Do our MPs know best? Or even they are expected to know best?
At least, this is what that comes out from some anecdotes shared by many of our frontbencher MPs, from both sides of the Parliament, on why they voted in favour of End of Life Choice Bill.
ACT Party leader David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill has on Wednesday, June 26, passed its second reading in Parliament.
Taking it a step closer to where New Zealand could embrace a law that could legalise voluntary euthanasia or assisted dying.
The Bill was voted with 70 MPs in favour and 50 MPs in opposition.
At least six more MPs had changed their minds in favour of the Bill from last time when had voted against it.
Surprisingly though, their change of mind was based less on the views of the public and the communities that they are supposed to represent in the Parliament, and more on their personal epiphany.
The vote on the Bill, although a conscience vote (that allows an MP to vote on the basis of their conscience without following Party lines), does not, or should not, if it already does, give an absolute freedom to not reflect the views of the public that these MPs are supposed to represent in the Parliament.
Michael Wood
Most notably, National Party’s fiery MP and spokesperson for Housing, Judith Collins, changed her voting preference from what she voted last time, based on her tragic personal experience of watching her Dad suffer during his last days.
With due respect, to her sentiments, and to many other fellow MPs such as Labour Party’s Andrew Little and Willie Jackson who shared publically the fact that their similar personal experiences, were the most important decisive factors behind their votes on the End of Life Choice Bill.
It must be noted that this is no ordinary Bill.
This is a Bill that seeks to legislate on an issue which is beyond the scope of a majority or is of concern for a very microscopic minority. Moreover, the Bill seeks to deal with an overly complicated issue of empowering a doctor-assisted death to a selected few eligible people, mostly suffering from an irreversibly terminal illness.
In fact, only a very few countries of Europe have legislated on the issue, on a Bill which was far more comprehensive than what is currently progressing in NZ’s Parliament.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar
Against, such a backdrop, the fact that Kiwi parliamentarians are not only changing their votes from a previous “No” to “Yes”, such as Judith Collins, or are unabashedly sharing their personal experiences as the foundation of their yes-vote, such as Andrew Little, is problematic.
It certainly reflects that some of our Kiwi parliamentarians are not giving the seriousness or respect to one of the most controversial and complex issues facing New Zealand, which it richly deserves.
However, not all MPs are succumbing to their personal experiences and instead of giving preference to the view of the community that they represent.
In fact, it seems, backbencher MPs, or those not in government as Ministers, are showing more political maturity when putting their vote on this highly divisive issue.
Notable among those, was Labour MP for Mt Roskill and Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Michael Wood, who has changed his previous stand of “Yes” when the Bill was last voted in December 2017 to latest “No” on June 26, when the Bill passed its second reading.
Michael Wood told Parliament he had decided to vote against the Bill after speaking with those with disabilities. Michael said he had doubts, but meeting one of his constituents with an incurable disease helped him confirm he would not be voting for the bill.
This is far more attuned to the spirit of parliamentary democracy where MPs are expected not to supersede, the views of communities they represent by their personal preferences.
Two Kiwi-Indian MPs that the Indian Weekender had spoken with, National Party’s Kanwaljeet Singh Bakshi and Dr Parmjeet Parmar, also pass the muster of reflecting their community’s majority views on the issue by voting against the End of Life Choice Bill.
Speaking to the Indian Weekender Parmjeet said, “I voted against the bill and will continue to vote against through the remaining stages.
“I respect all the views as I fully understand how sensitive this issue is.
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi
“As a former scientist and as a firm believer in science I believe we should continue to invest in developing the science and the medical field to help humankind live with dignity all through their lives rather than using the medical field to hasten death,” Parmjeet told the Indian Weekender.
National MP Kanwaljeet Singh Bakshi also confirmed that he voted against the bill.
“I have voted against the bill and will continue to oppose in the remaining stages in Parliament.
“The bill neither reflects the majority view of the communities (Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim) that I represent in the Parliament.
“Nor it reflects my personal spiritual and religious outlook to life, which is of celebrating the life rather than finding ways of ending based on the advice of us lesser-mortal human beings,” Mr Bakshi said.
The third Kiwi-Indian MP, Labour Party’s Priyanca Radhakrishnan voted in support of the bill.
Speaking to the Indian Weekender Priyanca said, “I voted for the End of Life Choice Bill because the Bill is about compassion and choice for those who are suffering and nearing the end of their life.”
“My support is in part due to the fact that I watched my mother die a gruesome, undignified death. I don't know that she would have chosen to hasten her end but I support her right - and that of others in similar situations - to have such a choice,” Priyanca said.
“Yet, I acknowledge that the Bill, in its current form, is too wide. I have supported it at its second reading so that it can be strengthened and tightened at the next stage, which is the Committee of the Whole House,” Priyanca further added acknowledging that the Bill was still a work in progress that needs several safeguards.
That brings the debate to its starting point, whether our MPs know best or are expected to know best.
ISSUE
Leave a Comment