Terry Dunleavy: 'Conscience' votes no longer valid

COMMENT

The close results in conscience votes in Parliament on prostitution and euthanasia beg the question of the relevance of this form of voting under MMP.

It is a hangover from the first-past-the-post electoral system when Parliament was composed entirely of MPs elected from, and accountable to, a constituency. Even then, the term "conscience" seemed in practice to be a combination of personal conscience, pressures from lobbyists and constituents and persuasion by party colleagues.

As a lobbyist for the wine industry for 15 years, I was involved with several amendments to the Sale of Liquor Act and similar provisions that have traditionally been decided by conscience vote.

They were interesting episodes, especially when watched close at hand from the floor of the House - two rows at the back separated from MPs' benches only by a low railing, across which messages passed back and forth between MPs and the various lobbyists.

Unfortunately, in the new and enlarged chamber no such accommodation is available. The nearest lobbyists can get is, in fact, the front lobby or the galleries upstairs.

Party whips were withdrawn and various factions enlisted the services of willing supporters of their cause. For many years Koro Wetere acted as the unofficial wine industry whip.

I cannot remember one abstention under FPP. MPs not wanting to vote one way or the other simply stayed away from the House when the division bells rang.

I recall an occasion on which the late, amiable MP for Wairarapa, Ben Couch, as devout a Mormon as he was a sure-handed All Black five-eighth, ambled up the centre aisle not long before the vote was to be taken on an issue of importance to the wine industry. His religion would have compelled him to vote against us. As he walked past my aisle seat at the back, he murmured: "I'm doing you a favour; I'm going home."

Even under FPP the term "conscience" was a misnomer; such votes should have been described more appropriately as "free" votes (as they should be today). That's what such votes were under FPP.

MPs were free from direction from their party whips and could vote as they personally chose; whether from conscience or in response to soundings taken among their constituents (as many MPs did), or under pressure from other MPs (and there was always plenty of that).

It is also true that under FPP the so-called conscience vote was used as a cop-out. The governing party, reluctant to endure the consequences of being damned if it did and damned if it didn't on so-called moral issues, used the escape route of the free vote.

But the fact was that there was personal accountability. A free vote greatly at odds with the opinions of an MP's constituents (or a failure to vote at all) could prove costly at the next general election.

With most constituency MPs having been in Parliament for two or more terms, their electors knew in advance what their member's stance was on issues such as abortion, capital punishment, the drinking age, licensing hours and so on, and would take this into account when casting their votes.

Which brings us to MMP.

With Parliament now consisting of only 69 MPs answerable to constituents who have directly elected them, there are 51 MPs who are there by their ranking on their respective party lists.

To whom are they accountable? What account has been taken of their individual views on so-called conscience matters when deciding their list rankings?

Now that we seem stuck with MMP, which has turned out to have some proportional value to balance its practical shortcomings, it is appropriate to ask whether a free or conscience vote should continue to be the way in which moral or socially divisive issues are decided.

This is especially so when individual MPs, whether constituent or list, retain the right to bring in a private member's bills on any topic that takes their fancy and is drawn in the resultant ballot.

Take the two most recent examples: prostitution and euthanasia. Should we continue with a system that allows an individual MP to subject the country to the divisiveness of a debate on an issue on which his or her party declines to declare a position?

The tradition of conscience votes under FPP (which over the years produced some memorably stirring votes, such as that on capital punishment) was nurtured in a two-party system of constituent MPs. There were only two shades of party opinion - mostly opposed. An issue deemed too hard would go to a conscience vote by accountable constituent MPs.

Under MMP we have a number of parties, and shades of opinion ranging from the ultra right of Act to the ultra left of the Greens, with Labour, National, New Zealand First, United Future, Progressive and the enforced independents, Donna Awatere Huata and Maurice Williamson, in between.

Perhaps the time has arrived when the only bills to come before Parliament, on any issue, should be those which have been proposed by one or other of those many parties.

Conversely, if an issue is such that no party will take responsibility for its introduction, perhaps it shouldn't come before Parliament at all.

* Terry Dunleavy, a Takapuna writer, is a member and former office-holder of the National Party.