Euthanasia: The debate that will test the nation
Can New Zealand handle the inevitable protests?
In the past two years, Parliament’s front lawn has been graced with many more protests than usual. People have stood there with banners and megaphones (and sometimes tractors) on issues including abortion and euthanasia, climate change, firearms, farming, the Parliamentary prayer, and — at one point — striking teachers and nurses.
One of the most recent was on Wednesday, when those opposed to euthanasia turned up as politicians prepared to vote on the End of Life Choice Bill’s last stage.
Their last-ditch attempt to halt that bill was futile. It passed by 69 votes to 51 that night.
That vote in Parliament was preceded by years of often intense lobbying of politicians by each other, and by the advocates on either side.
But now it is out of the politicians’ hands and the decision has moved to the general public, who have the determining vote in a referendum in next year’s election.
The protests and lobbying will move accordingly, from Parliament’s lawns and inboxes to the streets and online.
Concern about how divisive that debate could prove to be was one of the reasons many MPs did not want a referendum, but preferred it to be settled by Parliament.
When that referendum comes, it will likely not be those on either end of the argument who will decide the issue, but those in the middle.
Many will not yet have turned their minds to thinking about it.
Many will not look into the details of the law, the specific provisions that set out when euthanasia will be allowed, the adequacy of any safeguards against undue pressure.
Few MPs will want to take the lead on that debate — for few will want to be defined by it and have it overshadow their campaign.
So the advertising around it will be important.
The groups against euthanasia are more plentiful and more organised. As Seymour noted in his speech, the pro-euthanasia side was driven by individuals such as early campaigner Lecretia Seales rather than “welloiled” groups. But both sides have many advocates.
Some people will already have made up their minds and the lobbying will fall on deaf ears.
The politicians who stood up to deliver the reasons for their votes gave a vast array of reasons for those decisions.
For some it was religion, for some it was cultural, for some — including the law’s sponsor, Act leader David Seymour — it was a matter of political philosophy.
For many it was personal — those who had watched a loved-one die, or seen someone with a terminal diagnosis rally.
There will be as many reasons in wider society.
Not all MPs had strong feelings either way. Among them was Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni, who said it was not among her political priorities, and she had not envisaged having to make the decision that was before her now.
“[But] I had to make a decision, and I have fallen just on the line in favour. I won’t stand here tonight and tell anyone what I think they should do, because I struggled enough myself with the personal decision that I had to make.”
In her speech, Sepuloni pointed to what she felt was misinformation, and sometimes a lack of integrity, on both sides of the debate.
That will not change now. Referendum campaigns are regulated in respect of advertising and financing of campaigns.
Justice Minister Andrew Little has already introduced legislation to allow that, saying advertising will be “a key influencer” in the debate.
Little has also spoken of the need to balance freedom of expression with transparency.
Little is also proposing to set up a unit in the Ministry of Justice to monitor the advertising campaigns to try to guard against “misinformation”.
That could prove a fraught exercise, given the potential conflict with rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief.
National Party leader Simon Bridges was once scoffed at for saying that one person’s misinformation was another person’s fact.
But he was right in this context. For instance, many consider that God is a fact. There is a bit of a smell of the Thought Police about Little’s proposed unit, which will have to be handled very carefully indeed.
Regulation can also only go so far in controlling the debate.
Social media is notoriously difficult to monitor and control, and it is there that the spread of so-called “fake news” will be wildest.
Nor is it only online.
That unit’s fact-checkers cannot be in a pew in every church in the land, or in other community gathering places, the pubs and sports clubs where such matters could get discussed.
The greater concern for politicians is that the campaigns on referendum issues — cannabis, euthanasia and possibly abortion — will overshadow the election campaign.
There will also be fears those who do feel strongly will target the politicians during that campaign to get attention for their causes, because that will be where the cameras are.
But navigating such debates is not completely new territory for New Zealand.
It has been a long time since an issue such as this went to a referendum.
But we have already ushered in big social changes, such as gay marriage and the legalisation of prostitution, without major, long-term splits in society.
Seymour’s ushering of the euthanasia result over the past four years was something of a feat, but also reflected changing attitudes.
In 1995, a similar measure was kicked out by 29 votes to 61. In 2001, the margins had narrowed to 58 in favour, 60 against.
New Zealand’s Parliament is now more diverse — and more secular. So, too, is society.
It is notable that all but three of the 16 Millennials in Parliament supported the bill, while 43 per cent of the 37 Boomers (16) voted against it. And the Boomers included several NZ First MPs who do not support euthanasia.
In respect of the way that debate is handled, those campaigning on both sides could do worse than take the lead from those who considered it first: the politicians.
There has been trenchant opposition in viewpoints among MPs.
There have been accusations of scaremongering and irrationality. In some cases, close friends have been on different sides. But each side has treated the other with enough respect to let both have their say.