ wishes, and the potential consequences of supporting or rejecting the bill. Several changed their vote from the first reading after thinking deeply, even agonising, over their responsibility for this decision.
This responsibility is one reason we should trust MPs to do this job. They know the buck stops with them and that they will be accountable for their decisions when they face the voters at an election. By contrast, we voters aren’t accountable for the way we vote. The system works precisely because MPs are ‘‘temporarily empowered’’ to decide what our laws should be, including on the most important and controversial issues.
If MPs aren’t willing to make these decisions, it’s a little hard to see what purpose they serve or why they should hold their positions.
Whatever their views on the End of Life Choice Bill, MPs should have the courage of their convictions and reject the proposed referendum.
Imagine the blizzard of campaign advertising we could expect from every side, and the difficult task of trying to make an informed decision after being fed a diet of slick collateral and catchy slogans.