It’s a referendum. Whether or not the End of Life Choice Bill will come into effect or not will be finally decided by the general public in a referendum to be held along with the general election next year. I thoroughly approve of that process, especially as voters will be in no doubt as to what they are approving. There will also be a vote on whether or not to legalise cannabis for recreational purposes. Again a draft Bill will be available.
I am pleased to see these issues being decided by the general public. The whole-of-public support for the decision gives the resulting law greatly enhanced acceptability, legitimacy and durability.
Past referenda have suffered – not always but often - from being merely a question. While a vote on a yes/no question will establish the direction of policy, there can be many differences of interpretation when it comes to how that question is turned into legislation. Having a Bill that shows voters exactly the law that is being approved by the public in their vote improves the certainty and quality of the process. That noted, having a referendum to finally decide so-called “conscience” issues is better than having no referendum at all.
During the End of Life Choice parliamentary process I heard and saw arguments for and against the referendum idea. Generally those arguing against putting the question to a referendum took the view that MPs are elected to make decisions and they should therefore make the decision. Putting the issue to the public to decide was a cop out on that responsibility. I don’t see it that way. I am very happy to make a decision – personally I support the End of Life Choice Bill and if I were still an MP I would have voted in favour, so its not that. Conscience votes reflect individual MPs personal preferences; you cannot predict their position based on their party affiliation. From the voters point of view, it’s hit and miss whether an MP happens to be on one side or the other on conscience issues.
The vote that determines the makeup of Parliament is the Party Vote. List MPs make it into Parliament because their party put them sufficiently high on their party list to qualify. The big squabble for those parliamentary candidates is to get a high enough position on their Party List; they are never elected directly by voters. Constituency members have some personal link to their electors, but again voters are driven largely driven to chose their MP by the party whose banner they fly under.
Many amongst the voting public would see it as preferable that the candidate they vote for has views on conscience issues with which they agree. They cannot do that with list members as the system makes no provision for that. Even with constituency members, it is far from always possible. Those that are selecting the candidates will choose the nominee they believe best advances the party cause to which they are committed. Where a voter supports National for example but has an MP who opposes End of Life Choice, what are they to do? While they might feel driven to choose a poorer candidate because they prefer their stand on a particular conscience issue, they will not like it. The reality is that our system allows minimal opportunities for voters to pass judgement on parliamentary candidate’s conscience views.
Parliament approving the proposed law that voters decide on before the vote is held will give a good quality referendums.
Using referendums to determine our nation’s policy on conscience issues will improve the quality of our democracy.