Seymour should defer his euthanasia Bill
IT was a truly momentous day at Parliament on Thursday. The same day that David Seymour’s euthanasia Bill was drawn out of the private members’ ballot to begin its journey through the House, the pay equity settlement Bill passed its final reading.
Addressing Kristine Bartlett and her union colleagues in the gallery above, New Zealand First MP Ria Bond was not wrong when she said it had the makings of a blockbuster movie (perhaps it could be a fresh challenge for Julie Walters or Helen Mirren).
It certainly has the required elements of some heroic characters but the unanimity in the House and sheer delight over the $2 billion pay rise for 55,000 care and support workers made it hard to identify villains, try as Labour did.
The same sense of Parliament acting in complete unison for a moral good occurred the previous night during a debate on a private member’s Bill to stop forced marriages of 16 and 17yearold girls — it would require the approval of a Family Court judge, not just the girl’s parents.
The Seymour Bill will be another matter altogether. The moral arguments of the proeuthanasia lobby are not overwhelming or the issue would have been settled the previous two times Bills have come before Parliament, in 1995 and 2003.
But Parliament is better equipped in 2017 to have a civilised debate on the issue with more global experience, medical and legal research, court judgements, better resourced select committees, as well as being informed by the soontobetabled report of the health select committee inquiry into assisted dying.
While Mr Seymour’s Bill lacks sufficient safeguards, it is timely for the issue to be properly considered again by a select committee, but with less haste than he wants.
Mr Seymour was in the mood to celebrate on Thursday. The
Act leader has devoted a lot of political capital to this one Bill, including ruling out any ministerial role until it is dealt with.
But the timing is actually lousy and he would be better to defer consideration of the Bill until well after the election.
There is a very, very small chance the Bill’s first reading debate could occur in one of the three remaining private members’ days before the House rises on August 17.
(Second readings, committee stages and third readings of members’ Bills take precedence over first readings Bills — each of which must be held on different days — and there are two private member’s Bills out of select committee awaiting those debates, as well as four other Bills ahead of his for first reading debates.)
An issue of this importance deserves a proper campaign to be held before the crucial first reading debate to determine if it goes any further.
A campaign for a vote that could possibly be squeezed in within the next 10 weeks, but probably won’t, is less than ideal.
There are too many distractions for MPs so close to an election to give it the attention it deserves, and too many distractions straight after the election as well.
Mr Seymour might relish the possibility his Bill will become an election issue if time runs out this side of the election but that is just fanciful.
Except for a very few hardened campaigners whose vote could swing on the issue, support for euthanasia, and even a high level of public support that Mr Seymour claims, does not translate to it being a votewinner in the September 23 general election.
The strongest reason for Mr Seymour deferring his Bill is his position as Act Party leader. The Act board gave him its blessing to put the Bill in the members’ ballot but it did take a position on the Bill itself. It is not Act policy.
This is the first election Seymour is fighting as Act leader and his priority should be the party. His devotion to the cause of assisted dying has no doubt raised his profile nationally but he is in danger of it dominating his party’s election campaign.
The Herald’s poll of MPs since Thursday (85% response rate) suggests there is no certainty of the Bill passing in the current Parliament — 33 yes or probably yes; 28 no or probably no; and 39 undecided as at 2pm yesterday.
That’s a reason for caution, not haste.
There will be myriad reasons for the large number of undecideds, but part of it is likely to be because Seymour’s Bill goes further than many will be comfortable with.
The Bill is not limited to people with a terminal illness but includes people who may not be terminal but have a grievous and irremediable condition who experiences unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that he or she considers tolerable.
There is also some misgiving about the hurdle being only two doctors (the same as required for a woman to procure an abortion) rather than, for example, a Family Court judge, in a soundly argued proposal by Sir Geoffrey Palmer last year in the Lecretia Seales memorial lecture.
Abortion and euthanasia attract the same religious zealots in opposition but in the case of euthanasia, the caution is shared by many otherwise liberal thinkers.
The far Left have valid scepticism about whether the ability of wealthier people to access better healthcare could result in a disproportionate number of poorer people electing to end their lives.
And the disability sector and human rights advocates have concerns about how assisted dying, which is linked to diminished ‘‘quality of life’’, might further affect society’s attitude to people with disabilities.
An election campaign is not the best place for a Bill which literally traverses the issue of life and stateassisted death.
Mr Seymour must not be dismissive of sceptics and he may well need to indicate he is open to greater safeguards if he is to get his Bill over the first hurdle.
He is a long way off another momentous day in Parliament.