Thomas Coughlan
Ipity this Parliament. It’s had more knotty and divisive social issues to deal with than many others. Within months of its first sitting it was voting on two medicinal cannabis bills, and things only got more complicated from there.
Euthanasia, abortion, and drug reform followed. This wave of difficult social legislation is partly a symptom of having a left-leaning government. It’s also the result of contentious members’ bills, like Chloe Swarbrick’s Medicinal Cannabis Bill, and David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill being drawn.
But I don’t pity our politicians too much: it’s their job to work through these challenges on our behalf. That’s why the forthcoming euthanasia referendum is such a problem: we vote for politicians who vote for legislation, we don’t vote to see them kick important votes back to us.
Many of these social issues go to conscience votes, where MPs vote independently of their party. This was more common during the days of the first-past-the-post system, when an MP represented an electorate, not just a party, but MMP has made it rare. The party vote has meant parties have a more powerful mandate than MPs. It’s bad faith for an MP to cross the floor and vote against the party that put you in Parliament.
Conscience votes are difficult in and of themselves. At an induction course run for incoming MPs, many felt conflicted about whose conscience they were actually voting with: their own, or that of their electorate? This becomes even more complicated when you consider that some MPs don’t just represent geographical constituencies. They represent the views and interests of groups defined by religion, race, class, and gender.
For religious MPs it’s even more difficult: what happens when the values of their faith collide with the wishes of their constituents? Aupito William Sio’s moving speech on the first reading of abortion law reform touched on the tensions he felt as a representative for Ma¯ ngere, Pacific peoples, and the values of Christianity. He voted for the bill in the end, but it was refreshing to see an MP openly wrestle with the fact he represented many different constituencies, each with its own conscience.
Other MPs have decided to poll their electorates, or conduct elaborate listening campaigns to work out which way to go.
Others have used the opportunity of multiple conscience votes to brush up on their lobbying skills, forming cross-party groups to discuss issues, lobby colleagues and get bills passed.
An incredibly successful example of this is the group of MPs that turned David Seymour from a party of one into a bloc of 69 MPs that eventually voted for his End of Life Choice Bill.
Our political system has groaned under the pressure of this barrage of difficult votes. The euthanasia bill was filibustered through a 16-month-long select committee.
MPs are exhausted too. Agonising over euthanasia is much more stressful than blandly speechifying on the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Bill (don’t ask).
That’s a problem. The brewing culture war suggests our Parliament is likely on the cusp of a wave of important social legislation and our MPs should be ready to deal with it, not kick it down the road.
MPs don’t just represent geographical constituencies. They represent the views and interests of groups defined by religion, race, class, and gender.