Submission on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2)

I set a new record for making a submission at the last possible moment with this one. The deadline was quickly approaching, but I had plenty more I wanted to say! At 11:59pm last Monday I gave up hope of finishing everything I wanted to say, and uploaded it. I got confirmation of successfully submitting at 12am!! I thought I might continue writing and upload the entire piece here, and I added the text between square brackets in time for my oral submission last Friday. Sadly, there are plenty more problems with the Bill than I've discussed here, but I would like to work on some other things and I've already spent a long time on this so I am calling it done.

~~~~~~~

I appreciate the opportunity to make a submission on the proposed COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) which would amend the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.

Having read the proposed legislation and the Regulatory Impact Statements that are currently available I am deeply concerned about this legislation and its implications for the country of New Zealand and her citizens.

As I read the Regulatory Impact Statements I was struck by the way they focus almost solely on Managed Isolation and Quarantine Facilities, and apparently give no regard to the general population—which is certainly much larger and stands to lose much more. This disregard for the vast majority of New Zealanders is horrifying, regardless of whether it was deliberate or a negligent oversight.

I object to the undemocratic process by which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 was originally passed into law, and while it is a slight improvement that the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) has been open for submissions, the timeframe is still much too short to allow the citizens of New Zealand to read the proposed legislation and accompanying documents, and then prepare a considered response. Many people will simply not have the time to do so and will unfortunately miss out on sharing their views. Given the magnitude of change proposed in this legislation there is no justification for rushing the process and denying people the opportunity to provide well-researched and well-prepared feedback on it.

Although the Bill’s stated aim is “to enable the public health response to Covid-19 to continue to function in a co-ordinated and orderly way, informed by the experience of working with the Act since its commencement”, the truth is that health, coordination, and orderliness simply do not come to mind when reading through the Bill. On the contrary, the Bill extends the government’s already drastic powers, and threatens to turn good citizens into criminals through incredible confusion and disorderliness.

This Bill disregards a number of fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights Act 1990, attacking the civil liberties of all New Zealanders, both at home in New Zealand and stranded overseas, trying to return.

The huge increase in fines and fees proposed in this Bill is unjustified and unreasonable. Given the rapid changes and large number of rules it would be entirely understandable for someone to break one without even realising. Adding huge fines on top of limiting or entirely removing the ability to work and earn an income would be a huge slap in the face to anyone.

Where is the trust in the “team of five million”? [This Bill shows no regard for personal responsibility, instead removing freedom and imposing draconian regulations on the population at large. We should instead be encouraging people to take personal responsibility for their own health, and allowing the freedom to do so. Fear and extensive rules have been imposed on the entire country over the last eighteen months, but I have no recollection of any encouragement or education in regard to improving overall health, which would’ve reduced any threat posed by COVID-19, and been generally beneficial both to individuals and our country as a whole. Making more nutritious food choices, exercising regularly, maintaining a healthy weight, sleeping sufficiently, and getting adequate and regular vitamin D are all scientifically supported methods to acquire and maintain health and none of them incur any cost to the government.

In a letter, the Ministry of Justice described the measures in the COVID Act as: "[A]rguably the most extreme and significant limitations on New Zealanders’ ability to freely go about our daily lives as has occurred in modern New Zealand history. Their broad scale and scope have the potential to significantly impact on people’s ability to socialise, do business, and move freely.

These observations have proven true in my life and the lives of others I know closely. We have lost work, making it difficult to pay our bills and provide for our families. My car developed some problems several weeks ago, and cannot be driven until some maintenance is performed on it. I am unable to acquire the necessary parts under current restrictions. Long-time family friends recently experienced a death in the family and have been refused travel exemptions to cross the border in either direction, leaving them unable to process their grief properly or comfort one another during this difficult time.

New Zealand citizens have fought hard for the freedoms we have enjoyed until recently, which are foundational to a democratic society and protected under the Bill of Rights and other documentation. The original COVID Act unacceptably removes a number of these, and the proposed Amendment Bill makes no attempt to correct the situation, instead worsening it and allowing for even greater removal of rights from New Zealand citizens.

Clause 12 amends section 22 to allow a class of persons identified solely by their ancestry to have powers to block roads under the ’supervision’ of a constable. No definition of what ‘supervision’ entails is provided, nor is any information or direction given in the Bill regarding what constitutes ’suitably qualified and trained’. On the police have the power to stop the general public and it should remain this way.

Science is all about asking questions and challenging assumptions. The government’s efforts to censor and silence any and all opposing views are deeply concerning, bearing some resemblance to a cult leader who carefully selects the material his followers may view or hear, for fear they will discover the truth and he will lose power over them. Hopefully this is nothing close to the case here, but we will need open debate and uncensored sharing of ideas to re-establish trust in our leaders.]

I strongly oppose the extension to May 2023 of the original provisions in COVID Act, which were due to expire in May 2022.

I also oppose any and all extensions or additions of power as suggested in this Bill.

I recommend that the Bill be withdrawn.

I wish to make an oral submission the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2).

Submission on Supplementary Order Paper 59 on the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill

Last week I gave my first ever oral submission, which I'm pretty sure was awful given how nervous I was! I'm not going to attempt digging up the recording and subject you to that, but I will share the "notes" I made in preparation, which I had intended to use as a basis and build around. I stayed up pretty late writing them though and ended up just reading directly from them, so what you see here is almost verbatim. With more time I would've liked to smooth it out a bit and improve the ending, but this is what I managed with the short timeframe.

~~~~~~~

Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns about Supplementary Order Paper 59 on the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill today.

According to the Department of Internal Affairs website, "A New Zealand Birth Certificate is an official document containing registered information about a person's birth as at the date of issue." (emphasis mine)

As an official, legal document, a Birth Certificate should contain the facts of a person's birth, and if we allow people to change details as they choose, we render the document untrustworthy, and ultimately meaningless. Whatever choices we make later in life do not and cannot change the details of our births.

For many of my childhood years, I wanted to celebrate my birthday with a big, mid-summer barbecue. Unfortunately for me, I was born right in the middle of winter! Perhaps I should apply to change my birthdate?!

As crazy as that would be, claiming that I am six months older or younger than I actually am would be a much smaller thing than claiming my sex is different than identified at birth. 

I loved studying genetics during my high school years and it fascinates me that our XX or XY chromosomes are found in every cell throughout our bodies -- except for a very small portion of the population who are intersex. Many cells behave differently based on these chromosomes, and no amount of adding or removing body parts changes our DNA.

We've had a few male cats castrated over the years and although their reproductive tendencies were curbed, they never stopped acting like boys. I guess the vet left their DNA intact!

Of course, allowing people to choose and change their identified sex at will opens the door wide for pedophiles and other sex offenders to create more victims. This proposed change would allow boys and men into girls' and women's schools, sports teams, prisons, and bathrooms. If an offender is sentenced for rape he needs to be locked safely away from women where he can't make any more victims, not to change his birth certificate so he can be sent to a women's prison, as this proposal would seem to allow.

Regarding parental information on Birth Certificates, biology is very clear that there are two parents, a father and a mother. Birth Certificates should be equally clear; there's no need to introduce ambiguity with the neutral term "parent" replacing the more specific terms "father" and "mother".

For these reasons I am deeply concerned about Supplementary Order Paper 59. Please, throw it out.

Thank you for your time.

Decision 2020

It isn't every day that I get to vote on a completed piece of legislation and help decide whether or not it will come into effect. In fact, this election is the first time in my life. So I figured the event justified some thought and research. In no particular order, below are a few of the things I considered, or discovered.

Early on, some clarification of terminology was in order. Assisted suicide is when a doctor prescribes life-ending drugs, and the applicant takes them independently. Euthanasia is when a doctor administers the lethal drugs. Assisted dying is the umbrella term that includes both assisted suicide and euthanasia. While most overseas assisted dying laws allow for either one or the other, the End of Life Choice Act includes both. 

I thought assisted suicide sounded awful enough on its own, and then I found out that sometimes there are complications. People vomit up the tablets. Go to sleep for a while only to wake up again really confused. 

We're regularly reminded "but there are safeguards!!" And led to believe they're foolproof. But if we look at the actual wording, what do we find? One doctor has to "do their best." What! That is subjective and immeasurable. How can you possibly expect to test or challenge that? I don't even like hearing people speak that phrase to children; it's disgusting in a legal document. Even the Nazis included stricter safeguards when they first introduced euthanasia.

I was surprised to hear that there are many educated people who oppose this Act, despite being in support of euthanasia in theory. Their concerns are with this specific piece of legislation. That seems to me to be an important point we should take note of.

Elder abuse is already a massive problem here in New Zealand. Logically this would only make that worse. 

Will doctors always do exactly what this law stipulates, and always respect their patient's wishes? Will this provide choice for some and protection for everyone? I personally know people who gave medical professionals specific requests about their care, only to have those blatantly ignored and the opposite thing done. I also know someone who was offered drugs to treat symptoms, but even on request was refused any further testing. No diagnosis has ever been provided. I have no reason to believe this law will be immune from similar problems.

Passing this legislation undermines all suicide prevention attempts. It sends the message that some people are less valuable and unworthy of life. There's no way of getting around that.

The more I research and consider, the more sickened I am by this piece of poorly-written legislation. These are just a few of the many reasons I'm voting NO to the End of Life Choice Act. 

Further Reading:

Lawyers for Vulnerable New Zealanders makes some great points and has a whole PDF of flaws available for download. 

Doctors Say No

February Memories

: : I pretended to have holidays and got my stamps out for a pleasant change to my schedule : : 

: : To all your questions about my tan this summer, this is the answer : :

: : So. Many. People. : :

: : Pre-service music practice. Yeah, we have some new musicians : :

: : Here I was thinking there was completely different packaging for Christmas : :
Turns out it's just a sleeve that slides over the top

: : Birthday at Bible Study : :

: : These were cool for the few days that they were there : :

: : Bee hanging out in the beehive : :

: : Dropped by a political meeting. Wasn't planning to get recognised by the deputy leader : :

: : Pre-march energy boost. Didn't plan on ice cream for breakfast! : :

: : Post-march smiles. So wonderful to see some awesome people again : :

: : I went to his event, then he came to mine : :
#letsfixthis #20in2020

My Submission to the Select Committee on the Abortion Legislation Bill

I certainly won't claim to have the most well-written submission, but it is complete and as follows. :) 

I strongly and fully oppose the Abortion Legislation Bill.

New Zealand law should protect the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society, and this bill fails to do so in many ways.

Companies such as Tupperware supplying kitchen products and Stampin’ Up! supplying craft items allow clients to cancel orders in return for a full refund within several weeks of placement, in case clients change their mind. If we anticipate people changing their minds – and allow them to do so with no strings attached – with something so insignificant as an order for kitchen products or craft items, how much more should we require a “cooling off” period for a decision as big, important, and life-changing as abortion?

The Abortion Legislation Bill’s clause on conscientious objection is drastically insufficient. Requiring a doctor to have any involvement in a procedure violating his conscience is a blatant disregard for the doctor’s rights. And in fact, because the bill allows women to self-refer anyway, this requirement for doctors to be involved is nothing more than a completely unnecessary and brazen removal of the rights of our doctors.

New Zealand law acknowledges that persons less than 16 years of age are not mature enough to purchase alcohol, to obtain a marriage license, to drive a car, to vote, or even to purchase spray paint. It surely would be entirely contradictory to prohibit all of these things and at the same time allow minors to access abortion without restriction.

Advances in imaging technology allow us to witness the amazing intricacy of unborn children at earlier and earlier stages. We can see them move around, kick, suck their thumbs, and even clap their hands. To identify an unborn child’s sex by ultrasound obviously requires that certain body parts are formed! By only 12 weeks gestation all organs are in place and simply have to grow larger before birth. Liberalising our abortion law would completely disregard our increasing knowledge and understanding of a child’s development prior to birth.

Similarly, advancing medical technology brings viability to increasingly earlier ages. At present this means a child can survive outside the womb from around 20 weeks. If our law is to reflect this, we should prohibit late-term abortion entirely, a far cry from liberalising it as this bill proposes to do.  A live birth from 20 weeks gestation onward will both allow the woman to end the pregnancy and retain the child’s right to life.

In modern New Zealand society we are frequently reminded that we are not allowed to discriminate against people for any reason. Not because of race, gender, sexuality, or disability. Despite this, the Abortion Legislation Bill fails to include any form of protection from such discrimination. Are we to become like Iceland and abort almost all of our pre-born children with Down’s Syndrome? Surely this is a violation of disability rights. Are we happy to allow New Zealand parents to abort their daughter simply because they wanted a son? This is the height of gender inequality.

As a former foetus, a woman, and a New Zealand citizen I stand fully opposed to the Abortion Legislation Bill. Let us be a society and a nation that values and protects every human life.

Why I Oppose the End of Life Choice Bill

Euthanasia and assisted suicide have been hot topics of discussion here in New Zealand for a while now, with the debate heating up over the last few weeks as we anticipate a vote in parliament tomorrow night on Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to learn about the proposed legislative changes from a number of people with relevant experience and qualifications, and from David Seymour himself. I strongly oppose this bill for many reasons, some of which I have outlined below.

You can't have a law that affects only a few people -- that isn't the way national law works. Advocates of this legislation often say: "Well, you might not want euthanasia, but can't we just have it for a few people?" No, you can't. New Zealand laws don't apply just to the people who want, like, or agree with them, they apply to everyone in our country.

This legislation would make euthanasia and assisted suicide just another form of acceptable healthcare in New Zealand. I don't know about you but if I'm discussing my treatment options with a doctor I don't expect him or her to list deliberate death as one of my options! Additionally, if you arrive in hospital and neither you nor anyone close to you is able to make decisions about your healthcare (e.g. you are unconscious and no family members can be reached) doctors will do what they believe is in your best interests. Do you really want euthanasia to be one of the options they can choose from?

A law such as this would completely undermine the work of all suicide prevention programs. It would proclaim that only some people are worthy of life and that others would be better off dead. That is certainly not the message we want to send to vulnerable New Zealanders; to our disabled, our elderly, or those struggling with mental illnesses. In fact, it is not a message we want to send to ANY New Zealanders. Such a message would encourage health professionals to fight harder for some of their patients' lives than others. It also would encourage the general population to view some members as more valuable than others. I thought our society was fighting for equality? 

We already have a problem with elder abuse and this can only compound that problem. Every year, over 2200 cases of elder abuse are reported in New Zealand, while an estimated 3/4 of cases go unreported. 79% of these cases involve psychological abuse which no doctor can accurately detect in the time available with patients.

Although this bill would make euthanasia and assisted suicide healthcare by law, doctors and other health professionals have been some of the most outspoken opponents! "Doctors are not necessary in the regulation or practice of assisted suicide. They are included only to provide a cloak of medical legitimacy. Leave doctors to focus on saving lives and providing real care to the dying." Dr Donnelly states in Doctors Say No: An Open Letter to All New Zealanders which has 1103 signatures from New Zealand doctors at the time of this writing, while proponents of the bill have managed only 17 signatures on their Doctors Say Yes letter. Additionally, the only doctors who can face legal trouble under this bill are the ones who want no part in either euthanasia or assisted suicide. The only people this bill really protects are doctors who issue the so-called treatment, regardless of whether or not they followed the "required" procedures.

Other countries that have already legalised such practices with similar legislation have disastrous stories to tell of the consequences. The so-called "safeguards" are drastically insufficient to effectively protect vulnerable people. Minors are being euthanised, people are being euthanised against their will, and insurance companies are refusing to fund real care; Even in cases where they approved requests prior to legalisation of euthanasia they are withdrawing that approval saying they will fund euthanasia, but not treatment. Many people around the world are telling us not to make the terrible mistake they did. In fact, even those who advocated and signed for similar bills now wish they had not.

In the interest of time I will wrap up this post although there is a lot more I could say. The more I have learned the greater my opposition has grown. The introduction of such legislation would bring a seismic shift to the expectation and the nature of healthcare in New Zealand and have disastrous consequences on our society. I hope and pray that MPs have done their own research and will involve their consciences in tomorrow night's conscience vote on the End of Life Choice Bill.

Sources:

http://www.superseniors.msd.govt.nz/elder-abuse/

http://doctorssayno.nz/

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2017/0269/latest/DLM7285905.html

https://cdn-flightdec.userfirst.co.nz/uploads/sites/yestodignity/files/PDFs__Files/2019/Drs_say_YES.pdf

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/20/assisted-suicide-law-prompts-insurance-company-den/?fbclid=IwAR1nCgxx0ZOnAbn4pL6b6ICn3XwhiGPjvQI-ZoK9VBzPO3aEzU8oxzK4yWs

https://www.dailywire.com/news/34014/netherlands-elderly-woman-forcibly-euthanized-paul-bois

End of Life Choice Bill Public Meeting || My Thoughts

Earlier this week I attended a debate between David Seymour, ACT MP, and Professor Rod MacLeod, palliative care specialist and hosted by Dan Bidois, National MP. I anticipated that Dan would primarily be interested in hearing from those in his own electorate, but I still wanted to hear from David about his own bill. The evening certainly proved interesting.

Before things got underway Dan and David both made their way around the room greeting us all individually. My initial impression was that Dan may be easily swayed to vote whichever way would be most likely to ensure his re-election, and David appeared to be very calm, collected -- and confident.

Dan got the evening underway, saying that he'd organised the event so his electorate could "feel heard", explaining that he had a view on this issue but wasn't there to share it. I found it interesting that he repeatedly said he wanted his electorate to "feel heard", never that he wanted them to actually "be heard". Am I just getting caught up in the grammar, or is his choice of wording perhaps indicative of something more? Secondly, I feel his view was made clear when he seated himself next to David, and the two shared small talk throughout the evening, joined later on by the moderator, while the professor was left to himself.

It was determined by a show of hands that about half of attendees were from the Northcote electorate, with some others having travelled significant distances to be there. A majority opposed the bill (roughly 60 to 30), and someone commented that it was the young ones who opposed.

David and Professor MacLeod were each given 10 minutes to explain their argument, and then 5 minutes to respond to the other's. David went first, calling the current situation in New Zealand around palliative care barbaric, and then essentially reading the headings off a slip of paper he'd handed to us beforehand. (Pictured below.) Professor MacLeod spoke about his experience during 30 years of work in palliative care, and said that New Zealand ranks 3rd in the world for that area. In their responses, David continued reading where he'd left off while the professor responded to his opponent's argument.

After the first half-hour, Q&A was opened up to attendees. The vast majority of questions were from opponents of the bill and many were directed at David. An air of shock fell over the room when he responded to one questioner that he absolutely could guarantee that not one person would be wrongly killed within the next hundred years as a result of this bill. It seems ironic that he responded to Professor MacLeod's statistics by saying certain countries were irrelevant, and then proceeding to reference them himself many times throughout the evening.

Professor MacLeod impressed me with his knowledgeable responses, presented clearly and calmly despite the hostility shown him. In contrast, David's apparently calm and easy-going demeanor fell apart as the evening progressed. It was clear that he ran out of any sort of material midway through, after which point he become more and more angry, and resorted to jumping around questions, accusing the professor of fear-mongering, and telling questioners that if they looked at the evidence they'd find there was nothing to worry about -- yet he couldn't seem to reference any such evidence. At one point a woman began "I'm not considering suicide, but--" and David interrupted, "well maybe you should!"

I'm glad I went along and I left with greater conviction to oppose this bill every way I can. It's sad that we've become a country that can even entertain the idea of assisted death being "compassionate". A doctor's duty is to preserve life -- euthanasia is the antithesis of this.