Major changes to New Zealand’s abortion law came a step closer to reality on Tuesday. The 81 to 39 vote in favour of the Abortion Legislation Bill progressed it to the penultimate stage.
This debate is different to that on typical legislation. It’s different because the Speaker has declared that abortion law reform is a conscience issue, which changes the way that Parliament operates in dealing with it.
The Speaker, Trevor Mallard makes a ruling Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
It is speakers that decide which issues are conscience ones because doing so changes the process rules for Parliament (which are a speakers’ ambit). Moral issues tend to be conscience matters, but not always.
Historically, conscience issues tend to be ones that arose after the historical formation of political parties and which don’t tend to fall neatly into the political philosophies of their constituent parts. As a result the major parties tend to be internally split on these issues.
Both National and Labour tend to include MPs that some might describe as either ‘moral’ liberals or conservatives.
The most important change to the rules when an issue becomes a matter of conscience is that every MP votes individually on every aspect. Which doesn’t always mean they decide for themselves how to vote, but more on that later.
In the MMP era parties typically vote as blocs and the vote totals are given on the behalf of MPs by a party whip - part of whose job traditionally is making sure MPs vote how they should. Now they do it for them.
But conscience issues revert to the old-fashioned voting system which is long and slow and very personal. It involves a literal body-count as MPs are called to the chamber by the division bells, and having arrived promptly exit again through one of two doors into the matching lobbies on either side. Exiting via one door is voting in favour, and via the other is voting against.
The Ayes Door Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox
This has the complicating factor of MPs not being able to rely on the whip to tell them the meaning of voting for or against for a particular vote, (yes mistakes do get made). So MPs have to pay attention to what the question is that is being decided.
Voting is not a complete free-for-all though. Green and New Zealand First MPs tend to vote as blocs after internal caucus discussion.
Labour and National MPs usually (but not always) vote disparately, possibly because they have more internal divergence on these kinds of questions. If so, that surely comes from being larger and therefore more encompassing of sub-groups.
Each MP brings their own personal, religious, cultural, or philosophical stances to each vote - and as a result the lobbies can include unlikely bed-fellows commiserating or rejoicing together.
This week’s debate on the Abortion Legislation Bill was a second reading. That’s when the House decides whether or not to accept changes to the Bill recommended by the Select Committee. In this case a committee specially set-up to consider just this Bill.
The Abortion Legislation Committee hears from submitters on abortion law reform Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox
There are various reasons why a special committee may have been created. Among them is that the usual specialist subject committees are very busy and as the End of Life Choice Bill demonstrated conscience issues can use vast amounts of time.
They are also much more likely to result in large empassioned, groups of people making written submissions and also wanting to appear in person. On such an issue many people have very personal stories, experiences and opinions to share.
The Justice Committee’s consideration of the End of Life Choice Bill took so long that arguably some of its usual business got a bit waylaid.
And that Committee, used to reaching conclusions somewhat along party lines, didn’t feel empowered to recommend any substantive changes on an issue where the fault lines were within and not between the parties.
It appears that the special committee felt more able to tinker. Certainly some significant changes were recommended (and accepted).
Numerous MPs rise for the call (ask to speak next) during the End of Life Choice Bill second reading. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith
Conscience issues also bring other differences.
Just as the whips are not involved in the voting, nor are they involved in creating a speaking roster; it’s every MP for themselves. As a result, MPs jump up to speak en masse and the Speaker decides who gets to make a speech. Presumably this sometimes means guessing the likely positions of MPs in order to attempt some balance of opinion in the debate.
And just as MPs are likely to be strongly engaged with a conscience issue, so are spectators. This week the Speaker had to warn the public galleries pipe down or be ejected.
There is something of a double standard in the House which the public sometimes struggles with.
MPs are allowed to interject and participate in a debate - loudly. But the public in the galleries have to remain completely silent. And the more passionate the topic the harder it is for people to manage that.
Next week this bill is likely to be discussed by the Committee of the Whole (in the committee stage). This is the final chance for amendments and is a whole different ball game, with different rules and tactics. But that's another story.
