Despite his claim of Maori ancestry, he is defending his Treaty Principles Bill.

His comments came as a hikoi opposing the bill reached Parliament, backed by passionate speeches and strong objections from Maori leaders.

Leaders voice Hapu concerns

Te Runanga o Ngati Rehia issued a statement condemning Seymour's proposed legislation, calling it a threat to mana Maori motuhake (Maori self-determination).

"Ngati Rehia oppose everything this bill stands for" the runanga said, urging Seymour to withdraw the bill which they say contradicts the principles his ancestors fought for.

They also expressed fears the bill would harm Maori communities.

"He has disregarded our voice and continued with this divisive kaupapa" their statement read.

Seymour stands firm on individual freedoms

Seymour responded by emphasising his belief in individual freedom over collective identity, stating he does not feel obligated to follow the perspectives of his hapu.

"If the proposition is that being Maori means I have to bow down and follow leadership, then that's not a very attractive proposition" Seymour told Local Democracy Reporting.

"The idea that I have to think the same as every ancestor I have."

He also dismissed the hikoi's objections as lacking coherence, while acknowledging the intensity of Maori-related discussions at his public meetings.

Highly contentious remarks at ACT meeting

NZ Herald reports that at an Act Party meeting in New Plymouth on Wednesday, Seymour's audience voiced sharp criticisms of Maori issues, reflecting the polarising nature of the debate.

One attendee compared Maori to seagulls, suggesting continued government support led to dependency.

Another claimed the Treaty had been reinterpreted over time to serve a Maori elite, while another dismissed pre-colonial Maori society as violent.

Source

• NZ Herald

"important national conversation about the place of the Treaty in our constitutional arrangements".

The hikoi is timed to coincide with the first reading of the contentious Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill on Thursday.

It and other similar protests are a response to what many perceive as a fundamental threat to New Zealand's fragile constitutional framework.

With no upper house, nor a written constitution, important laws can be fast-tracked or repealed by a simple majority of Parliament.

As constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer has argued about the current Government's legislative style and speed, the country "is in danger of lurching towards constitutional impropriety".

Central to this ever-shifting and contested political ground is te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi.

For decades it has been woven into the laws of the land in an effort to redress colonial wrongs and guarantee a degree of fairness and equity for Maori.

There is a significant risk the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would undermine these achievements, as it attempts to negate recognised rights within the original document and curtail its application in a modern setting.

But while the bill is almost guaranteed to fail because of the other coalition parties' refusal to support it beyond the select committee, there is another danger.

Contained in an explanatory note within the bill is the following clause:

The Bill will come into force if a majority of electors voting in a referendum support it. The Bill will come into force 6 months after the date on which the official result of that referendum is declared.

Were David Seymour to argue his bill has been thwarted by the standard legislative process and must be advanced by a referendum, the consequences for social cohesion could be significant.

The referendum option

While the bill would still need to become law for the referendum to take place, the option of putting it to the wider population - either as a condition of a future coalition agreement or orchestrated via a citizens-initiated referendum - should not be discounted.

One recent poll showed roughly equal support for and against a referendum on the subject, with around 30 percent undecided.

And Seymour has had success in the past with his End of Life Choice Act referendum in 2020.

He will also have watched the recent example of Australia's Voice referendum, which aimed to give a non-binding parliamentary voice to Indigenous communities but failed after a heated and divisive public debate.

The lobby group Hobson's Pledge, which opposes affirmative action for Maori and is led by former ACT politician Don Brash, has already signalled its intention to push for a citizens-initiated referendum, arguing:

"We need to deliver the kind of message that the Voice referendum in Australia delivered."

The Treaty and the constitution

ACT's bill is not the first such attempt. In 2006, the NZ First Party - then part of a Labour-led coalition government - introduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill.

That bill failed, but the essential argument behind it was that entrenching Treaty principles in law was "undermining race relations in New Zealand".

However, ACT's current bill does not seek to delete those principles, but rather to define and restrain them in law.

This would effectively begin to unpick decades of careful legislative work, threaded together from the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, the Treaty settlements process, the courts and parliament.

As such, in mid-August the Tribunal found the first iteration of ACT's bill

would reduce the constitutional status of the Treaty/te Tiriti, remove its effect in law as currently recognised in Treaty clauses, limit Maori rights and Crown obligations, hinder Maori access to justice, impact Treaty settlements, and undermine social cohesion.

In early November, the Tribunal added:

If this Bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times.

If the Bill remained on the statute book for a considerable time or was never repealed, it could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti.

Social cohesion at risk

Similar concerns have been raised by the Ministry of Justice in its advice to the government.

In particular, the ministry noted the proposal in the bill may negate the rights articulated in Article II of the Treaty, which affirms the continuing exercise of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination):

Any law which fails to recognise the collective rights given by Article II calls into question the very purpose of the Treaty and its status in our constitutional arrangements.

The government has also been advised by the Ministry of Justice that the bill may lead to discriminatory outcomes inconsistent with New Zealand's international legal obligations to eliminate discrimination and implement the rights of Indigenous peoples.

All of these issues will become heightened if a referendum, essentially about the the removal of rights guaranteed to Maori in 1840, is put to the vote.

Of course, citizens-initiated referendums are not binding on a government, but they carry much politically persuasive power nonetheless. And this is not to argue against their usefulness, even on difficult issues.

But the profound constitutional and wider democratic implications of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, and any potential referendum on it, should give everyone pause for thought at this pivotal moment.

• First published in The Conversation
• Alexander Gillespie is a Professor of Law, University of Waikato
• Claire Breen is a Professor of Law, University of Waikato

He was responding to Monday's open letter from over 400 religious leaders who, sight unseen, wanted the Bill voted down at the first reading, preventing it from going to a Select Committee for public comment.

Luxon added that the National Party needs to honour its agreement with ACT as part of a democratically elected MMP government with coalition partners.

"I have a coalition agreement [and a] commitment, I honour those commitments" Luxon said.

"We have a coalition agreement, very clear, [we] went to the election, we have an MMP system, people voted, those are the cards they gave us."

Luxon reiterated his position, explaining that while ACT would prefer a full public referendum after the Select Committee process, that is not going to happen.

No one has read the Treaty Principles Bill

ACT leader David Seymour confirmed that only a "broad outline" of the Bill was discussed at the Cabinet meeting before a draft version would be created and publicly released in November.

Seymour said that no one has read the Bill yet.

He told Newstalk ZB's Heather du Plessis-Allan on Monday that "the Government and the parties had agreed to the Bill's broad outline. It now goes off to Parliament's drafters who will take some time to write the exact wording".

He said the religious leaders who sent the open letter have tried to halt public comment at the Select Committee stage.

Seymour argued that the Churches' pushback undermined the democratic process and attempted to stifle debate.

He also accused the religious leaders of playing politics.

On Tuesday, CathNews reported that a range of Catholic individuals had signed the open letter.

Among New Zealand's six Catholic bishops, Michael Dooley, Steve Lowe and Archbishop Paul Martin signed the letter, as well as several sisters, priests and emeritus bishops.

CathNews also learned from some signatories that they had not seen a draft of the Treaty Principles Bill and were not fully aware of the content of the open letter before signing it.

In attacking the signatories and discrediting them, one said it seemed ironic that Seymour appeared to be trying to prevent them from engaging in the democratic process, then doing precisely what he accused them of doing.

Labour and Greens congratulate religious leaders

Labour and the Greens have congratulated the Christian leaders for condemning the Treaty Principles Bill.

Willie Jackson, Labour's Maori development spokesperson, praised them saying "I'm really pleased and congratulate them on their actions and their bravery... this takes some courage and bravery, and they deserve to be complimented and supported as far as I'm concerned".

Marama Davidson, co-leader of the Green Party, expressed gratitude for the church leaders' strong stance.

She viewed their action as demonstrating a deep commitment to upholding the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Sources

• NZ Herald
• CathNews
• NZ Herald
• 1 News
• RNZ

At the last election, it was the only party to propose a referendum on this subject, and 91.6 percent of the electorate did not support them.

It had no democratic mandate to enact its ideas about the Treaty.

In the coalition negotiations that followed the election, both Act and NZ First (with only 6 percent of the vote) gained support for specific policies - from gun laws, far right economic policies, a Fast-track bill and smoking laws to a referendum on Te Tiriti - that won very little support from voters. In some cases, these policies weren't even put to the electorate.

This makes a mockery of the democratic process.

As the party that won the majority of votes in 2023, National must take responsibility for this breach of democratic norms.

To gain power, its leaders were willing to trade away positions on matters of national importance supported by centrist majorities in favour of policies and initiatives supported by fringe minorities.

As Sir Geoffrey Palmer has noted, "New Zealand is in danger of lurching towards constitutional impropriety. The Luxon government is driving a number of controversial issues rapidly through Parliament. Some of these policies are unfit for purpose, legally suspect, contrary to the public interest and inappropriate."

The previous Labour government must take some of the blame for this state of affairs.

Emboldened by an absolute majority, it also tried to enact controversial policies on Te Tiriti and other matters that lacked a democratic mandate.

At the same time, by rushing through a raft of ill-considered legislation under urgency, and trying to avoid proper scrutiny as they enact their backdoor deals, the National-led coalition Government is putting New Zealand's democracy at risk.

In his article, Sir Geoffrey examined Act's proposal for a referendum on the Treaty as a case in point. Again, his comments are apposite:

"New Zealand is likely to be internationally embarrassed if these policies prevail. The Act policy on this matter is polarising and dangerous to civil order.

"Sir John Key was right to speak out against it.

"The Treaty is binding on the New Zealand Government.

"It is binding because New Zealand is the successor to the obligations of the UK government which negotiated the Treaty, since we are now independent. And it is also binding on us because it is a valid treaty at international law."

In its draft Treaty Principles bill, Act has made an attempt to rewrite a document that was written, debated and signed in te reo, to mirror their own libertarian ideologies.

Much of their rhetoric, and that of their funders, has been inflammatory and divisive - a classic case of ‘pernicious polarisation.'

Libertarianism, which elevates individual liberty and private rights over notions of collective responsibility, is historically and culturally specific.

It traces back to strands in Greek philosophy and Christianity as well as philosophers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill.

Its support among the New Zealand electorate is slight, as indicated by Act's 8.4 percent share of the vote.

Libertarianism is also radically at odds with the framings of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In 1840, te reo was the dominant language of the land, and relational thinking the dominant philosophy. In keeping with this kind of logic, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is framed as a chiefly gift exchange between the rangatira of the various hapu, and Victoria, the Queen of England.

In Ture / Article 1 of Te Tiriti, the rangatira give all the ‘kawanatanga' (governance) of their lands, absolutely and forever, to the Queen of England. In Ture / Article 2, Queen Victoria agrees with the rangatira and the hapu to uphold the tino rangatiratanga of their lands, dwelling places and all their treasures.

In Ture / Article 3, in exchange for the gift of kawanatanga, the Queen promises to protect the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand, and gives to them ‘nga tikanga rite tahi' (tikanga absolutely equal) with her subjects, the inhabitants of England.

Act's attempt to rewrite Te Tiriti as a statement about individual liberty and property rights is presumptuous since they clearly can't read the original.

Through partial and misleading translations, they seek to erase the ‘tino rangatiratanga' (the term that Henry Williams used as a translation equivalent for ‘independence' in He Whakaputanga, Declaration of Independence in 1835) of hapu, although this is unequivocally acknowledged by Queen Victoria in Ture 2.

As a group of licensed translators of te reo has noted, Act's proposed Treaty principles are based on "additions, omissions and distortions of the original text," and are unethical and inaccurate.

Basing a referendum on this kind of misrepresentation would be an offence against the democratic process in New Zealand, and a betrayal of our best values.

Like tikanga maori, Western political philosophy is not purely about individual rights.

It also includes many strands of relational thinking - about collective rights and responsibilities, and democracy ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,' for example.

The same is true of the law, which is fundamentally about relationships among groups as well as individuals, and how these should be conducted.

Values including honour, truth and justice resonate closely with ideas such as mana, pono and tika.

The ‘scales of justice' remind one of the balanced, reciprocal exchanges in debates on the marae. This is the way in which discussions of the contemporary significance of Te Tiriti ought to be conducted. Continue reading

• Anne Salmond is a Distinguished Professor at the University of Auckland, and was the 2013 New Zealander of the Year. She became a Dame in 1995 under National, and was awarded the Order of New Zealand in 2020.

They want him to stop the "violent attack" on the Treaty presented by the ACT Party's Treaty Principals Bill.

Urgent hearing

Iwi chairperson Professor Makere Mutu presented evidence at an urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing into the Bill.

She and other expert witnesses presented their concerns about the ACT Party's interpretation of the Treaty Articles in its Democracy or Co-Government Policy Paper.

ACT's translation is "nonsensical" Mutu said.

"Which tells me either that the person has absolutely no understanding of the reo at all or is so disparaging of the reo that they think nothing of doing ... gratuitous violence to our language ...".

Tribunal agrees

Tribunal panel member Monty Soutar agrees.

It is "just not possible to draw that English translation from the Maori that's there" he said.

Te reo Maori expert and Ngapuhi historian Hone Sadler also agrees.

"This cutting and pasting exercise ... demeans, debases and trivialises our founding document as a nation and disparages and denigrates Ngapuhi, the guardian of these sacred covenants" he told the Tribunal.

ACT's idea

Seymour reject's Sadler's view.

People say the Treaty "requires us to be divided by a partnership between races, rather than a compact that gives us the same rights, duties and then gives us - all of us - the right to self-determine" he says.

ACT says the Treaty redefined:

• Article 1: "Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou whenua" - the NZ Government has the right to govern all New Zealanders

• Article 2: "Ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa" - the NZ government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property

• Article 3: "A ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi" - all New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties.

Disgracing the Crown

Mutu told the Tribunal the government is disgracing the Crown with its actions.

The late Queen knew how to exercise her own rule of law in this country that upheld the mana and the tino rangatiratanga of our people, she said.

"We still look to King Charles ... to stop the lawless behaviour of the Pakehas. And that's all we're dealing with here ...."

She said ACT's plans could change the Treaty so iwi might be unable to pursue their historical claims.

Source

• ODT

Health Minister Shane Reti (himself opposed to assisted dying) and the coalition partners are drawing up the review's terms of reference.

While Act Party leader David Seymour, who instigated the Assisted Dying laws, would like changes made to the eligibility criteria, he accepts nothing's likely to change any time soon.

The review itself won't change the law, he says.

That's because the review outcome is simply a report to Parliament. It will probably make some recommendations, but there was no requirement for the government to pick up the changes or Parliament to debate it.

It's more likely an MP will take the recommendations and put them into a member's bill which will need to be pulled from the ballot to be considered, Seymour explains.

Timeframe change needed

At present, assisted dying is available only to terminally ill adults with fewer than six months to live.

Seymour wants the "cruel" six month timeframe to be scrapped.

Auckland's Totara Hospice - the only one in the country offering assisted dying on its premises - would "at best like to see that timeframe removed, or extended to twelve months".

"The Act says suffering is defined by the patient so we don't see the need for a time requirement to be put on suffering" chief executive Tina McCafferty says.

The 'gag clause'

Seymour and McCafferty want the rules preventing doctors from discussing assisted dying to change. At the moment, patients must raise the question with their doctor.

McCafferty says that restriction is "at odds with the actual responsibilities of healthcare professionals ... to inform patients of all choices they can have in their care".

"Not everyone is articulate when it comes to health literacy, and I want to see that potential bias or inequity mitigated" she says.

Hospice NZ chief executive Wayne Naylor agrees. He also wants the clause clarified and provisions for family bereavement and grief support considered.

Law review does not equal law change

Seymour says the government is not obliged to take any action on the review recommendations nor is Parliament required to debate them. The review in itself won't change the law.

Furthermore, the coalition government had to "speak with one voice".

"I know there are people in the Cabinet who would say it would actually conflict with their conscience to have to support this legislation" he says.

Whatever changes are recommended, there are a couple of restrictions Seymour does not want altered.

One is that end-of-life choices are restricted to mentally competent people.

The other is that these people must be adults.

"For me, children have always been out, [and] people who have lost the capacity to decide for themselves are out" he says.

Source

• RNZ

Donnelly is a medical specialist with extensive experience of palliative care and dying people in four countries, and a Senior Lecturer at Otago University Wellington debated Seymour a politician, and campaigner for the End of Life Choice Act.

With deep feeling, Dr Donnelly stated her view and that of many other medical professionals that the End of Life Choice Act is an unsafe and ‘dangerous' law, which could imperil the lives of thousands of vulnerable people every year.

She referred to how many doctors see the Act as entirely ineffective in safeguarding against ‘coercion', which is impossible to detect, as it is often an internalisation of felt external pressures and suggestions.

Mr Seymour responded asserted that the safeguards were ‘rigorous', but unconvincingly.

What was especially shocking about the interview was that Mr Seymour accused Dr Donnelly of ‘just making up false objections' in ‘an attempt to mislead', and that she should just come out and honestly admit that her objections to euthanasia are all based on her religious views.

This accusation was obviously deeply offensive to Dr Donnelly.

She replied that her objections were entirely based on her clinical experience and the views of many others doctors and lawyers that the Act was very unsafe.

She also said that Mr Seymour's accusation was ‘disgraceful sectarian comment' and ‘bigotry at its utmost'.

A week or so earlier, Mr Seymour had taken a similar approach in his response to a statement of the Catholic Bishops. Instead of addressing their points about the lack of strong safeguards in the Act, he said that the bishops ‘may have a philosophical view that life belongs to God', but ‘they don't have the right to force it on others'.

He added that that ‘if the bishops want their freedoms respected, they need to engage in honest debate that respects others have difference choices from theirs'.

Again, the implication was that religious people are being dishonest in the reasons they give for opposing the End of Life Choice Act, and that their criticisms should be disregarded.

So is it true that it is only ‘religious' people who oppose the End of Life Choice Act?

No, clearly not.

Is it true that many ‘religious' people do oppose it? Yes.

Is their objection on ‘religious' grounds? To a significant extent, yes: ‘religious' people have very high regard for the God-given value of human life, and many of them prioritise the care of vulnerable people over their own individual freedoms.

Should ‘religious' people be free to hold and articulate their views publically? Absolutely yes.

Are ‘religious' people somehow being deceitful or scaremongering in exposing the weaknesses and dangers in this Act? No, these are entirely valid critiques.

Are ‘religious' people seeking to impose their own personal ‘religious' morality on society? No, they are making a legitimate ethical case that this Act is not safe for society in the long run, especially for society's old, sick, frail, and disabled; the care of society's vulnerable is certainly a moral issue, and all members of society depend on that for our own safety.

Is a society that dismisses ‘religious' viewpoints going to be safe for anyone? We think not.

• Rev Dr Stuart Lange, is a historian and Senior Research Fellow School of Theology at Laidlaw College. He currently serves as National Director, New Zealand Christian Network.

Watch David Seymour's performance.

He is ignoring the repeated clarification that this is not the case.

However, that being said, there is another more fundamental issue; Seymour appears to belong to what Professor Robert George calls a "pseudo-religion", variously known as secular progressivism or expressive individualism.

"It functions like a religion," George says, "it is a source of meaning, it has got a set of dogmas; indeed it has a lot of the other indicia of religions. Saints and demons and holy days . . .

He says the idea that secular progressive ideology counts as neutrality is "deeply foolish."

One of the dogmas of this pseudo-religion is that "competing 'comprehensive views', be they secular or religious, certainly religious ones like Christianity, Islam, Judaism . . . must be restricted to the private precincts of the home or house of worship".

As with militants and fundamentalists in any religion, it brooks no dissent.

"They can't allow for freedom of conscience or freedom of speech or any other basic civil liberties. They want conformity; they want 'group-think'."

"Now why should anybody of any competing faith accept those terms?" George asked.

"We compete fairly in the public square with you... you have no authority to shut us down."

"You make your arguments, we will make our arguments and then we are going to use the processes of deliberative democracy to resolve the questions until they get opened back up in the ordinary institutions of democratic governance for reconsideration, if, indeed, they do.

George is director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University.

He was speaking in a Facebook interview with New Zealand's Brendan Malone of Left Foot Media on September 7.

Source

• youtube.com
• nzcatholic.org.nz
• Source: independencedaily.co.uk

Donnelly and Seymour appeared on TV3's Newshub Nation on Saturday morning.

Donnelly said the proposed Act is a "dangerous law" that will put the lives of 25,000 vulnerable people at risk.

"I think that it would be a lot more respectable if instead of making up these kinds of what I call 'false objections' if Dr Donnelly came here and said 'this choice is against my religion, and I don't want other people to be able to make that choice'.

"It would be a lot more respectable if she would say that," Seymour said in reply.

Donnelly was visibly shocked.

"That's a disgraceful, sectarian comment.

"I have 25 years of experience in palliative medicine, I speak from a professional point of view, I'm an associate professor of palliative medicine, research and education, I've worked in four different countries - so I speak from that platform and that experience.

"I deeply care for people - that's all I care about. Four generations of doctors in my family... I know we can relieve their suffering through palliative care.

"Palliative care works".

Donnelly said Seymour's comments were "bigotry at its utmost".

"I've travelled literally from Kerikeri to Gore campaigning for this law," Seymour said.

"I've heard the stories of New Zealanders who have seen bad death. No matter how much people try to say 'just a bit more palliative care, it's going to be okay' they know what they've seen. They want to have that choice of dignity and control.

"It's their life - it should be their choice. It's not up to others to tell them that they should stick around a bit more to fit someone else's morality."

Donnelly explained some of the common objections to the proposed law.

These include fears people will be coerced into ending their own lives. She also pointed out that some people make miraculous recoveries after being close to death.

"Prognostication is an estimate... we get it wrong most of the time. Even within a few days of death."

"Families often ask 'how long have they got to live?'

"We generally say we're not sure, we don't know... It's not as if we plug in the patient's details into a computer and out pops a date of death," Donnelly said.

Source

• Newshub
• Image: Newshub

In a statement on the End of Life Choice Act, Seymour singled out New Zealand's Catholic Bishops and told them they needed to follow the ninth commandment and to 'stop bearing false witness against their neighbours in political debates".

Suggesting a view in a public debate which is different to his is a false witness, (a lie), Seymour's statement threatens, "If the Bishops want their freedoms respected, they need to engage in honest debate that respects others have difference [sic] choices from theirs."

Seymour's comments come after 37 of New Zealand's most prominent religious leaders, including the New Zealand Catholic Bishops say New Zealanders need to be aware of the considerable harm that the End of Life Choice Act could do.

The statement is authorised by Archbishop Philip Richardson, Primate, Senior Bishop of the New Zealand Pakeha Diocese and Bishop of Diocese of Waikato and Taranaki.

The leaders say that in their caring roles they come face to face with people who are dying and their families, and they understand how vulnerable people are at the end of their life.

"Our concerns are about the unintended consequences for the most vulnerable", the religious leaders say in the statement.

They say their communities include lawyers who think the End of Life Choice Act is badly-drafted law and that it lacks critical safeguards present in similar overseas laws.

They also say they have listened to the concerns of doctors who work on the front line of end-of-life care.

"Our opposition to this Act reflects our compassion for those who will experience a wrongful premature death because of the dangers of this Act; in particular those who will feel coerced into an early death, whether because of their own feelings of being a burden or because of overt pressure from others", the leaders say.

The religious leaders point out that the referendum is a binding referendum, meaning the Act will be enacted in its current form and cannot be changed.

The leader's statement reads

At the upcoming general election, you will be asked to vote in a binding referendum on the End of Life Choice Act, 2019.

We the undersigned religious leaders, wish to share with you our grave concerns about the final form of this Act.

We speak out of our extensive experience of caring for the dying.

We know the effectiveness of compassionate end of life palliative care - care that is able to address not just the physical suffering of people who are dying, but also their emotional, spiritual and psychological suffering, as well as that of whanau and friends.

Medical practices that are part of good end-of-life care - ceasing treatment, Do Not Resuscitate Orders, Advanced Care Directives and turning off life support - are already legal and part of our health care choices and are not part of this proposed law.

The referendum question is not about the desirability of some form of ‘assisted dying'. Rather, we are being asked to vote on a specific piece of legislation - the End of Life Choice Act. The key consideration for all of us is the robustness and safety of this Act. Our concerns are about the lack of safeguards in the Act and the dangers it would present.

We note that the Act differs in the quality of its processes and safeguards from other laws overseas:

• The Act is not just designed for a small number of hard cases. It is broader than laws in Victoria and the United States because it allows both assisted suicide and euthanasia.
• This is not an Act of ‘last resort' - there is no requirement to try effective treatments or palliative care. There is also no corresponding right in the proposed law for people to access palliative care.
• People will be able to access an assisted death without being in any physical pain. Overseas statistics show people choose assisted death primarily out of a fear of being a burden and/or being disabled.
• The Act does not require a patient to discuss their decision with a family member or other significant person. All eligible persons, 18 years and over, could choose an assisted death without family knowing.
• There is no mandatory psychological assessment or effective screening for depression. Research shows that requests for an assisted death are commonly influenced by depression, something that is extremely difficult to detect and often mistaken for ‘appropriate sadness'.
• The NZ Medical Association and Hospice NZ, who oppose the Act,3 share concerns that it lacks processes enabling clinicians to be confident a person is making their request free of pressure from others.
• The two doctor ‘safeguard' is weak; neither of the doctors needs to have met the person previously.
• There is no mandatory stand-down period as there is in other countries - under the Act, a person could be dead less than 4 days after diagnosis.
• Unlike laws overseas, there is no requirement for independent observers or witnesses at any stage.
• The Act does not require a person to be assessed for competency at the time when the lethal dose is being administered, as is the case with laws overseas.

The referendum is binding, meaning the Act cannot be changed - it will be enacted in its current form.

We are also concerned that the practice of assisted suicide and euthanasia will become normalised over time, leading to a broadening of the criteria for eligibility as seen overseas.

There is also evidence showing that people choose assisted death because of a lack of adequate care options. There is a risk this will also happen in New Zealand, especially because effective palliative care is not yet universally available to all.

We acknowledge the importance of exercising freedom of choice.

At the same time, there is a need to balance individual choice with the common good of society. On balance, we believe that the significant weaknesses and dangers of the Act strongly outweigh the benefits that supporters of euthanasia seek.

• Archbishop Philip Richardson - Primate, Senior Bishop of the New Zealand Pakeha Diocese and Bishop of Diocese of Waikato and Taranaki
• Bishop Jay Behan - Church of Confessing Anglicans, Aotearoa New Zealand
• Pastor Steve Burgess - Regional Director, C3 Church Pacific
• Commissioner Mark Campbell - Territorial Commander, Salvation Army, New Zealand Territory
• Bishop Patrick Dunn - President of the NZ Catholic Bishops Conference; Catholic Diocese of Auckland
• Dr Mustafa Farouk QSM - President, The Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ (FIANZ)
• Rev Tavita Joseph Filemoni - General Secretary, Wesleyan Samoan Methodist Church of New Zealand and Australia
• Charles Hewlett - National Leader of the Baptist Churches of New Zealand
• Rev Brett Jones - National Superintendent (Acting), Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand
• Right Reverend Fakaofo Kaio - Moderator, The Presbyterian Church in New Zealand
• Metropolitan Myron - New Zealand Greek Orthodox Church
• Rev Dr Stuart Lange - National Director, New Zealand Christian Network
• Pastor David MacGregor - National Director, Vineyard Church Christchurch
• Rev Andrew Marshall - National Director, Alliance Churches of New Zealand
• Pastor Peter Morlock - Senior Pastor, City Impact Churches of New Zealand
• Archbishop Don Tamihere - Primate, Pihopa o Aotearoa and Pihopa o Te Tairawhiti
• Rev Setaita Taumoepeau K. Viekune - President, Methodist Church of New Zealand
• Pastor Adam White - Leader, New Life Churches of New Zealand
• Bishop Mark Whitfield - Lutheran Church of New Zealand
• Bishop Ross Bay - Anglican Diocese of Auckland
• Bishop Steven Benford - Anglican Diocese of Dunedin
• Bishop Peter Carrel - Anglican Diocese of Christchurch
• Cardinal John Dew - Catholic Archdiocese of Wellington
• Bishop Michael Dooley - Catholic Diocese of Dunedin
• Bishop Justin Duckworth - Anglican Diocese of Wellington
• Pastor Max Faletutulu - Senior Pastor, Titahi Bay Community Church, Wellington
• Bishop Michel Gielen - Catholic Diocese of Auckland - Auxiliary
• Bishop Andrew Henge - Anglican Diocese of Waiapu
• Bishop Stephen Lowe - Catholic Diocese of Hamilton
• Bishop Steve Maina - Anglican Diocese of Nelson
• Pastor Kaio Mamea - Light of All Nations Church, Wellington
• Bishop Paul Martin SM - Catholic Diocese of Christchurch
• Bishop Te Kitohi Pikaahu - Pihopatanga o Te Taitokerau
• Bishop Waitohiariki Quayle - Pihopatanga o Te Upoko o Te Ika
• Rt Revd Dr Eleanor Sanderson - Assistant Anglican Bishop of Wellington
• Bishop Richard Wallace - Pihopatanga o Te Waipounamu
• Rev Brian Walsh - Local Administrator, Catholic Diocese of Palmerston North.

Sources

• ACT New Zealand
• Religious leaders' statement

Those involved in the sector said the numbers were greatly exaggerated.

Provisional figures from the Chief Coroner, released last week, show the year-on-year suicide numbers down as well as a marked drop during the months of the lockdown.

Read more

Where to get help:

Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason.

Lifeline: 0800 543 354 or text HELP to 4357

Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 / 0508 TAUTOKO (24/7). This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends.

Depression Helpline: 0800 111 757 (24/7) or text 4202

Samaritans: 0800 726 666 (24/7)

Youthline: 0800 376 633 (24/7) or free text 234 (8am-12am), or email talk@youthline.co.nz

What's Up: online chat (3pm-10pm) or 0800 WHATSUP / 0800 9428 787 helpline (12pm-10pm weekdays, 3pm-11pm weekends)

Kidsline (ages 5-18): 0800 543 754 (24/7)

Rural Support Trust Helpline: 0800 787 254

Healthline: 0800 611 116

Rainbow Youth: (09) 376 4155

If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.

As specialist doctors trained in palliative medicine and currently practising in New Zealand, we're extremely concerned at their argument in favour of euthanasia.

It's wrong and it's dangerous says Dr Sinnead Donnelly, a practicing palliative care specialist.

First, they argue in favour of euthanasia because, in their words, palliative care has been "underfunded from the start and access and quality are patchy".

They say that aged residential staff "are overworked and often poorly trained in palliative care for the dying".

In other words, they want us to vote at the referendum in favour of euthanasia due to inadequacy and inequity of palliative care and inadequate aged residential care staffing.

This is a little like arguing that the car needs a clean so should be pushed off a cliff. When have we, as a society, agreed to prematurely end the lives of patients due to poor funding?

In any other situation that would be called callous and unacceptable. It certainly doesn't pass the kindness test.

The second irresponsible statement is that "the End of Life Choice Act is one of the safest in the world".

It is not.

The Act's claimed protection against pressure from "another person" is poorly drafted and provides inadequate levels of protection to vulnerable New Zealanders.

For example, the Act requires only one doctor (the first doctor to whom a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide is made) to only "do his or her best" to ensure that person requesting euthanasia has expressed their wish "free from pressure" by "any other person".

The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, the very doctors who are also going to be on the front line of the process, told Parliament they won't be able to detect coercion or pressure in all cases with this test, and that there will be wrongful deaths under this law. To wit:

"The College ... considers clause (h) where the medical practitioner is required to 'do his or her best to ensure that the person expresses his or her wish free from pressure' is problematic.

"As one member wrote: 'It will prove impossible to determine if a patient is 'free from coercion'.

"What criteria will doctors use to determine whether or not coercion exists?

"If patients request assisted death, there is no provision in the Bill as to what a doctor should do if she or he thinks that coercion is actually present.

"Coercion of patients will be impossible to discern in every request for assisted death.

"Doctors will not be 100 percent correct in their assessments of coercion. Wrongful deaths will be the result of this proposed new law.'"

It's for this (and many other) reasons that both the World Medical Association and the New Zealand Medical Association state that euthanasia is medically unethical.

It's no surprise then that more than 1500 New Zealand Doctors have signed a petition under the 'Doctors Say No' banner.

It's not just doctors sharing this concern.

Richard McLeod, representing Lawyers for Vulnerable New Zealanders, has advised that: " ... under the Act a person could be dead within only a matter of days after being diagnosed, and without needing to tell any loved ones.

"There's no mandatory cooling-off period between a request and the final lethal injection.

"That's a serious flaw because terminally ill people can go through a whole range of emotions from day to day.

"If they're caught in a moment of weakness and have the wrong people around them they could be dead within 72 hours".

Just think about that scenario for a moment. Imagine receiving a phone call out of the blue that the body of your daughter is ready for your collection. Or getting news that your father was killed by a lethal injection because he feared life with prostate cancer.

These scenarios are entirely possible under the Act.

Every week as doctors we see cases where disabled, sick or mentally ill patients will, at their most vulnerable point, contemplate suicide.

With the right care and medicine the vast majority are brought out of this vulnerable state to a place of health. Under the proposed Act, those same people could be dead within 72 hours.

As doctors caring for people who are dying every day we know the difference that this legislation will make to vulnerable people.

It will expose the vulnerable to the extraordinary burden of a duty to die. We are voting no and we invite you to join us in opposing this Act.

• Dr Sinéad Donnelly is a practicing palliative care specialist

"The safe zone provision was always the most marginally supported," Little said.

The abortion law bill was going through the committee stage on Tuesday evening and into the early hours of Wednesday.

ACT leader David Seymour had proposed an amendment to remove safe areas from the bill.

His proposal was voted for in two parts.

The first vote was to have the definition of Safe Zones removed from the bill.

It was rejected by a margin, 59 votes to 56.

The second vote was on removing all the legal provisions for safe zones, including the ways in which the police could administer them.

Deputy Speaker Anne Tolley passed it on a verbal vote.

So the definition of 'safe area' became redundant in the law.

Green MP Jan Logie immediately asked for clarification on what had happened.

"Can I just check the vote and how it evolved around David Seymour's SOP (Supplementary Order Papers) and what the outcome of that vote is... I just wanted to check and to see if I needed to change my vote".

Tolley advised it was a "vote on the voices" and the "amendment was agreed to".

Logie sought leave for a personal vote, but this was rejected.

The proposed safe zones would set up a regime where a protest against abortion could be barred within 150 metres of clinics.

Seymour was concerned that the safe areas violated wider principles of free speech.

MPs who are for the safe zones have indicated they may try to re-introduce them.

National MP Nikki Kaye said it would be up to the House to decide whether or not to revisit the issue.

Green MP Jan Logie said she was looking at options to reinstate them.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz

It had passed its second reading, in June, 70 votes to 50.

This stage will see politicians debating and individually voting on possibly more than a hundred changes to the bill, in a process that may take more than four months.

The bill's sponsor, Act Party leader David Seymour, had at least 30 changes ready to go while one of its most vociferous opponents, National MP Maggie Barry, has more than 100 amendments.

Eligibility

The most important vote on Wednesday was on an amendment made by David Seymour.

This amendment, which Seymour himself disagrees with, is key to keeping the support of the Green Party and several other MPs.

It narrowed the eligibility of someone seeking euthanasia only to individuals with a terminal illness that will likely kill them within six months.

Widespread concern had been expressed that the "irremediable" clause could have wide-reaching implications for groups such as the disabled community.

That passed with a conscience vote by MPs 74 votes to 44.

With this amendment agreed to, the Green Party will now support the Bill.

Seymour's full suite of amendments - not all of which have passed yet - will set out many other elements of the bill, including the need for two doctors independent of each other to confirm the terminal diagnosis.

A public referendum

Another important amendment has been tabled by New Zealand First.

It proposes that a public referendum be added to the legislation.

New Zealand First will vote "No" to the Bill if this requirement isn't accepted by the House.

None of the National MPs speaking to the media on Wednesday would put their backing behind the version of the referendum NZ First had put forward.

Without New Zealand First's nine votes, Seymour cannot afford to lose even a single net "Yes" from the second reading.

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• legislation.govt.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• Image: familyfirst.org.nz

By voting in favour of this bill at the second reading, Parliament has abandoned its commitment to upholding a culture of life and its sacred duty to legislate for the protection of the lives of every human being from conception to natural death and not to preside over our destruction.

It is not the role of Parliament to decide who shall live and who can be killed.

Members who voted in favour of this bill at the second reading, have also put the democratic process of law in New Zealand in serious jeopardy.

In ignoring the overwhelming rejection of euthanasia, and this bill, by 91.8 per cent of the 39,159 written submissions and the 85 per cent rejection of the 3,600 oral submissions heard by the Select Committee, those politicians who voted in favour of the second reading have thumbed their noses at the very process they take an oath to uphold.

In reporting the bill back to Parliament, the Committee chairman advised that the Committee was unable to agree that the Bill should be passed, yet a majority of our elected representatives thought their conscience took priority over due parliamentary process!

The bill is also strongly opposed by the New Zealand Medical Association, by disability groups and Aged Concern.

I am disappointed that Parliament has embraced a culture of death by voting in favour of the EOLCB, which if passed at its third reading will allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide.

This is a violation of the sanctity of life ethic and of the prohibition of the taking of the life of an innocent human being, the foundation of the law and of medicine, which we change at our peril.

That Parliament has decided at this stage that some lives not worthy of life is a tragic moment and a day of shame in the history of our Parliament and country.

It has placed in jeopardy the lives of some of our most vulnerable, the aged, the disabled and the seriously ill.

Right to Life now earnestly requests that Parliament defeats this bill at its third reading and ensures that every New Zealander has access to death with dignity with our world-class palliative care by ensuring that it is fully funded and accessible.

Parliament should also commit itself to implement the government's Suicide Prevention Strategy which aims to reduce our appalling suicide rate.

• Ken Orr is the Spokesman for Right to Life.

It was a slimmer margin than the one achieved at first reading in December 2017. The vote then was 76 to 44.

While the vote appears decisive with a majority of 20, it will require a shift of only 11 votes to block it at the third and final reading.

New Zealand First has supported the Bill at first and second reading but only on the expectation that an amendment will be passed putting to a referendum at the next stage of debate.

If the referendum amendment is not agreed, senior New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin has said it would be unlikely the party would support the bill at its final reading.

Just 20 MPs had the opportunity to debate the bill. Many of them used their time in the debate to express disappointment at the Justice Select Committee process.

The Committee didn't manage to make any major change such as narrowing the bill to apply to only the terminally ill.

As it stands, the bill would allow for people in unbearable suffering, with an incurable, grievous condition or who have a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months, to ask a doctor to help end their life.

That was a reason many speakers gave for voting in favour of the second reading.

They expressed the hope that this next stage - the Committee of the whole House - would allow for changes to be made.

This has prompted a number of commentators to say that the real fight is yet to come.

Almost everyone involved agrees that it will need serious amending - including Seymour himself.

Maggie Barry, who has strongly opposed assisted dying, called the Bill the most poorly drafted she'd ever seen.

The Bill will now move to the House where more major amendments will be proposed and debated before it faces its third and final reading.

Barry is leading a group of MPs opposing the Bill, with more than a hundred proposed amendments.

If the bill is passed with New Zealand First's support, then a referendum must take place.

Click here to see party and individual votes.

Source

• stuff.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• newstalkzb.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: wikipedia.org

The MP has seen a significant escalation in threats of violence following comments by ACT MP David Seymour, a source told Stuff.

Ghahraman is an Iranian-Kiwi refugee, lucky to escape war and persecution as a child.

Ghahraman said the situation was fuelled by a Newshub report on white supremacy, which detailed online threats including "hanging her like a lynch mob".

Two members of Parliament, Louisa Wall (Labour) and Jo Hayes (National), have written a letter to Seymour in their capacity as representatives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

"Your comments have had a significant adverse effect on Golriz and, in the absence of a Code of Conduct for members of the House, we ask that you reflect on your behaviour and consider offering a public apology to Golriz for the comments made, preferably in the House."

Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard says ACT Leader David Seymour's comments were bullying.

In an interview with Magic Talk radio's Sean Plunket about freedom of speech, Seymour referred to "mass murderers" in history such as Mao Tse Tung, Stalin and Hitler using the suppression of free expression to gain power.

He then added: "I just think Golriz Ghahraman is completely wrong.

"I don't know if she understands what she is saying but Golriz Ghahraman is a real menace to freedom in this country."

Seymour said he didn't feel responsible for the threats. "We have robust debates, she gives as good as she gets."

He said in a number of instances, Ghahraman had personally attacked him. "I've said that she is a menace to a particular issue, which is freedom of speech."

Ghahraman's studies at Oxford University and her career as a lawyer in New Zealand and overseas have focused on enforcing human rights and holding governments to account.

She worked for United Nations Tribunals as part of both defence (Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia) and prosecution (Cambodia) teams.

Her work has also included restoring communities after war and human rights atrocities, particularly empowering women engaged in peace and justice initiatives.

Source

• greens.org.nz
• twitter.com
• stuff.co.nz
• tvnz.co.nz
• Image: newshub.co.nz

Both ACT party leader David Seymour and Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki appear to agree that people should be allowed to express their opinions. But they appear to have travelled from opposite directions to arrive at the same conclusion.

Seymour says that what is insulting or offensive to one person may be seen by another person to be an honestly held and freely expressed belief.

He says freedom of speech is extremely important and politicians shouldn't be introducing any legislation that means people could be criminalised on the basis of opinion rather than fact.

So presumably Seymour does not object to Tamaki's tweeted opinion that, if anyone says any part of the Bible is hate speech, "This will be war".

"How dare secular, liberal, left-leaning atheists openly attempt to legislate our founding faith, Christianity or the Bible as hate speech."

Protecting religious groups
Seymour says the crimes act already makes it clear it is a crime to incite another person to commit a crime or threaten someone with violence.

But justice minister Andrew Little says the law that prohibits the incitement of racial disharmony does not apply to religious faith.

He has asked his ministry to work with the Human Rights Commission to look into whether New Zealand's laws sufficiently balance issues of freedom of speech and hate speech.

Protecting people from religious groups
In the past, Ardern has also been reluctant to say criticism of others by religious groups should be controlled by law. In 2018, when Israel Folau first expressed an opinion about LGBTQ, she told Newshub "I disagree with him but I'm very careful about how I categorise someone's speech."

Source

• newshub.co.nz
• newshub.co.nz
• Image: radionz.co.nz

The Care Alliance analysed virtually all of the more than 38,000 submissions made to Parliament's justice select committee on Act leader David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill.

It found that 90.2 per cent opposed the bill, 8.1 per cent were in favour and 1.7 per cent were neutral or unclear.

Most submissions were unique, and not form or postcard submissions. Twelve per cent were longer than a page and 90.5 per cent did not use religious arguments.

Seymour's private member's bill was drawn from the parliamentary ballot in 2017, two months before the health select committee reported to the House on its inquiry into the public's views on euthanasia, a report that contained no recommendations.

Alliance secretary Peter Thirkell said the number of submissions to the justice committee and the proportion against euthanasia was significantly greater than in the health committee's inquiry.

Six of the eight health committee members voted against Seymour's bill at the first reading, having "listened carefully to the evidence, and voted accordingly".

"We hope the members of the justice select committee will demonstrate a similar respect for the mountain of evidence showing that legalising euthanasia is unnecessary, unwise and dangerous," he said.

Seymour says the justice committee submissions did not reflect public opinion in the way that a scientific survey did.

"Nobody would take seriously an opinion survey where the respondents were self-selected.

"What we have here is fewer than 1 per cent of New Zealanders who have made submissions.

"The overwhelming majority of them are less than a paragraph and they have done it in response to concerted campaigns by certain organisations," he said.

The Care Alliance's members include: The Australian & New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine; Christian Medical Fellowship; Euthanasia-Free NZ; Family First New Zealand; Hospice New Zealand; New Zealand Health Professionals Alliance; Lutherans for Life; The Nathaniel Centre; Not Dead Yet Aotearoa; Pacific Leaders Forum; Palliative Care Nurses New Zealand; The Salvation Army of New Zealand.

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• carealliance.org.nz
• indiannewslink.co.nz
• Image: nzcatholic.org.nz