By Kevin Campbell.

It is of concern to me that the ACT Party is rising in the polls on the crest of the wave of access to euthanasia and assisted suicide. Of further serious concern is the process by which the End of Life Choice Act has got to a binding referendum, together with the poor understanding among voters of what the referendum is about.

It is significant, but shameful, that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has stated she believed that euthanasia should never have gone to a referendum.

Most people think they are voting in a referendum on euthanasia. Not so. They are actually voting on a specific piece of legislation.

When people see the word “choice” in the title of the act they say: “Yeah, I’ll go with that”, without having a full understanding of what is actually in the legislation and what they are actually voting for. Do New Zealanders want “medication” defined as a “lethal dose”? I don’t think so.

The act, in Parliament, was ruled by the speaker to be a conscience issue, thereby triggering Parliament’s standing order 142 to enable a personal vote, rather than party vote, by MPs.

Personal or conscience votes have long been an important part of our parliamentary and democratic system. They are there for good reason.

Voters are entitled to know where individual MPs stand on contentious issues, such as euthanasia-assisted suicide. Many voters cast their votes in an election, influenced by the personal view of a particular parliamentary candidate seeking election.

So when the speaker rules an issue a conscience issue, MPs should honour the personal vote process to enable a true and accurate record of the views of all elected representatives.

It seems to me that both NZ First and the Green Party decided, during the parliamentary process, they would do it their way and, in effect, cast a NZ First and Green Party block vote.

Clearly the ACT Party didn’t have the numbers for passing the act, so it seems deals, with NZ First on the referendum and the Greens on other changes, were done, ultimately resulting in the referendum.

I say a block party vote on the act undermines the spirit and intent of our parliamentary and democratic system, and is a serious attack upon them. It undermines the importance of a personal vote.

ACT, NZ First and the Greens will no doubt come up with something to justify the process. No doubt ACT’s motivation was to go along with effectively block party voting to get euthanasia-assisted suicide on our statutes through a referendum and then try again to amend the legislation to its wishes in the next Parliament without a referendum.

NZ First and the Greens, no doubt, will say they were motivated by their respective party policy. However, to my mind, the intent and purpose of supplementary order 142 is to encourage, as Labour and National did, a personal vote on conscience issues rather than a party vote.

MPs are elected to write and enact our law. Citizens cannot be expected to do so. It is the job of politicians and they are well paid for it – almost twice what I was paid, only 18 years ago.

If citizens want a referendum, they can call for one under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act. Under that act the people can tell politicians that the people want a referendum.

But in this case of the End of Life Choice Act, politicians are telling the people: “You are having a referendum, whether you like it or not” and “We are telling you what is in the legislation, and what’s more, you don’t have a say in that.” So much for choice.

The shocking irony is that the people already had exercised their choice on the act in the form of a record-breaking number of about 40,000 select committee submissions.

More than 90 per cent of submitters opposed it, including the Medical Council of New Zealand, significant other health professionals and lawyers. But, despite all that, ACT, NZ First and the Greens, through what appears to be respective backroom deals, have brought about this referendum.

David Seymour and the ACT Party may say those opposing the act should respect individual choice.

MPs voting for the referendum may have thought they were giving New Zealanders a choice with a referendum, but they have well and truly missed the mark. New Zealanders, even those who may support euthanasia, have no choice at all in this referendum about the provisions of the act.

They are stuck with what politicians have come up with in this flawed voting process.

Fair-minded New Zealanders, regardless of their views on euthanasia, should record their objection to this parliamentary behaviour by voting “no” in the referendum.

I appreciate there are people on both sides of the debate with genuinely held views. However, people on both sides of the debate have a right to expect that if the act becomes law then it will have done so on a proper foundation.

ACT, NZ First and the Greens, if they have done backroom deals involving block party voting, have failed the people in that regard. Block party voting on a conscience issue, to my mind, is not playing by the rules and if anyone can’t play by the rules of the game, then they shouldn’t play the game.

Kevin Campbell is a former Alliance MP who lives in Manawatū.