Why Labour fears euthanasia referendum

The prime minister has said several times that she doesn’t think there should be a referendum on euthanasia. But she could well vote for one tomorrow. Here’s why.

Jacinda Ardern has supported the End of Life Choice Bill every step of the way, and voted with bill sponsor David Seymour on all of his varied amendments thus far – all of which are aimed at getting it to pass.

Now, with the referendum vote looming – under which the law would be dependent on the public endorsing it – Ardern has left open the option of voting for a referendum, which she has previously been wary of, if that’s what is needed for the bill to pass.

Ardern is of course only one vote of 120. Because euthanasia is a conscience matter for Labour and National, the leaders’ votes technically don’t count any more than the lowliest of backbenchers’.

But her vote will likely be influential on other MPs on the fence, which could be crucial. It’s much easier to make a hard decision when you know your leader has made the exact same call. Several other Labour MPs could go all the way from yes to no without much trouble.

Seymour desperately needs to pass the referendum amendment on Wednesday to pass the bill itself in a few weeks’ time. This is because of a deal he made with NZ First early in the process: if he got a referendum included, all nine NZ First MPs would stay onboard through all three readings.

If the referendum amendment fails, it’s not clear that every NZ First MP would vote against the bill (opinions clearly differ within the party), but most would.

Given Seymour won the second reading with 70 votes to 50, he can technically afford to lose nine votes, as this would put him right on the magical 61. But it would mean he couldn’t lose a single other MP from the coalition he put together for the first and second readings, which seems very unlikely – after all, he lost nine MPs between first and second readings, while only picking up three.

So Ardern is likely to know how important it is that a referendum passes for the bill itself to have a good chance of becoming law. But even as she supports that law change, she might not support it enough to back a referendum.

There would be several reasons for this.

On a philosophical level, many MPs think referendums are a bad way to deal with knotty issues such as euthanasia, and should be saved for issues of constitutional importance.

But there is also a lot of political risk for Labour in a euthanasia referendum running alongside the 2020 general election, as it will give social conservatives a potent campaign issue. Conservative lobby groups such as Family First already have plenty to do campaigning against abortion law reform and the cannabis referendum pinned to go with the 2020 election. Add in a referendum on euthanasia and there would be quite a cocktail of policies to campaign and fundraise with.

The Government would be coming for your babies, your grandma, and to give your kids legal weed.

That the euthanasia bill is not actually sponsored by Labour wouldn’t really matter – Ardern is in Government and is supportive of euthanasia, while Simon Bridges is not, so she would become much more deeply associated with the bill.

This is despite the fact that polls suggest a referendum is likely to win. While most of the country might appear to support euthanasia, the people who are against it are deeply against it. And plenty of those against it could well be Labour voters.

Ardern cares about euthanasia. But she might not care quite enough to lose an election over it.